Roseville City Council
June 15, 2022

Identify agriculture land parcels designated as “prime/unique agriculture lands” by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Federal Farmlands Protection Act or a local equivalent. Additional information may be found at the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service website.

The Proposed Project is zoned as Public/Quasi-Public land. As the Proposed Project would include the addition of PV solar modules to the existing Barton Road WTP, the Proposed Project would not include any land use changes. The Proposed Project would have no impact as it relates to land use and zoning.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
13 8. Solid Waste Management
Indicate the types and quantities of solid wastes to be produced by the project facilities and primary beneficiary. Describe local solid waste collection and disposal methods and the expected useful life of the disposal facility. Indicate if recycling or resource recovery programs are currently being used or will be used in the future.

The Proposed Project may generate solid waste during construction. However, the solid waste generated would be nominal and disposed of in compliance with the Roseville’s Construction and Improvement Standards. Therefore, Proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste management.

The Proposed Project would not generate solid waste during operation, as the facility would be maintained and operated remotely and would be unstaffed.

9. Hazardous or Toxic Substances
Describe any toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances that will be utilized or produced by the proposed project facilities and primary beneficiaries. Describe the manner in which these substances would be stored, used, or disposed. Complete and sign one “Applicant Certification Clause” for each co-applicant (see Appendix A). Indicate if hazardous or toxic substances have been or must be remediated prior to construction, demolition, or renovation. If a recent Phase I or Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has been performed, please provide a copy of the executive summary (a full copy may be requested at a later date).

According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker online database, there are no listed hazardous materials sites at or near the Proposed Project site. Construction of the Proposed Project would require the routine use of small quantities of hazardous materials commonly used during construction activities, such as fuels, lubricants, and oil for construction equipment.

However, the use, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials is regulated at the federal, state, and local levels; compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that any use, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials would not result in a significant impact to human health or the environment. The operation of the Proposed Project would be automated and unstaffed and would not result in a significant impact as it relates to hazards and hazardous materials.

10. Water Resources
Describe surface and underground water resources at or near the proposed project site(s) and any impacts of the project to these. If groundwater will be used, is the aquifer in overdraft and /or adjudicated? If there will be discharges to surface water, is the receiving surface water body listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 303(d) list of impaired waters? Is a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit required for any discharges to surface waters? Indicate if the proposed project is located within an area mapped by the EPA as sole source aquifer recharge area (maps and further information are available on EPA’s website). Describe any induced changes in local surface water runoff patterns, and the status of storm water discharge permit processes (if applicable).

There are no surface or groundwater resources at or near the Proposed Project site that would be impacted by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would include the addition of solar PV modules at the existing Barton Road WTP, as well as a BESS. Additionally, construction activities EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
14 would include excavation of a trench for the underground electrical conduits. The total land disturbance would be approximately 5,440-square feet. As the total land disturbance would be less than one acre, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit is not required.

The Proposed Project would not require the use of groundwater resources as the water required to wash and maintain the solar array would be provided by rain events throughout the year. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in changes to local surface water runoff patterns. The Proposed Project would have no impact on water resources.

11. Water Supply and Distribution System
Indicate the source, quality, and supply capacity of local domestic and industrial/commercial water resources, and the amount of water that project facilities and primary beneficiaries are expected to utilize. Note whether the water that is being supplied is in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if not, what steps are being taken to ensure compliance.

The Proposed Project would not require the use of any local domestic or industrial/commercial water sources. Due to annual rain events at the Barton Road WTP site, washing of the solar PV panels to remove debris and improve energy production is assumed to not be required. As such, the Proposed Project would not require water resources from an outside source. Furthermore, operation of the Proposed Project would be automated and would be unstaffed and would not require water to be supplied. The Proposed Project would have no impact on the water supply or distribution system.

12. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
Describe the wastewater treatment facilities available for processing the additional effluent including usage by the beneficiary(s). Indicate design capacities and current loading (both daily average and peak), and adequacy in terms of degree and type of treatment required. Describe all domestic class or process wastewater or other discharges associated with the proposed project facilities and its primary beneficiaries, and the expected composition and quantities to be discharged either to a municipal system or to the local environment. Indicate all discharges that will require on-site pre-treatment. Note whether the wastewater treatment plant is in violation of the Clean Water Act, and if so, what steps are being taken to ensure compliance. If local treatment and sewer systems are or will be inadequate or overloaded, describe the steps being taken for necessary improvements and their completion dates.

Construction activities generally do not generate wastewater and, therefore, would have no impact on wastewater collection or treatment. Additionally, operation of the facility would be automated and unstaffed and would not generate wastewater. The Proposed Project would not generate wastewater during construction or operation phases, and there would be no impact.

13. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)
Describe whether the proposed project will result in disproportionate adverse human health or environmental impacts relative to minority and low income populations. Sufficient detail should be provided to enable EDA to determine whether the project will comply with Executive Order 12898.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
15 The purpose of the Proposed Project is to ensure continued operation of the Barton Road WTP to supply clean water to the community. The Proposed Project would not result in an impact to human health relative to minority or low-income populations.

14. Transportation (Streets, Traffic and Parking)
Briefly describe the local street/road system serving the project site(s) and describe any new traffic patterns that may arise because of the proposed project. Indicate if land use in the vicinity, such as residential, hospital, school, or recreational, would be affected by these new traffic patterns. Indicate if any existing capacities of these transportation facilities would be exceeded as a direct or indirect result of this project implementation, particularly in terms of car and truck traffic, and what the new Level of Service designation would be.

The Proposed Project would not include any components that would create new traffic patterns and would have no impact on the surrounding land uses related to traffic patterns. The Proposed Project would require the pre-constructed solar PV modules be trucked into the Proposed Project site, and other trips to the project site during the 9- to 12-month construction period would be temporary and would not result in a significant impact to traffic. Furthermore, the facility would be unstaffed and would not require excessive trips to the Proposed Project site.

The capacity of transportation facilities would not be impacted in any way as a result of the Proposed Project; therefore, there would no impact to streets, traffic, or parking.

15. Air Quality
Indicate types and quantities of air emissions (including odors) to be produced by the proposed project facilities and its primary beneficiaries, and any measures proposed to mitigate adverse impacts. Indicate the impact that the project would have on greenhouse gas emissions. Is the proposed project site within an area classified as a “non-attainment” for any criteria pollutants? If so, what are those pollutants? Indicate any local topographical or meteorological conditions that hinder the dispersal of air emissions.

The Proposed Project would result in limited vehicle trips to and from the project site during construction. Because the Proposed Project temporary, no significant vehicle emissions would occur, nor would long-term emissions or project-related stationary source emissions from energy consumption occur.

