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

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

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

Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. For operational impacts, the proposed project changes the balance of land uses in the area, but not in a manner that would increase emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions, from both the construction and operational phases, will result in impacts consistent with those analyzed in the SVSP EIR. The project will comply with the required mitigation in the SVSP EIR. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to GHG emissions.

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

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

Page 23 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Page 24 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 25 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 26 of 45 ends

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

The project is in an area of flat topography and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project falls within the development footprint of the SVSP, and does not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts, and the prior conclusions remain appropriate. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to hydrology and water quality.

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

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

Page 27 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 28 of 45 ends

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

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

Page 29 of 45 ends

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

Page 30 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Overflight noise has already been addressed in the Land Use section of this Addendum. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an issue for all of the major roadways in the SVSP area. Mitigation was found to reduce noise volumes to levels within General Plan standards, and so impacts were found to be less than significant. Given the proposed project does not expand the limits of the development footprint or the project’s physical impact boundary, no additional noise analysis is required. The mitigation measures adopted with the SVSP EIR remain applicable and no additional impacts will occur.

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

Page 31 of 45 ends

The SVSP EIR also analyzed noise impacts related to placing residential uses within proximity to noise generating uses such as roadways.

Though the previous document analyzed the effects of transportation noise on the proposed residential uses, the CEQA checklist items related to noise impacts have been updated and that analysis in no longer required. No additional analyses of the impact from existing and future noise sources on residential properties is required.

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

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

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

Page 32 of 45 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.2 No No No None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR indicated the SVSP would increase the number of housing units above those which had been anticipated in the General Plan, and analysis the effect on supporting services, infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. It was concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed project involves the same number of housing units as analyzed in the SVSP EIR, therefore the project will not have a new or more severe impact on the population growth rate of the area. No existing buildings or residents are present on the project site; therefore, no residences or communities would be displaced.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

Page 33 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 34 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 35 of 45 ends

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

Page 36 of 45 ends

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

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

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Same No No No None Discussion: The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to adjacent agency roadways was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, and mitigation to lessen the impact was accepted. For the proposed project, the City’s Engineering Division reviewed the scope of changes and concluded that an updated traffic study was not required. The LDR and MDR land uses have the same trip generation rate of one trip per unit (based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates), and the unit transfers among the parcels maintain the same overall number of units allocated to the project area. Therefore, the project would not cause new or more severe impacts than already described in the SVSP EIR.

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

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

Page 37 of 45 ends

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

As stated in the GPU EIR and pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA, projects that are consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis. Quantitative analyses are not required if it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the GPU EIR. The GPU EIR assumed a rate of 2.7 persons per unit when calculating VMT per capita.

The proposed project involves the transferring of units among several large lot parcels within the SVSP that will result in land use changes for Parcels CO-22, FD-7 and FD-41 due to changes in density (CO-22 will change from MDR to LDR, FD-7 will change from LDR to MDR, and FD41 will remove a mixed use overlay and reallocate 40 units), but the project does not change the total number of units anticipated for buildout of the SVSP or analyzed in the GPU EIR; therefore, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with GPU EIR analysis as it relates to VMT, and the project does not require further VMT analysis.

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

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

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

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

Page 38 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Same No No No None

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

Page 39 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Page 40 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 41 of 45 ends

Discussion: The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the plan area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands from development of the plan area. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the proposed project and concluded there is sufficient water supply to meet the demands of the project. Therefore, the impact conclusions of the SVSP EIR with respect to water supply are still applicable to this project.

Development of the project area will require the construction of water lines and sewer lines and facilities, but these were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP. The project land use changes do not require any major changes or need for expanded facilities. Additionally, the project will have no effect on wastewater generation beyond that previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR.

Environmental Utilities determined that the proposed project changes fell within the scope of the prior assessment. The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the plan area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project.

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

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

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

Page 42 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Page 43 of 45 ends

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

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

Page 44 of 45 ends

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

1. SVSP Applicable Mitigation Measures
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, File #PL21-0223

TABLE OF APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Documents to be Submitted to City
Staff Use Only
MM 4.1-3b Condition of Approval for Deed Disclosure of Overflights McClellan Airport is located approximately four miles from the southern boundary of the project area. In order to notify residents or other sensitive uses, that aircraft on approach or departure under 3,000 feet could occur over the project area, a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of aircraft in the vicinity shall be provided.