The Proposed Project may result in temporary Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions during construction. However, due to the short duration of the project construction and relatively minimal equipment being used, Proposed Project construction and operation would not exceed adopted significance thresholds by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District for regulated pollutant or GHG emissions (Placer County 2016).

The air quality and GHG impacts would be less than significant.

References:

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2016. California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance Justification Report. October, 2016.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
16 16. Noise
Would operation of project facilities or primary beneficiaries’ facilities increase local ambient noise levels? If yes, indicate the estimated levels of increase, and the areas and sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, wildlife) to be affected.

The Proposed Project would be constructed over a period of 9-12 months and would require the installation of solar PV panels and other equipment. Additionally, the Proposed Project would require excavating a trench for the underground electrical conduits. These construction activities would increase local ambient noise levels; however, the nearest sensitive receptor is over 300 feet from the Proposed Project site. Any increase in the local ambient noise would be temporary and would not result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the project would be constructed during daytime business hours, and in compliance with the City of Roseville Noise Regulations (Roseville Municipal Code 9.24) The noise impacts would be less than significant.

17. Permits
Identify any Federal, State, or local permits of an environmental nature needed for the project (e.g., USACE, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Coastal Zone Management/Shoreline Management, Air Quality, State Environmental Policy Act, NPDES) and the status of any such permits. Attach copies of any such permits and all associated correspondence, including the permit applications.
• City of Roseville building permit. Building Division review will be required for the new electrical hookups to ensure code compliance. An application will be filed when the EPC contractor advances the Proposed Project to final design. • PG&E interconnection agreement. PG&E will require an interconnection agreement for the new system. The process will be initiated when the EPC contractor advances the Proposed Project to final design.

No permits would be required for endangered species, Clean Water Act, or Lakebed and Stream Alteration Agreements (LSAA).

18. Public Notification/Controversy
Provide evidence of the community’s awareness of the project, such as newspaper articles or public notification and/or public meetings, as applicable. If a formal public hearing has been held, attach a copy of the minutes. Fully describe any public controversy or objections which have been made concerning this proposed project and discuss steps taken to resolve such objections.

There is no known controversy regarding the Proposed Project. The project will be subject to approval by the City Council and will be agendized accordingly. Public meeting agendas are noticed online, and at the office of the City Clerk.

19. Cumulative Effects
Please list projects (public and private, whether or not directly related to the proposed project described above) that have occurred or will occur in the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future in and around the project area that could result in significant cumulative impacts when considered in aggregate with the proposed EDA project. Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of a proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions (40 C.F.R. Section 1508.7). In other words, cumulative impacts can EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
17 result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts. Based on the direct and indirect impacts identified in Sections C1-18, identify which resources, ecosystems, and human communities are affected; and which effects on these resources are important from a cumulative effects perspective.

There are no known reasonably foreseeable future projects in or around the project area. The Proposed Project would be limited and very localized and, based on the resource area impacts discussed above, the Proposed Project would not cause or contribute to cumulative impacts in the project area.

D. MITIGATION
Describe methods to be employed to reduce impacts to any and all adverse impacts identified in Section C. List all mitigation measures that would be implemented to minimize impacts to environmental resources from project implementation.

No mitigation is needed for the Proposed Project.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
18 E. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
The following checklist is a list of required and optional attachments to the Environmental Narrative as described in the sections above. The items listed in the optional section may be required by EDA at a later date to complete the project review and selection process, so it is recommended that you provide them now if they are currently available. While the documents listed below are the most frequently required for scoping determinations, EDA reserves the right to request additional items that are not listed below when necessary.

Applicants are not required to contact other governmental agencies for environmental or historical resources consultation until directed by EDA, though any interagency coordination letters that may be currently available should be provided. EDA expects that all Applicants whose projects are selected for further evaluation will proceed with consultations in an expeditious manner. As such, Applicants should have the required information prepared for submission immediately upon notification of selection by EDA. If you determine prior to application that your project may affect environmental or historical resources, you may contact the appropriate Regional Environmental Officer to determine if early interagency consultation is appropriate.

Please refer to the applicable Federal Funding Opportunity for unique requirements for each individual grant competition and a list of documents required for submittal with the application.

Checklist of Optional Environmental Documents that should be submitted with Application if available (will expedite review and selection process):
oSHPO/THPO and Tribal leader comments and copy of submittals (see Section B) oSite photographs (see Section C1) See Attachment A
oCoastal Zone consistency determination (see C2) Not applicable o Wetland delineation and/or Jurisdictional Determination (see C3) oPreliminary wetland info (see C3) Not applicable
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments, Section 404 Permit, Section 10 Permit, and/or Water Quality Certification (401 approval) (see C3) Not applicable oBiological Assessment and/or survey for federally protected species (see C5) Not applicable
oCorrespondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (see C5) Not applicable
oNatural Resources Conservation Service determination of Prime Farmland, Form AD-1006, if applicable (see C6) Not applicable
oPhase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (seeC8) Not applicable oSole Source Aquifer review by US Environmental Protection Agency, if applicable (see C9) Not applicable
oOther federal, state and local environmental permits (see C16) See list above oCopies of public notices, public hearing minutes, etc. (see C17) (After City Council consideration of the project): City Council Agenda, staff report and CEQA Notice of Exemption. City Council meeting minutes.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
Appendix A: Applicant Certification Clause
19 The applicant represents and certifies that it has used due diligence to determine that the description of the project site described herein is accurate with respect to the presence or absence of contamination from toxic and hazardous substances. The term “site” includes the entire scope of the project, including future phases of the project and all areas where construction will occur.

1. Is the site currently, or has it in the past 50 years, been used for any of the following operations or activities:
a. Generation of hazardous substances or waste?
______ Yes ____x__ No
b. Treatment, storage (temporary or permanent), or disposal of solid or hazardous substances or waste?
______ Yes __X____ No
c. Storage of petroleum products?
______ Yes ___X___ No
d. Used/waste oil storage or reclamation units?
______ Yes ___x___ No
e. Research or testing laboratory?
______ Yes ___x___ No
f. Ordinance research, testing, production, use, or storage? ______ Yes ___x___ No
g. Chemical manufacturing or storage?
______ Yes __x____ No
h. Weapons or ammunition training, use, or testing?
______ Yes __x____ No
i. Iron works/foundry?
______ Yes ___x___ No
j. Railroad yard?
______ Yes ___x___ No
k. Industrial or manufacturing operation?
______ Yes ___x___ No
If any of the above operations ever occurred at the site, and if appropriate cleanup or other mitigation actions were performed in accordance with the local, State, and federal laws, please attach documentation of these actions.

EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
Appendix A: Applicant Certification Clause
20 2. Do wells draw from an underlying aquifer to provide the local domestic water supply? ______ Yes ___x___ No

3. Has a federal, State, or local regulatory authority ever conducted an environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, or a preliminary assessment/site inspection, or similar environmental surveyor inspection report at the site? If yes, please list here and attach copies of these reports or results.
____X__ Yes ______ No
- Roseville Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project and 60-Inch Raw Water Pipeline Project EIR (Water Treatment Plant Expansion EIR) (SCH#98012011)
- Supplement to the Roseville Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project and 60-Inch Raw Water Pipeline Project EIR (Water Treatment Plant Expansion EIR Environmental Impact Report (July 2005)
___________________________________________________________________________

4. Have any environmental or OSHA citations or notices of violation been issued to a facility at the site? If yes, please attach copies.
______ Yes __X____ No

5. Have any unauthorized releases of hazardous substances occurred at any facility at the site which resulted in notification of the EPA’s National Response Center? ______ Yes ____X__ No

6. Is any material containing asbestos or lead paint located at the site? If yes, please attach information concerning State and federal regulatory compliance. ______ Yes ___X___ No

7. Is there any equipment (electrical transformers, etc.) containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) on the site? If yes, please attach a description of the equipment. ______ Yes ___X___ No

8. Are there underground or above ground storage tanks on the site? If yes, please attach a detailed description, including the number of underground storage tanks on the site, whether the tanks have been inspected (or removed) and the results of such inspections. ____X__ Yes ______ No

9. Has the site been tested for radon? If yes, please attach results. ______ Yes ____X__ No

10. Have there been, or are there now any environmental investigations by federal, State or local government agencies that could affect the site in question? If yes, please attach available information.
______ Yes ___X___ No
The applicant acknowledges that this certification regarding hazardous substances and/or waste is a material representation of fact upon which EDA relies when making and executing an award. EDA EDA Environmental Narrative Requirements
Appendix A: Applicant Certification Clause
21 reserves the right to terminate any award made in conjunction with the representations contained herein if, at any time during the useful life of the project, EDA becomes aware of the presence of hazardous materials or waste at the site, or that hazardous materials or waste have been inappropriately handled thereon.

Further, if it is determined at any time that the presence of hazardous materials or waste, or handling thereof, has been misrepresented, EDA may pursue other available legal remedies against the applicant.

City of Roseville
_____________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Name
__________________________________________________________________________________ Name and Title of Applicant’s Authorized Representative __________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant’s Authorized Representative Date

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2151
File #: 0800-02
Title:

United States Bureau of Reclamation - Letter of Agreement to Expand the City’s Service Area to include Amoruso Ranch
Contact: George Hanson 916-746-1764 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.31.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Letter of Agreement ("LOA") between the City of Roseville and the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation ("Reclamation") and authorize the City Manager to execute it.

BACKGROUND
The City maintains a diversified water supply portfolio to ensure reliability for the community. The foundation of the portfolio is a contract with Reclamation for the Central Valley Project ("CVP") water supply from Folsom Lake. One of the contract provisions requires that amendments to the City's service area due to growth, in this case annexation of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, be processed through and approved by Reclamation. Upon notification of such a change by the City, Reclamation produces a LOA for the City to authorize, thus allowing the federal processing costs of the service area expansion request to be paid for by the City. This LOA will allow the transfer of an initial advance deposit of $5,000 between the City and Reclamation to enable their development and review of technical data, water and financial accounting, development and review of all environmental documentation, and meetings and consultations. Reclamation agrees the total costs to complete this process shall not exceed $5,000 absent further written approval by the City of Roseville.

This LOA will become effective on the date signed by the parties and shall remain in effect until terminated upon the earlier of the following circumstances:

1. Reclamation approval of the proposed amendment to the contract service area.

2. Notification by either party to the other in writing that further work pursuant to the LOA is not in the best interest of the notifying party.

3. The City declines to assume full responsibility for payment of the federal costs to complete the amendment action.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the $5,000 is from the Water Operations Fund, and shall be reimbursed to the City by the Land Owner per Section 3.8.8 of the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Brookfield Sunset, LLC and Jennifer M. Amoruso dated August 24, 2016. This action has no impact on the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
George Hanson, Principal Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-232
Letter ofAgreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-232

APPROVING A LETTER OF AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF

OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville maintains a diversified water supply portfolio to ensure reliability for the community; and
WHEREAS, the foundation of the portfolio is a contract with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) for the Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply from Folsom Lake; and
WHEREAS, one of the contract provisions requires that amendments to the City's service area due to growth, in this case annexation of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, be processed through and approved by Reclamation; and
WHEREAS, a Letter of Agreement Number 22-WC-20-5955 to expand the CVP Service Area to include the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, has been reviewed by the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Letter of Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2145
File #: 0900-02-02-2
Title:

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Ultraviolet Disinfection System Addition Project - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment Contact: Bryan Buchanan 916-746-1812 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.32.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the First Amendment to the Professional Design Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Ultraviolet Disinfection System Addition Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville owns and operates the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP) on behalf of the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) partner agencies. The PGWWTP Ultraviolet Disinfection System Project was approved by the SPWA to add ultraviolet disinfecting equipment to the existing disinfection system. This addition will provide necessary treatment capacity lost due to changing wastewater characteristics. The Environmental Utilities Department, Wastewater Division released Request for Proposals (RFP) 08-071 for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Ultraviolet Disinfection System Addition Project to solicit proposals to provide comprehensive design, engineering support during construction, and regulatory validation of an addition to the PGWWTP’s UV disinfection system. One company, Carollo Engineers, submitted a proposal. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the RFP including cost, qualifications, and experience. Staff determined the proposal submitted was acceptable and recommends awarding a profession design services agreement to Carollo Engineers.

During the initial phase of design, based on current effluent water quality and regulatory changes, four additional UV system banks were required to be added to the system beyond what was originally envisioned. This addition requires more design effort necessitating an amendment to the current Carollo contract.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Amendment increases the previous contract amount of $460,552 by $364,661 for a revised total contract cost of $825,213. Funding for this work will be covered under the capital improvement projects for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and will be jointly funded between Roseville and the other SPWA Regional Partners (Placer County and the South Placer Municipal Utility District).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project involves minor alteration to an existing facility. This activity is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301). The Exemption was prepared for the original Agreement and no further CEQA action is required.