The applicants shall be responsible
for ensuring that future residents or
other sensitive uses are given
notice regarding proximity to
McClellan. This disclosure shall be
applied at the tentative map stage.

Prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit of any
residence or sensitive use.

City Attorney;
The Public Works
Department and the
Building Official shall
ensure that
construction
measures meet City
noise standards.

Deed Disclosure or
similar notice
MM 4.4-1 Dust and Construction Control Measures
In accordance with the PCAPCD, the applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations as listed above (e.g., Rule 202, 218 and 228). In addition, at the time of tentative map the applicant(s) shall implement a minimum of five (5) of the following measures unless superseded by state or other more stringent standards:

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

The following measures are also included to reduce construction-related ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for verification. This measure will reduce combustion emissions of all criteria air pollutants. • Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction will be used, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Low emission equipment is defined as meeting the California Air Resources Board’s Tier III standards. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the PCAPCD as well as City Planning Staff. This measure will primarily reduce ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions.

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Dust Control Plan and
proof of submittal to
PCAPCD
• Paints and coating shall be applied either by hand or by high volume, low-pressure spray. This measure will reduce evaporative ROG emissions.
• All construction shall comply with the following measures to reduce fugitive dust related emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
o Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on soil haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
o Suspend grading operations during high winds (greater than 15 mph). o Sweep streets as necessary if silt is carried off-site to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
o Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
o Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
o Phase grading into smaller areas to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion over extended periods of time.
o Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
o Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and water. o Clean earth moving construction equipment with water or sweep clean, once per day, or as necessary (e.g., when moving onsite), consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices and the Roseville Grading Ordinance. Water shall be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite. Operational water truck(s), shall be on-site, as required, to control fugitive dust. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned, as needed, to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked offsite. o Spread soil binders on unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking areas. Soil binders shall be non-toxic in accordance with state and local regulations. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers, or vegetated mats, etc. according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all-inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). o Minimize diesel idling time to a maximum of five minutes. o Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators, if feasible.
o An applicant representative, ARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely (i.e., once per week) evaluate project related off-road and heavy-duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement for projects grading more than 20 acres in size, regardless of how many acres are to be disturbed daily. o Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed the PCAPCD Visible Emissions Rule 202. Fugitive dust is not to exceed 40% opacity and not go beyond property boundary at any time. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits are to be immediately notified and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours.

The following measures will be required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified by APCD and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194)
The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction.
• The contractor shall use CARB ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel–powered equipment. In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article 4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations). • Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)
• Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction. In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501) • All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452). • The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
• During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
MM 4.5-1 Air Quality Measures
Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Measures listed in Section 4.3 Air Quality would reduce operational and construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, and would also act to reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 found in the Air Quality section of this EIR, is relevant to impact 4.5-1 because both criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions are frequently associated with combustion byproducts. In addition, the City shall implement the following measures to reduce direct and indirect GHG The applicants shall submit
construction management plans as
part of the Grading Permit
application. The Public Works
Director shall review grading plans
for inclusion of these measures
prior to issuance of grading
permits. The City Code
Pre-Construction: Prior to
issuance of Grading Permits.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Director of Public
Works shall ensure
that dust and
construction-control
measures are
implemented.
emissions associated with the proposed project. Certain measures would already be components of the project (i.e., Specific Plan policies, design guidelines and standards), and/or would be applied consistent with the City’s General Plan Policies, addressing GHG emissions and climate change, but are provided here for purposes of completeness.

MM 4.5-2 Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions
For each new development within the project site requiring a discretionary approval (e.g., tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit), the City shall impose mitigation measures that reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible and to the extent appropriate with respect to the state’s progress at the time toward meeting GHG emissions reductions required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The City shall require feasible reduction measures that, in combination with existing and future regulatory measures developed under AB 32, will reduce GHG emissions associated with the operation of developments and supporting infrastructure that are part of the proposed project by 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2025, if feasible.

Enforcement Officer shall respond
to complaints. In addition, plans will
be reviewed by the Placer County
Air Pollution Control District for
compliance with their rules and
regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Construction: Prior to
issuance of Improvement
Plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

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

MM 4.14-3 Avoid Light Spill Over into Curry Creek and Open Space Areas Comply with the measure Pre-Construction: Ensure
fixtures shown on
Improvement Plans and
Building Plans comply with the
measure.