The Exemption was filed with the original agreement.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan Buchanan, Principal Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-227
PGWWTP Ultraviolet Disinfection System Addition PDSA
RESOLUTION NO. 22-227

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES

AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Ultraviolet Disinfection System Addition Project, by and between the City of Roseville and Carollo Engineers, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said first amendment is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2136
File #: 0321
Title: Digital Billboard Project - Sublease Agreement Amendment Contact: Robert Cline 916-746-1172 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.33.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Sublease Agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor at 290 Conference Center Drive.

BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2022, City Council approved a Sublease Agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor to construct and operate a two sided digital billboard at 290 Conference Center Drive, APN #363- 011-086-000. The agreement outlines terms that include financial consideration, operating parameters, marketing content, etc. The executed lease, under Section 4, Consideration, includes a discrepancy between the dollar amounts in the agreement and what was agreed upon in negotiations and presented to City Council for approval. This first amendment to the sublease will correct the "Additional Signing Bonus" and "Annual Rent", under Section 4, to reflect the negotiated financial consideration as noted below:

Current dollar amounts:

Additional Signing Bonus: $225,000
Annual Rent: $380,000 in year 1 with 2% annual escalations thereafter Correct dollars amounts:

Additional Signing Bonus: $175,000
Annual Rent: $300,000 in year 1 with 2% annual escalations thereafter The Additional Signing Bonus and Annual Rent listed above represent the financial consideration agreed to by the City and presented in Clear Channel Outdoors’ proposal. All other terms and conditions of the Sublease are accurate and remain in effect.

FISCAL IMPACT
Executing this First Amendment will have no fiscal impact as the correct numbers were originally presented to the City Council and this amendment merely corrects an error. Based on the minimum annual guarantee, conditional signing bonus and additional signing bonus, the Sublease at 290 Conference Center Drive will result in approximately $7.5 million in revenue to the General Fund over the twenty year term.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of an Amendment to a Sublease Agreement meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A, Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal C, Support economic vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Cline, Economic Development Project Manager
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-214
First Amendment to SubleaseAgreement between the City of Roseville and Clear Channel Outdoor at 290 Conference Center Drive RESOLUTION NO. 22-214

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, LLC, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Sublease Agreement for the sublease of the digital billboard site located on a portion of the property located at 290 Conference Center Drive, by and between the City of Roseville and Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC, has been reviewed by the Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said First Amendment to Sublease Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2123
File #: 0600
Title: Classification and Compensation Studies - Professional Services Agreement Contact: Linda Hampton 916-774-5215 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.34.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Bryce HR Consulting, Inc. for citywide employee classification and compensation analysis.

BACKGROUND
Bryce Consulting, Inc. has provided professional consultation services in the area of employee classification and compensation for the City in the past, and staff recommends the City continue with their services. Bryce HR Consulting, Inc. has prepared detailed and complex data-driven spreadsheets and has historical data and knowledge of our unique classifications and complex compensation plan benchmarks and internal relationships. Additionally, they have broad knowledge of public sector classification and compensation to efficiently and effectively consult on City issues. Staff recommends the City utilize the attached scope of work, which includes performing ongoing classification and compensation analysis upon request.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total compensation for the professional services agreement shall not exceed $75,000. The cost is budgeted in the proposed Human Resources Department FY2022-23 budget in the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Hampton, Human Resources Manager
Stacey Peterson, Human Resources Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-205
Professional Services Agreement - Bryce Consulting
RESOLUTION NO. 22-205

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BRYCE HR CONSULTING, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for classification and compensation studies, by and between the City of Roseville and Bryce HR Consulting, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Project: Classification and Compensation Studies
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of ________________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Bryce HR Consulting, Inc., a California corporation (“CONSULTANT”); and W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, CITY desires professional services consisting of providing position review, classification and compensation study, and data collection to facilitate these services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has prepared a proposal dated May 5, 2022, which describes the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT and the budget for the work; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified and experienced to provide such professional services.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Services. CONSULTANT shall perform, at the direction of CITY, the scope of services as described in EXHIBIT “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 2 2. Compensation. For its services provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time and expense basis in accordance with the budget estimate as described in EXHIBIT “A”. Total compensation shall not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).

CONSULTANT shall submit one monthly invoice for its services. Such invoices shall be delineated by task, the person performing the services, and the hourly rate, which shall be stated in time increments of not greater than one tenth (1/10) hours. CITY shall pay invoices within thirty (30) days after receipt, if the services specified in the invoice have been satisfactorily completed.

3. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of CONSULTANT's willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Agreement, except those matters arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed.

CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that CONSULTANT and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY.

CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 3 law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

4. Insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to continuously maintain, in full force and effect, the following minimum policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement.

COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Professional Liability (errors and $1,000,000 per claim omissions) $2,000,000 aggregate
a. Form. CONSULTANT shall submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney. b. Additional Insureds. CONSULTANT shall also provide a separate endorsement form or section of the policy showing CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage, except for Workers’ Compensation and Professional Liability. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of CONSULTANT. The additional insured coverage under the CONSULTANT’s policy shall be primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from CITY’s insurance or self-insurance. In addition, the [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 4 additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) CG 20 01 Endorsement. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater. c. Cancellation/Modification. CONSULTANT shall provide ten (10) days written notice to CITY prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement.
d. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract) before CITY’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. e. Subcontractors. CONSULTANT agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work.

Furthermore, CONSULTANT shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under this Agreement. Additionally, CONSULTANT shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of CITY’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 5 f. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability.

Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
g. Waiver of Subrogation. CONSULTANT hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of CONSULTANT may acquire from CONSULTANT by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all worked performed by CONSULTANT, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
h. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve CONSULTANT of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law.

5. Records. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records relating to the services performed hereunder during the term of this Agreement and for a period of not less than one (1) year after the date of termination or expiration. Provided, however, that in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising from the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records until such litigation, appeals or claims are resolved. Duly authorized representatives of CITY shall [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 6 have right of access during normal business hours and after reasonable notice to CONSULTANT’s and subcontractors’ files and records relating to the services performed hereunder, and may review and copy the files and records at appropriate stages during performance of the services and during the one (1) year period following termination or expiration of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall include this provisions in its contracts with all subcontractors.

6. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

7. Prevailing Wages. When applicable, for purposes of this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall comply with all applicable prevailing wage laws, e.g., but not limited to, California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. In accordance with said Section 1775, CONSULTANT shall forfeit as a penalty to the City two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates for such work or craft in which such worker is employed for any work done on-site under the Agreement by CONSULTANT or by any subcontractor in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive. In addition to said penalty and pursuant to said Section 1775, the difference between such stipulated prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the stipulated prevailing wage shall be paid to each worker by CONSULTANT or the applicable subcontractor.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773, the contracting department has identified the source, stated below, of the general prevailing rate of wages applicable to the site to be done, for straight time, overtime, and holiday work. The holiday wage rate listed shall be applicable to all holidays recognized in the collective bargaining [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 7 agreement of the particular craft, classification or type of worker concerned. These wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, general prevailing wage rates set forth above, which forms a part of this Agreement, shall be posted by CONSULTANT at a prominent place at the work site. Prevailing wage rates to be posted at the work site will be furnished by the contracting department. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by CONSULTANT in determining its proposal, and will not under any circumstances be considered as the basis of a claim against CITY or the Agreement.

8. Compliance with Laws. CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and policies as may be applicable to the performance of services under this Agreement.

9. Ability to Perform. CONSULTANT agrees and represents that it has the time, ability and professional expertise to perform the services required under this Agreement.

10. Governing Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and its EXHIBITS, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. In the event of any conflict between any of the EXHIBITS, the provisions of the first in order of attachment shall govern.

11. Assignment. CONSULTANT is employed to perform unique personal services.

CONSULTANT shall not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall not employ or otherwise incur any obligation to pay other specialists or experts for services in connection with this Agreement, without prior written consent of CITY.

12. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT, inclusive of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, and subcontractors, shall act as an independent [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 8 contractor, and covenants and agrees that it will conduct itself consistent with such status, that it will neither hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of CITY by reason of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT and CITY agree that: (a) CONSULTANT is free from the control and direction of CITY in connection with the performance of the work; (b) CONSULTANT is providing services directly to CITY; (c) CONSULTANT has and will maintain at all relevant times a business license; (d) CONSULTANT maintains a business location that is separate from CITY; (e) CONSULTANT is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed hereunder; (f) CONSULTANT actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from CITY; (g) CONSULTANT advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services; (h) CONSULTANT provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services; (i) CONSULTANT has negotiated its own rates; (j) CONSULTANT set its own hours and location of work in accomplishing CITY’s oncall needs; and (k) CONSULTANT has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired and exercises its own expert independent judgement.

13. Representations and Warranties. CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY shall have the right to terminate as void this Agreement, without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 9 Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.

14. Successors in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.

15. Copyright, Ownership and Use of Materials. All tangible material (“Material”) created or delivered pursuant to this Agreement is considered a work made for hire under the Copyright Act. To the extent such Material does not qualify as a work made for hire, CONSULTANT hereby assigns to CITY all right, title, and interest, including but not limited to all copyrights, in all Material created by CONSULTANT in its performance under this Agreement. Material constitutes the scope of work outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto, and all written and other tangible expressions, including but not limited to, drawings (including computer aided drawings), papers, documents, reports, surveys, renderings, exhibits, sketches, maps, models, prints, paintings or photographs, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. All Material furnished by CONSULTANT is, and shall remain, the property of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment.

In the event that CONSULTANT uses, employs, designates, or retains any person or entity who is not an employee of CONSULTANT, to perform any work required of it pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall require said person or entity to execute an agreement containing the preceding paragraph.

16. Termination of Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CONSULTANT ten (10) days advance written notice from the City Manager.

CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CITY thirty (30) days [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 10 advance written notice. In the event of termination through no fault of CONSULTANT, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services performed as of the date of termination, upon the release to CITY of all Material hereunder, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. CITY retains the right to receive and use any Material, notwithstanding any termination or any dispute regarding the amount to be paid.

17. Attorney’s Fees; Venue; Governing Law. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance hereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorney’s fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

18. Modification. This Agreement and each provision contained herein may be waived, amended, supplemented or eliminated only by mutual written agreement of the parties.

19. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.

20. Notices. Any notices to parties required by this Agreement shall be delivered personally or mailed, U.S. first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE CONSULTANT
Stacey Peterson Shellie Anderson, Principal
Human Resources Director Bryce HR Consulting, Inc.
311 Vernon Street 3436 American River Drive, Ste. 7A
Roseville, CA 95678 Sacramento, CA 95864

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] 12 APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: _______________________________

STACEY PETERSON
Human Resources Director
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D009\P004\00066962.DOCX;05/09/2022] EXHIBIT “A”
Date: May 5, 2022
To: Stacey Peterson, Director of Human Resources
From: Shellie Anderson, Principal
Subject: Scope of Work
Bryce Consulting is pleased to submit a scope of work to the City of Roseville. Bryce will be available on an as needed basis to review positions identified by the City to ensure the classification is appropriate for the duties being performed as well as to ensure the job description is accurate and current. Additionally, the consultant will assist the City as requested with the development of new job descriptions. Bryce will also assist the City with any compensation data collection or updates to the compensation study.

It is estimated that the above tasks will result in a total of 415 hours of professional services at a rate of $180 per hour, for a not to exceed amount of $75,000.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2114
File #: 0704-01 & 0201-01
Title: Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62) Reimbursement – Budget Adjustment Contact: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.35.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff requests that the Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment of $248,803 to reimburse Lennar Homes consistent with the approved Park Development Agreement related to the turn-key construction of Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62).

BACKGROUND
Through a Park Development Agreement between the City and Lennar Homes and as approved by Council on August 4, 2021, the City agreed to reimburse Lennar Homes $248,803 for paid neighborhood park fees collected prior to the approval of the Park Development Agreement.

Typically, park fee credits are given to offset the up-front costs for the developer to construct a park early. Since Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62) was originally to be constructed by the City, neighborhood park fees were collected. Lennar Homes subsequently sought to build the park “turn-key”. This prompted the need for a Park Development Agreement.

In the Park Development Agreement, the reimbursement amount of $248,803 is triggered when a payment bond has been secured. On May 17, 2022, a letter was received which confirmed that a payment bond has been posted. The letter also formally requested reimbursement.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, funding is provided through the Campus Oaks Neighborhood Park Fund (Fund 3321). There will be no General Fund impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a budget adjustment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Vicinity Map for Crimson Ridge Park
Ordinance 6503
Budget Adjustment
Vicinity Map for Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62)
Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62)
ORDINANCE NO. 6503

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended by transferring appropriations for reimbursement of Campus Oaks Neighborhood Park Fees related to Crimson Ridge Park.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5/24/20229:10 AM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Tara Gee, Parks Planning & Development Superintendent FISCAL YEAR: FY2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Kathy Cullen, Management Analyst II COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/22 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Parks, Recreation & Libraries/Park Development ORDINANCE:

Expenditures/Expenses/Transfers Out
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3321 5582 58130 248,803
248,803
Revenues/Transfers In
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
248,803
Available Resources
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3321 (248,803)
(248,803)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is requesting a budget adjustment of $248,803 from the Campus Oaks nieghborhood park fund as the result of a Park Development Agreement between the City and Lennar Homes that was approved by Council on August 4, 2021. In the agreement, the City agreed to reimburse Lennar Homes $248,803 for paid neighborhood park fees collected prior to the approval of the Park Development Agreement.