Engineering and
Building
None
Outdoor lighting shall be placed, designed and directed so as to avoid light spillover into the habitat of Curry Creek and the Open Space Preserve areas located immediately adjacent to the open space, as shown on the Land Use Map as parcels KT-1, KT-40, KT-30, KT-41, DF-1, DF-2, DF-40, CG-1, CG-82m JM-21, JM-3, and JM-4.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
MM 4.6-1 Construction Noise Reduction
MM 4.6-1(a): Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City of Roseville Noise Ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Utilities
to address well
drilling.

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

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

Black Rails and Tri-colored Blackbirds
Prior to earth moving that would disturb marsh habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence of the California black rail. If either of these species is found, all earth moving within 250 feet shall stop and measures, including establishing nest protection buffers along both sides of Curry Creek during the nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31st) shall Results of preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit or
Improvement Plans. Applicable
construction restrictions shall be
reflected within plans. The
applicants shall prepare annual
reports on the status and success
of mitigation and shall submit these
reports to USFWS and CDFG. The
applicants shall coordinate with
USFWS and CDFG to modify as
necessary any mitigation plans in
an effort to attain mitigation
success.

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Nesting bird surveys
be implemented.

Rookeries
No heron rookeries are present within the plan area. Prior to earthmoving that would disturb marsh habitat or tree removal of the eucalyptus grove, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to verify that no rookeries have been established. If rookeries are present all earth moving within 250-feet shall stop, during the breeding season.

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

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

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

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

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

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

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

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

Groundwater wells shall be properly closed.

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering and Fire Phase I environmental
assessment, if conditions
warrant
MM 4.12.4-2 Divert Construction Debris
The applicants shall ensure a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream generated from development within the SVSP. In Developer contracts with construction contractors and their subcontractors, the Developer shall require that construction waste be reduced by 50%. The Developer shall further require that contractors and sub-contractors submit records of diversion and disposal to Comply with the measure Construction: Contractor to
ensure diversion occurs during
construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Environmental Utilities Records of diversion
the City’s Environmental Utilities Department in order to verify compliance with this requirement.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 22-191

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map and tables of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) to reconfigure parcels within the SVSP, including relocating Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); changing Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; changing Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separating High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD-32B (4.23) and reducing the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increasing Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres; as shown in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan on April 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2022, the City Council considered the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville desires to approve said amendments to the Roseville General Plan as conducive to public interest, health, safety and welfare, and consistent with the land use practices of the City.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
2 �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

CC EXHIBIT B

RESOLUTION NO. 22-192

AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the land use designations of certain parcels of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) to reconfigure parcels within the SVSP, including relocating Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); changing Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; changing Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separating High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD32B (4.23) and reducing the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increasing Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres and changing the land use designation from Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC/MU) to Community Commercial (CC);as shown in Exhibit C, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a proposal for a Specific Plan Amendment has been submitted to modify the Sierra Vista Specific Plan figures and text based on the land use changes, and to update the text and figures regarding the transfer of affordable housing obligation from Parcels CO-20 and DF-20 to FD32B, removal of the mixed-use overlay from Parcel FD-41, gated subdivisions within the SVSP, as shown in Exhibits C and H, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan on April 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2022, the City Council considered an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan, as proposed and revised; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, and makes the following findings:

The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Roseville General Plan and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendments changing the specific plan land use designations and specific plan text within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (attached as Exhibits C and H) are hereby adopted.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
2 CC EXHIBIT C

ORDINANCE NO.

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

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

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

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

SECTION 2. Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), as shown and so designated in Exhibit “D”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to adjust the acreage and configuration of zoning boundaries for Small Lot Residential (RS) Parcels CO-1, CO-2, CO-3, CO20, CO-21, and CO-22; adjust the acreage and configuration of Multifamily Residential (R3) Parcels FD-32A and FD-32B; adjust the acreage and configuration of Parcel FD-41 and rezone from Commercial Mixed Use –Special Area Overlay (CMU/SA) to Community Commercial (CC); adjust the acreage and configuration for Parks and Recreation (PR) Parcel CO-50; and adjust the acreage on configuration of Open Space Parcel CO-70.

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

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
[C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\2B547BC5-9ED4-4A98- 9435-226DBB85ED3E\Roseville.30211.1.Ordinance_-_Rezone.docx: 5/13/22] 2 ___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

CC EXHIBIT D
FD-86
OS
FD-53
PR
FD-888
OS
FD-33
HDR-20
FO-32
R3

8.90 AC

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
FD-2Lt
J\;JDR-8.2
FD-41
CC-7
(CMU/SA)

5.71 AC
JM-20
I'

EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS
SCALE: 1 "= 200'
FD-86
OS
FD-53
PR
FD-888
OS
FO-32A
R3

3.81 AC
FD-33
HDR-20

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
FD-24
JvJDR-8.2
FO-328
R3

4.23 AC
FD-41
cc

6.24 AC
JM-20

PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS
SCALE: 1 "=200'
......
...... z
v 0::

I 0 0
LL
......
0 I- z 6
cc <( -NIM >< I wo
W LL
ZU')
UJ'
...J
0 ....J ...J
N LU
......
wU UJ a:: c:::: c.n
cf.

U') 0
G, ......
u
.-t
0 N N
N 0
0 N
N
I
UJ'
II 0
I z T"-1 0 ::::, N ...,
w
_J ::j:j: UJ
6 cc
0 �
(/) ..., 0
■■
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND SV 218, LLC RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA

VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Roseville, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City of Roseville enter into a Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and SV 218, LLC, a California limited liability company (“SV 218:”), pertaining to the property located within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area.

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

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

1. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations oftheCity ofRoseville General Plan andtheSierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

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

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

5. The provisions of the Second Amendment to Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment; SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and SV 218, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville. [C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\2E4730A9-6331-451D-B31C-BD99731DF6D7\Roseville.30164.1.Ordinance_- _Second_Amendment_to_DF_Properties_DA.doc: 5/11/22] 2
SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 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
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

1. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations oftheCity ofRoseville General Plan andtheSierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

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

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

5. The provisions of the Second Amendment to Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment; SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC, relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville. [C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\2C98F443-B3EA-4922-A317-A8CE162FC1FC\Roseville.30166.1.Ordinance_- _Second_Amendment_to_Mourier_Investments_LLC_DA.doc: 5/11/22] 2 SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ADOPTING A 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
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Roseville, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City of Roseville enter into a Sixth Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and SVC2, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

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

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

1. The Sixth Amendment to Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations oftheCity ofRoseville General Plan andthe Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

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

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

5. The provisions of the Sixth Amendment to Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment; SECTION 4. The Sixth Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and SVC2, LLC, relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville. [C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\3EB9C06A-4E45-4A76-8C28-07849146A082\Roseville.30169.1.Ordinance_- _Sixth_Amendment_to_Westpark_Federico_DA.doc: 5/11/22] 2 SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

PR
,_
WS-32 tllR-25.1
""'
KT-'32
WB-80
OS
�"'
Last Updated: MaFef:I 94, 2921
March 4, 2022

SIERRA VISTA LAND USE PLAN
Figure 4-1 Land Use Designation
Residential
LOR
Residential - Age Restricted
t.llR Residential
Residential
Acres
94_3
�
�
590.2
348.6

91.3 Business Professional and Commercial 25.4
PLEASANT GRO�E BL
ICl'-411
a:
4-3
WB-51
PR
....
cc Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
OS
Open Space
Open Space/Paseo
PR Park
Elementary School
Fire Station
Lift Station
Jviddle Schoo!
Recycle Center
Substation
Water Treatment/Well
Well
UR Urban Reserve
ROW Right of Way
•see Land Use Sy Parcel table tor Unit touls
FD-738
o.5c.

OS
FD-87A
OS
"'"'
+R-,5-
"'%9:-i302.0

13.4 '104.6

33.9 3.2

1.0 21.6

0.5 1.0
28 0.7

38.7 191.7
Totals: 2,072.2
l.DR..t.3

18.Sac-
--
183.3

23.4 JM-83
63'o.

0.25 0.5Mies

CC EXHIBIT H
0 .z
!2,
::ti'
0 cS
�
co
Ell----- 71-!'.•�,'.��-1:'::!! .. :