Typically, park fee credits are given to offset the up-front costs for the developer to construct a park early. Since Crimson Ridge Park (CO-62) was originally to be constructed by the City, neighborhood park fees were collected. Lennar Homes subsequently sought to build the park “turn-key", which requires that the City reimburse the fees collected.

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Campus Oaks neighborhood park fund
Campus Oaks neighborhood park fund
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
05/24/2022

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2155
File #: 0201 & 0201-01
Title: Fiscal Year 2021-22 - Year-End Budget Adjustments Contact: Scott Pettingell 916-774-1306 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.36.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt ordinances to approve adjustments to the FY2021- 22 budget.

BACKGROUND
Staff actively review and monitor the budget throughout the year to ensure compliance with the annual budget ordinance (6375). Staff has identified the following recommended adjustments to the FY2021-22 budget.

Project Completion - Passport Center
The passport center project is complete. The cost of the project exceeded the budget estimate by $1,740. To reconcile and close the project, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the expenditure budget for the Passport Center project by $1,740 in the Strategic Improvement Fund (SIF).

Traffic Mitigation Fund
This budget adjustment is recommended to increase the revenue and expenditure budgets by $928,000 to match estimated year-end actuals for FY2021-22 in the Traffic Mitigation Fund - 3151 (Set-aside Creekview Fund). This fund is used to reimburse Anthem United for Creekview Specific Plan Backbone Improvements. The City of Roseville and Anthem United agreement specifies that the City will reimburse Anthem an agreed-upon amount, and payments shall be issued as monies are collected through permit revenues. Development in FY2001-22 has been more rapid than initially anticipated, and as a result, revenue and proportionate reimbursements (expenditures) have also increased.

Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program - Improvements
This budget adjustment is recommended to increase the revenue budget by $2,780,775 to match estimated year-end actuals for FY2021-22 in the SVSP Fee Program - Improvements Fund. This fund is used to reimburse developers for infrastructure improvements in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. Funds are collected into the fund through permit fees and dispersed back to the developers as improvements are completed. An accounting methodology change mid-fiscal year required a chart of accounts change for revenue and expenses. Previously revenue and expenses for this fund were managed through a balance sheet account, and therefore a budget was not developed for this fund before this change. Expenditures in this fund are not expected until FY2022-23.

Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program – Park Land Improvements This budget adjustment is recommended to increase revenue and expenditure budgets by $1,970,000 to match estimated year-end actuals for FY2021-22 in the SVSP Fee Program - Park Land Fund. This fund is used to reimburse Baseline 80 Investors, LLC for parkland in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. Funds are collected into the fund through permit fees and dispersed back to the Baseline 80 Investors, LLC quarterly. An accounting methodology change mid-fiscal year required a chart of accounts change for revenue and expenses. Previously revenue and expenses for this fund were managed through a balance sheet account, and therefore a budget was not developed for this fund before this change.

Community Development Block Grant
This budget adjustment is recommended to increase the revenue budget in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund by $231,995 to fund encumbrances carried over from FY2020-21 to FY2021-22. Five purchase orders for ongoing consulting services of Fair Housing and CARES Act funding totaling $231,995 were budgeted and encumbered in FY2020-21 and remained unspent at the end of FY2020-21. The expenditure budget was carried forward, but the revenue portion was not; therefore, a budget adjustment is necessary to establish the revenue budget associated with the $231,995 in planned expenditures.

Electric Fund
This budget adjustment requests an additional $846,647 in fuel and purchased power budget primarily due to higher purchased power costs. This budget adjustment also defunds seven capital improvement projects (CIP) totaling $2,078,206. These CIPs are complete or are being reassessed; remaining funds will be released and the projects will be closed. Approval of this budget adjustment will increase the Electric fund balance by $1,231,559.

Community Clean-Up Events
Staff recommends transferring $50,000 from the General Fund contingency to the Waste Services Fund for neighborhood clean-up events. The ongoing cost of this event is incorporated into the FY2022-23 budget and will be funded directly by the Waste Services Fund beginning in FY2023-24.

Community Facility Districts
Staff recommends budget adjustments to the following funds related to bond proceeds, interest, and bond issuance costs for Community Facility District activities.

Sierra Vista Westpark Federico CFD 1
(Revenue and Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $8,595,801) Westpark Federico CFD 1
(Revenue and Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $9,072,747) Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD
(Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $3,988,008)
Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Public Facilities
(Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $540,785)
Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 Overlay
(Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $4,764,331)
The Ranch at Sierra Vista CFD 1 Capital
(Expenditure Budget Adjustment of $9,347,761)
General Liability
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the General Liability Fund budget by $600,000 due to escalating insurance premiums. There are adequate resources available in the fund balance for this recommended adjustment.

Westbrook Neighborhood Park Fund
Staff recommends a budget adjustment of $84,000 to increase revenue in the Neighborhood Park Fund - Westbrook. The permit fees in the Westbrook Fund exceed the original budget.

Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion and Shade Structure and Mahany All-Weather Field
Staff recommends a budget adjustment to transfer $20,000 of the remaining budget for the Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion project (500087) to the Shade Structure at Mahany All-Weather Field project (500106). The Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion project is complete and came in $70,071 less than budget. However, $20,000 in extra funding is needed for the shade structure replacement at the Mahany all-weather field due to increased costs for manufacturing and materials
Traffic Safety Fund
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the Traffic Safety Fund budget by $27,813 to repay Placer County for overpayments the City received in this fund from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2021.

Landscape and Lighting Districts/Community Facilities Districts The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department requests $46,181 for landscape and park repair and maintenance and landscape renovation in three LLD and CFDs. The Transfer Out from Westbrook (2119) to Stormwater was inadvertently left out of the approved budget and was included in the approved levy budget for FY2021-22. Northwest LLD Zone A (2008) had work completed in FY2021-22 originally planned for FY2020-21 and postponed due to contractor availability. Sierra Vista CFD No. 2 (Public Services) (2122) had accident damage and received a subrogation payment to offset the $17,662 repair costs. This work will be funded with available fund balances in funds 2119 and 2008 and a subrogation payment for damages in fund 2122.