UR-92
UR
,/, --t
�,-- / ,,-
-
-- _____ ,,
,-6--..._.--.! 'rt�
WB-80
OS
!
Solalte Dtill�
. l -- ••.••. (/j
WS-60 �I POP(ES)�!
(JJ
" ,-------=-==-irr. , .. �
c
----.......---'j'j
, --��5e '"!'ffi.'i�rr.-.--··c.� § PIJ!
l
'i1V}
d�� LEGEND r · ·� I 1 0 NORTH
114 MILE
WB-SA \f\lB-60
LOR Ll>R
r-" ,1--�� we-24 we.s1 ,.,o�s.e,, PR
PQP
KT4'.LDR
KT-38
LIOR
KT,$
LOR
Kl•.11
LOR
CG,3(1
HDR
CG.{,()
""
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES
- MAJOR ROADWAYS
Baseline Rd. �

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
()
.z
g,
;;u
0 �
a,
Roseville City Limits
··-··-··-··7
WB-l!O
OS
KT-21B
MOR KT-5
PR
...--"-,
Sierra Vill:lage Dr
KT-41A KT-41B
cc CC
_:1 ., .=.:--....:.:.=.;.;;,
0 NORTH
1/4 MILE
* CITY GATEWAY
--· PROJECT ENTRY
NOTES: 1.

2. 3.

Neighborhood entries have not yet been determined and will be established with Small Lot Tentative Maps.

Cit y gateways and project entries occur within the confines of landscape corridors.

Commercial entries and signage will be determined at the time ofM.P.P.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
()
.z
g,
;;u
0 �
a,
u,
Roseville City Limits
-----------7
UR-92
UR
WB-80
OS
rl _/,
,,,/'/,i//
- /_// I
;
--�
KT-50
PR
KT-40A
cc
(CMU)
KT-1A
LOR
--- �
0 NORTH
1/4 MILE
KT-38
LOR
KT-5
LOR
F0-65
POP
(MS)
ICn LEGEND
MASONRY WALLS:

ARTERIAL STREET ADJACENT TO LOR AND MOR:
(Located at back of the Landscape Corridor and includes the , 00' corner clips). • • • • • • COLLECTOR STREET OR PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STREET ADJACENT TO LOR AND MOR*
(Located at back of the Landscape Corridor. Walls are optional at LOR and MOR in places where future development plans provide for homes with front doors facing the street).

OTHER LOCATIONS
FENCES*:
1111111111 STANDARD WOOD FENCE:
(Fencing is not required where street lies adjacent to adjoining Open Space, School, and Park).

OPEN WROUGHT IRON STYLE FENCE:
(Fencing is not required where street lies adjacent to adjoining Open Space, School, and Park).
*NOTES: 1. See Figures B-7 through B-10 for pedestrian connection details.

2. Where residential and non-residential land uses are adjacent, opportunities are to be explored for pedestrian connections.

KT_.

LOR l CG
HOR .JO
• ... ·••�CL
CG-5-0 •
PR •
� =: . ... _,, .. :ttt-_.T= -• 11 ,_:-� .. :---: .. -·t':-: -.. -:--:: - - J l '- t: __ ::;j;t:_ � , --��,C:I ______ �-n-- _ -.-.--J'. .. _ .... _ .. .!.

Baseline Rd.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
()
.z
g,
;;u
0 �
a,
l'v (.,.)
··-··-··1
WB-8O
OS
KT-10
LOR
�
NORTH
K1oi0
'-1�•
KT�IB
1(1-(2
cc
?£ii5
�l:7� "
'-,f
t@j &[email protected] 111111111(
DF 20
MOR
JMwJiOB
'1 i'�
·!�,

BASELINE ROAD

DESIGN GUIDELINES
()
.z
g,
;;u
0 �
a,
Roseville City Limits -.--,-·--·--·----,
,jll :
'i. I
\'
\�'
\,11
w�
OS
---�
�I
' �I
Ml Qj
ClJ
<
?-I
KT-21A
MOR
KT-218
MOR
� �
K' -
LOR
0 NORTH
1/4 MILE
KT-38
LOR
LEGEND F-- \'\• · "·"" -��,r::-W:::U 9
1/2 MILE
C--
- J VILLAGE NODE DISTRICT
-i
KT� I
K111A KTc
b1s I ___ - :>s os cc
DF◄2
cc
Sierra Vi
l
llage Dr. l /' KT-s
I \----7 LOR
.

I LOR �
.
'
.
-/.I ,0,.72 DF-60 � I
DF◄1
IH' -- 1 .. .. ', _•,_ .. .. .d .. �- = .. K•,�'.. � �-- c�7!�t: .. c�- �l- .. .o=.:-"�:--::-.. .. -:: J J V Baseline Rd. J

DESIGN GUIDELINES
9 9.
�
if
�
...