There is no impact on the General Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are adequate resources available in each fund for the recommended budget adjustments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Budget adjustments meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6509
Passport Center - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6510
Traffic Mitigation Fund - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6511
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program - Improvements - Budget Adjustment Ordinance 6512
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program – Park Land Improvements - Budget Adjustment Ordinance 6513
Community Development Block Grant - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6514
Electric Fund - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6515
Community Facility Districts - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6516
Community Clean-Up - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6517
General Liability - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6518
Westbrook Neighborhood Park Fund - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6519
Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion and Shade Structure and Mahany All-Weather Field - Budget Adjustment Ordinance 6520
Traffic Safety Fund - Budget Adjustment
Ordinance 6521
LLD/CFD PRL - Budget Adjustment
ORDINANCE NO. 6509

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Passport Center project.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: City Clerk ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1130 6587 84001 500031 1,740
1,740

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
1,740

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1130 (1,740)
(1,740)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the expenditure budget in the Passport Center project by $1,740 in the Strategic Improvement Fund (SIF). The passport center project is complete and this recommended budget is required to intiate closure.

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Decrease fund balance

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Increase project budget for passport center.

TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
5/30/202210:55 AM
1 ORDINANCE NO. 6510

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Traffic Mitigation Fund.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Development Services ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3151 6545 66062 928,000
928,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3151 4602 66062 928,000
928,000
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This Budget Adjustment is recommended to increase the revenue and expenditure budgets to match estimated year-end actuals for FY2021-22 in the Traffic Mitigation Fund - 3151 Setaside Creekview Fund. Fund 3151 is a reimbursement fund to Anthem United for Creekview Specific Plan Backbone Improvements. The agreement between the City of Roseville and Anthem United specifies that the City will reimburse Anthem an agreed-upon amount, and payments shall be issued as monies are collected through permit revenues. Development in FY2001-22 has been more rapid than initially anticipated, and as a result, revenue and proportionate reimbursements (expenditures) have also increased.

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Increase expense budget for Creekview Traffic Mitigation setaside fund.

Increase revenue budget for Creekview Traffic Mitigation Setaside fund.

TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
5/26/20223:52 PM
1 Mike Isom Digitally signed by Mike Isom
Date: 2022.05.27 07:14:11 -07'00'
ORDINANCE NO. 6511

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program Improvements.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Development Services ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3346 4602 10001 2,780,775
2,780,775
(2,780,775)

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3346 3601 0 2,780,775
2,780,775
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Increase revenue budget for SVSP Fee Program -
Improvements

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This Budget Adjustment is recommended to increase revenue budget to match estimated year end actuals for FY2021-22 in the SVSP Fee Program - Improvements Fund - 3346. Fund 3346 was created as a pass through account for reimbursements to developers for infrastructure improvemets in Sierra Vista Specific Plan. Monies are collected into the fund through permit fees and dispursed back to the developers as improvements are completed. An accounting methodology change mid fiscal year required a chart of accounts change for revenue and expenses. Previously revenue and expenses for this fund were managed through a balance sheet (1001-2301-00000) and therefore a budget was not developed for fund 3346 prior to this change. The increase requested in revenue is an estimated amount for FY2021-22 year end balances. Any reimbursements (expenditures) in Fund 3346 are not expected until FY2022-23.

TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
Increase SVSP Fee Prom - Improvements Fund Balance

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
5/26/20228:00 PM
1 Mike Isom Digitally signed by Mike Isom
Date: 2022.05.27 07:14:47 -07'00'
ORDINANCE NO. 6512

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program - Park Land Improvements.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Development Services ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3347 5569 10001 1,970,000
1,970,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3347 4602 10001 1,970,000
1,970,000
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Increase revenue budget for SVSP Fee Program - Park
Land Fund

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This Budget Adjustment is recommended to increase revenue and expenditure budgets to match estimated year end actuals for FY2021-22 in the SVSP Fee Program - Park Land Fund - 3347. Fund 3347 was created as a pass through account for reimbursements to Baseline 80 Investors, LLC for park land in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. Monies are collected into the fund through permit fees and dispursed back to the Baseline 80 Investors, LLC quarterly. An accounting methodology change mid fiscal year required a chart of accounts change for revenue and expenses. Previously revenue and expenses for this fund were managed through a balance sheet (1001-2301-00000) and therefore a budget was not developed for fund 3347 prior to this change. The increase requested in revenue and reimbursements (expenditures) is an estimated amount for FY2021-22 year end balances.

TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
Increase expense budget for SVSP Fee Program - Park
Land Fund

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
5/26/20228:01 PM
1 Mike Isom Digitally signed by Mike Isom
Date: 2022.05.27 07:15:31 -07'00'
ORDINANCE NO. 6513

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Community Development Block Grant program.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Claudia Carreno Management Analyst FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Claudia Carreno Management Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/22 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Economic Development - Housing ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2201 4401 54011 231,995
231,995
(231,995)

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2201 231,995
231,995
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
TOTAL
Increase Revenue - FY21 to FY22 Carryover
Encumbrances
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This budget adjustment is recommended to increase the revenue budget in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund by $231,995 to fund encumbrances carried over from FY2020-21 to FY2021-22. Five purchase orders for ongoing consulting services of Fair Housing and CARES Act funding totaling $231,995 were budgeted and encumbered in FY2020-21 and remained unspent at the end of FY2020-21. The expenditure budget was carried forward, but the revenue portion was not; therefore, a budget adjustment is necessary to establish the revenue budget associated with the $231,995 in planned expenditures.

TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase in available resources in CDBG fund

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
5/16/202211:44 AM
1 5/16/22
ORDINANCE NO. 6514

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Electric Fund.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Eric Campbell, Electric Finance Administrator FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Matt Nelson, Sr Electric Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Electric Department ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6001 5251 70030 846,647
6001 6587 84701 500098 (1,230,000)
6001 6587 84701 500049 (514,409)
6001 6587 84701 400111 (183,436)
6001 6587 84701 500050 (72,933)
6001 6587 84701 500099 (46,806)
6001 6587 84701 500002 (21,862)
6001 6587 84701 500043 (8,759)
(1,231,559)

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
(1,231,559)

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6001 (1,231,559)
(1,231,559)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This budget adjustment requests an additional $846,647 in fuel & purchased power budget primarily due to higher purchase power costs. This budget adjustment also defunds the CIP's listed above by a total of $2,078,206. These CIP's are complete or are being reassessed, remaining funds will be released and the projects will be closed. Approval of this budget adjustment will increase the Electric fund balance by $1,231,559.