H
@
LEGEND
=�n.:::::r�=�,c's°QA'llON
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE CONNl!iC'hON 8¥ OTHER&
CAN ee GATE
:0 COMMIJNllY
NOTES: 1, �nnellll!if1a1hc!Pm l1eAloh ..-e not req.._ if line or llolh llll!l<livWOPt•�°'ated. . 2, Q!her i116dMs!oM � tie ll!led. lf�ed.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
4-2 City of Roseville
Table 4-1: Plan Area Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation
Applied
Zoning
Districts
Acres % of Total
Acres Units % of Total Units
Residential Neighborhoods
LDR Low Density Residential RS/DS 635.2 30.7% 3,169 36.5% LDR LDR – Age Restricted RS/DS 94.3 4.6% 493 5.7%
MDR Medium Density Residential RS/DS 303.6 14.7% 2,431 28.0% HDR High Density Residential R3 92.0 4.4% 2,337 26.9%
Sub-totals 1,125.1 54.3% 8,430 97.1%
Commercial and Employment
CC Community Commercial
(Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 29.1 1.4% 249 2.9%
CC/BP Community Commercial/
Business Professional (Mixed
Use)
CC/SA 25.4 1.2% -- --
CC Community Commercial CC & GC 177.5 8.6% -- --
Sub-totals 232.0 11.2% 249 2.9%
Open Space/Public
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public P/QP 64.7 3.1% -- --
PR Parks & Recreation PR 104.6 5.0% -- --
OS Open Space OS 302.0 14.6% -- --
OS Paseo (60’-wide) OS 13.4 0.6% -- --
UR Urban Reserve UR 38.7 1.9% -- --
Sub-totals 523.4 25.3% -- --
Right of Way/ Landscape Corridor 191.6 9.2% -- --
TOTAL 2072.2 ac 100% 8,679 du 100%
Note: See Table 7-4 for net Paseo total
acres Last Updated April 2021
4-4 City of Roseville
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATED UNITS DENSITY CG-1 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 23.86 115 4.9
CG-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 5.34 44 8.3
CG-30 HDR (Residential) R3 13.99 420 30.0
CG-31 HDR (Residential) R3 14.54 420 29.0
CG-50 PR (Park) PR 7.60
CG-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.67
CG-80 OS (Open Space) OS 1.86
CG-81 OS (Open Space) OS 6.70
CG-82 OS (Open Space) OS 0.78
Sub-totals (CGB) 75.34 999
CO-1 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.25 86 5.0
CO-2A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.25 71 5.0
CO-2B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.58 73 5.0
CO-3 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 15.70 78 5.0
CO-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 9.40 84 8.9
CO-21 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 7.80 62 7.9
CO-22 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.8 38 7.9
CO-40 CC (Commercial) CC 0.16
CO-50 PR (Park) PR 1.00
CO-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.26
CO-71 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.52
CO-80 OS (Open Space) OS 14.22
CO-81 OS (Open Space) OS 22.94
Sub-totals (Conley) 122.88 492
DF-1 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 19.90 100 5.0
DF-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 3.16 15 4.7
DF-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.50 115 7.9
DF-40 CC (Commercial) GC 12.64
DF-41 CC (Commercial) GC 29.14
DF-42 CC (Commercial) GC 39.90
DF-50 PR (Park) PR 2.08
DF-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.52
DF-71 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.00
DF-72 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.38
DF-80 OS (Open Space) OS 21.31
DF-81 OS (Open Space) OS 4.62
Sub-totals (DF Properties) 149.15 230
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATEDUNITS DENSITY FD-1 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.60 74 4.0
FD-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.12 120 7.0
FD-3 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 9.14 46 5.0
FD-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 6.56 33 5.0
FD-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.36 67 3.9
FD-6 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.53 95 6.5
FD-7 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.97 57 6.4
FD-8A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 16.51 75 4,5
City of Roseville 4-5LAND USE PLAN
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATEDUNITS DENSITY FD-8B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.96 81 4,3
FD-9 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 19.24 107 5.6
FD-10 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 20.46 143 7.0
FD-20A MDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.21 110 7.6
FD-20B MDR (Residential) RS/DS 11.56 88 7.6
FD-21 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 24.44 187 7.7
FD-22A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 11.97 76 6.3
FD-22B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 10.76 60 5.6
FD-23 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.66 127 7.2
FD-24 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 10.71 84 7.8
FD-32 HDR (Residential) R3 8.90 178 20.4
FD-33 HDR (Residential) R3 8.59 172 20.0
FD-34 HDR (Residential) R3 7.04 172 24.4
FD-40 CC (Commercial) CC 7.55
FD-41 CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 5.71 40 20.0
FD-50 PR (Park) PR 1.71
FD-51 PR (Park) PR 1.12
FD-52 PR (Park) PR 5.51
FD-53 PR (Park) PR 8.07
FD-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Electrical Substation) P/QP 0.99 FD-62 Public/Quasi-Public (Recycle Center) P/QP 0.50
FD-63 Public/Quasi-Public (Water Treatment/Well) P/QP 2.83 FD-64 Public/Quasi-Public (Fire Station) P/QP 3.19
FD-65 Public/Quasi-Public (Middle School) P/QP 21.59
FD-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.13
FD-71A OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.70
FD-71B OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.82
FD-72A OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.25
FD-72B OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.27
FD-73A OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.51
FD-73B OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.49
FD-74 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.65
FD-75 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.14
FD-76 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.15
FD-77 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.35
FD-80 OS (Open Space) OS 5.71
FD-81 OS (Open Space) OS 5.57
FD-82A OS (Open Space) OS 11.33
FD-82B OS (Open Space) OS 0.14
FD-83 OS (Open Space) OS 3.39
FD-84 OS (Open Space) OS 25.24
FD-85 OS (Open Space) OS 20.80
FD-86 OS (Open Space) OS 1.68
FD-87A OS (Open Space) OS 4.15
FD-87B OS (Open Space) OS 0.20
FD-88A OS (Open Space) OS 13.17
FD-88B OS (Open Space) OS 20.89
Sub-totals (Federico) 472.63 2,192
4-6 City of Roseville
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATED UNITS DENSITY JM-1 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.16 135 7.9
JM-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 29.70 187 6.3
JM-3 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 30.20 127 4.2
JM-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 26.40 132 5.0
JM-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 39.70 322 8.1
JM-21 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.80 80 4.3
JM-30 HDR (Residential) R3 7.51 176 23.5
JM-40 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.57 35 7.6
JM-41 CC (Commercial/Business Professional) CC/SA 13.50 JM-50 PR (Park) PR 7.94
JM-51 PR (Park) PR 2.59
JM-52 PR (Park) PR 1.50
JM-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Well) P/QP 0.36
JM-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 12.00 JM-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.26
JM-71 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.7
JM-72 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.25
JM-73 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.27
JM-80 OS (Open Space) OS 0.63
JM-81 OS (Open Space) OS 6.44
JM-82 OS (Open Space) OS 2.80
JM-83 OS (Open Space) OS 6.27
JM-84 OS (Open Space) OS 10.40
JM-85 OS (Open Space) OS 14.80
Sub-totals (Mourier Investments LLC) 255.75 1,194
KT-1A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.35 60 4.2
KT-1B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 19.60 95 4.8
KT-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 25.37 125 4.9
KT-3A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 20.60 110 5.3
KT-3B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.40 97 5.6
KT-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 15.89 82 5.2
KT-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 23.93 140 5.8
KT-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 24.62 167 6.8
KT-21A MDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.68 135 7.2
KT-21B MDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.66 152 7.0
KT-30 HDR (Residential) R3 7.40 171 23.1
KT-40A CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 16.04 209 13.0
KT-40B CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 3.44
KT-40C CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 3.94
KT-41A CC (Commercial) GC 25.52
KT-41B CC (Commercial) GC 29.52
KT-42 CC (Commercial) GC 8.45
KT-43 Commercial/Business Professional CC/SA 11.91
KT-50 PR (Park) PR 38.80
KT-51 PR (Park) PR 4.36
KT-52 PR (Park) PR 7.61
KT-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Sewer Lift Station) P/QP 0.22 KT-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 11.94 KT-80A OS (Open Space) OS 17.68
KT-80B OS (Open Space) OS 17.47
KT-81 OS (Open Space) OS 4.54
KT-82 OS (Open Space) OS 0.61
Sub-totals (KT Development) 411.55 1,543
City of Roseville 4-7LAND USE PLAN
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATEDUNITS DENSITY UR-92 Urban Reserve UR 38.72
Sub-totals (Urban Reserve) 38.72 0
WB-1A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 30.30 126 4.2 WB-1B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 22.20 133 6.0 WB-2A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.81 58 4.9 WB-2B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 7.67 39 5.1 WB-3A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.10 66 5.9 WB-3B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.23 71 6.3 WB-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 16.50 100 6.1
WB-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 30.50 157 5.1
WB-6 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.70 103 4.7
WB-7 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 25.14 145 5.8
WB-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.88 66 7.9
WB-21 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 11.80 81 6.9
WB-22 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.80 32 6.7
WB-23 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 9.88 71 7.3
WB-24 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 7.50 53 7.1
WB-25 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.30 100 7.0
WB-30 HDR (Residential) R3 8.06 237 29.4
WB-31 HDR (Residential) R3 11.10 263 23.7
WB-32 HDR (Residential) R3 5.11 128 25.0
WB-41 CC (Commercial) CC 10.11
WB-42 CC (Commercial) CC 14.55
WB-50 PR (Park) PR 8.74
WB-51 PR (Park) PR 4.47
WB-52 PR (Park) PR 1.50
WB-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 10.00 WB-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Well) P/QP 0.31
WB-62 Public/Quasi-Public (Lift Station) P/QP 0.80
WB-80 OS (Open Space) OS 36.58
Sub-totals (Westbrook) 365.64 2,029
ROW Right of Way/Landscape Corridors 191.60
Sub-totals (ROW) 191.60 0
Total 2,072.16 8,679
Table Updated October 2021
(GIS acreages revised January 2021)
5-4 City of Roseville
Allocation of Affordable Housing Goal
The affordable housing units within the SVSP have been allocated to specific MDR and HDR parcels as identified in Table 5-3, with designated parcels reflected on Figure 5-1. The intent is to distribute affordable units throughout the Plan Area. In addition, through implementation of the Affordable Housing Plan, the City should work with property owners to define alternative solutions, such as carriage units or granny flats in LDR and MDR areas, which also meet the intent of the Program.

Table 5-3: Affordable Housing Allocation
Parcel Land
Use
Total
Units in
Parcel
Total
Affordable
Allocation
Very Low
Income
Rental
Low
Income
Rental
Middle2
Income
Purchase
CG-20 MDR 44 20 20
CO-20 MDR 84 34 34
DF-204 MDR 113 23 9 9 4
KT-20 MDR 202 31 31
CG-31 HDR 420 80 40 40
FD-32 HDR 178 43 43
FD-34 HDR 172 172 86 86
FD-32B HDR 178 43 43
KT-30 HDR 171 155 77 78
JM-303 HDR 176 176 88 88
WB-30 HDR 237 237468 1692
WB-32 HDR 128 128492 362
Total 1,0492 451 497
2 101

1. Middle-income purchase unit obligations may also be fulfilled via additional ow-income rental units. 41 middle-income units were converted to low-income units via the Westbrook SPA approved in 2016.

2. Includes 162 units transferred to Westbrook from WRSP Parcel W-16.

3. Parcel JM-30 includes 8 units (4 very-low and 4 low) transferred from NRSP Parcel M-31 (File#PL17-0204), 5 units transferred from SVSP Parcel JM-40 (File#PL20-0103), and 12 units transferred from SVSP Parcel JM-21 (File#PL20-0191)

4. File#PL20-00098 for Parcel DF-20 eliminated the carriage unit language in the Development Agreement and transferred 9 low and 9 very low income units to the Infill area of the City.

Middle income purchase units were reduced from 5 to 4 units.

5. Parcel KT-30 includes 31 units transferred from SVSP Parcel KT-20 (File#PL21-0289)

6. Parcel FD-32B was created by JMC TM4 (File#PL21-0223). Includes transfer of 34 middleincome purchase units from CO-20 and 4 units from DF-20. Units converted to 19 low and 19 very low income units.

NOTE: SVSP Section 5.4 allows for the transfer of affordable units. Check with the Housing Division to confirm current affordable housing obligations.

Table 5-2: Affordable Housing Goal
Income Category Units Required to Meet Goal
40% Very-Low-Income 347 du
40% Low-Income 347 du
20% Middle-Income 174 du
Total Affordable Housing Need 868 du (10% of 8,679 du)
5

Roseville City CouncilJune 1, 2022

Roseville City Council
June 1, 2022