Decrease the Industrial Switchgear No 2 Project
Decrease the Roseville Energy Park Air Compressor
Upgrade Project
TOTAL
TOTAL

DESCRIPTION
Increase Fuel & Purchased Power Budget
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

Decrease the Substation Walls Project

ACCOUNT STRING

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase the Electric Fund Balance
Decrease the Berry Street Disconnect Switch Project
Decrease the Berry Street DC System Redundancy Project
Decrease the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Project

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Decrease the Fiber Storage Loop Rebuild Project
TOTAL
5/17/202211:49 AM
1 6/15/2022
ORDINANCE NO. 6515

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Community Facilities Districts.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Finance Administration ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
see attached - 4 pages
-

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

The City's budget is developed and proposed for approval before the final budgets are determined. This budget adjustment is needed align the budgets in Oracle with the bond transactions that have taken place during the second half of Fiscal Year 2021-22.

TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Scott Pettingell Digitally signed by Scott
Pettingell
Date: 2022.05.28 14:21:24 -07'00'
Finance Administration Page 1 of 4
Request for Budget Adjustment
COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3017 6505 80301 8,219,419.00
Bond proceeds draw #1 and 2 -SVSP Westpark-Federico CFD 1,Series 2022 bonds-Used to pay off Req. 4 of Series 2019 and Req. 5-8 and portion of Req. 9 from Series 2021
3017 5595 80301 376,382.00 Interest portion of pay as you go accrued 7435 5569 80701 8,595,801.00 Increase-Add budget for bond proceeds pass through to fund 3017 (SVSP Westpark-Federico CFD 1 improvement Fund).
7435 6630 80701 476,946.00 Increase-SVSP Westpark-Federico CFD 1 cost of issuance fees 17,668,548

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3017 4780 80301 8,595,801 Increase-Add budget for bond proceeds pass through from Fund 7435 (SVSP Westpark-Federico CFD 1 Special Tax Fund)
7435 4710 80701 9,072,747 Increase-Add budget for bond proceeds that came in (SVSP WestparkFederico CFD 1 Special Tax Fund) 17,668,548
-

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Finance Administration Page 2 of 4
Request for Budget Adjustment
COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3020 6505 80301 3,988,008 Bond Sroceeds draw #1 -Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD 1,Series 2021 bonds
3,988,008

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
3,988,008

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3020 3601 (3,988,008) Decrease in available resources from Fund 3020-Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD 1 improvement funds
3601 -
(3,988,008)

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Finance Administration Page 3 of 4
Request for Budget Adjustment
COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3006 5582 80301 540,785 Bond draw for remaining improvement fund money 3014 6505 80301 4,764,331 Bond proceeds draws 7-10 -Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5, Series 2021 bonds
5,305,116

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
5,305,116

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3006 3601 (540,785) Decrease in available resources from Fund 3006-Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 improvement funds
3014 3601 (4,764,331) Decrease in available resources from Fund 3014-Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 improvement funds
3601 -
(5,305,116)

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Finance Administration Page 4 of 4
Request for Budget Adjustment
COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3018 6505 80301 9,347,013 Bond broceeds draw #2 through 4-The Ranch at Sierra Vista CFD 1, Series 2021 bonds
3018 5595 80301 748 Intrerest from BNY
9,347,761

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
9,347,761

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3018 3601 (9,347,761) Decrease in available resources from Fund 3018-The Ranch at Sierra Vista CFD 1 -Draw 2 through 4 from series 2021 bond proceeds 3601 -
(9,347,761)

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ORDINANCE NO. 6516

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Community Clean-up Events.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Environmental Utilities ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 5670 10001 (50,000)
1001 6801 10001 50,000
6301 5369 74205 50,000
50,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6301 4801 100001 50,000
50,000
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Transfer from General Fund (1001) to Waste Services
Operations Fund (6301)
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
Reduce the General Fund Contingency
Establish budget for neighborhood cleanup event

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

Staff recommends transferring $50,000 from the General Fund contingency to the Waste Services Operations Fund for neighborhood clean-up events.

This event will be funded by the General Fund again in FY2022-23. In FY2023-24 and FY2024-25, this service will be incorporated into Waste Services rates and directly funded by the Waste Services Operations Fund.

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Transfer from General Fund (1001) to Waste Services
Operations Fund (6301)

ACCOUNT STRING
5/31/202210:53 AM
1 ORDINANCE NO. 6517

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for General Liability premiums.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: HR/Risk ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
4231 5501 28010 600,000
600,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
600,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
4231 (600,000)
(600,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Increase General Liability budget for insurance premiums TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Decrease fund balance

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the General Liability budget by $600,000 due to escalating insurance premiums. There are adequate resources available in the fund balance for this recommended adjustment. 5/28/202212:25 PM
1 ORDINANCE NO. 6518

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Westbrook Neighborhood Park Fund.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5/17/20223:10 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Kathy Cullen, Management Analyst II FISCAL YEAR: FY2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Kathy Cullen, Management Analyst II COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/22 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Parks, Recreation & Libraries ORDINANCE:

Expenditures/Expenses/Transfers Out
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Revenues/Transfers In
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3318 4607 58130 84,000
84,000
(84,000)
Available Resources
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3318 84,000
84,000
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Increase fund balance in Neighborhood Park fund -
Westbrook

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

The Parks, Recreation & Libraries department is requesting a budget adjustment to increase revenue in fund 3318 (Neighborhood Park fund - Westbrook). The permit fees in Westbrook are exceeding the original budget.

TOTAL
TOTAL
Permit fees in Neighborhood Park fund - Westbrook

ACCOUNT STRING
05/17/2022
ORDINANCE NO. 6519

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion and Shade Structure and Mahany All-Weather Field.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5/12/20224:35 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Kathy Cullen, Management Analyst II FISCAL YEAR: FY2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Kathy Cullen, Management Analyst II COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/22 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Parks, Recreation & Libraries ORDINANCE:

Expenditures/Expenses/Transfers Out
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3130 6587 84001 500087 (20,000)
3130 6587 84001 500106 20,000
-
Revenues/Transfers In
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
-
Available Resources
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
Shade Structure at Mahany All Weather Field project

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Maidu Soccer Complex Turf conversion project
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

The Parks, Recreation & Libraries department is requesting a budget adjustment to transfer $20,000 of the remaining budget for the Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion project (500087) to the Shade Structure at Mahany All Weather Field project (500106). The Maidu Soccer Complex Turf Conversion project is complete and came in $70,071 less than budget. However, $20,000 in extra funding is needed for the shade structure replacement at the Mahany all weather field due to increased cost for manufacturing and materials.

TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
05/12/2022
ORDINANCE NO. 6520

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Traffic Safety Fund.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5/27/20224:34 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/15/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Public Works ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2321 5585 62320 27,813
27,813

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
27,813

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2321 3601 00000 (27,813)
(27,813)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase budget in Traffic Safety Fund (2321)/Paving
Reduce fund balance in Traffic Safety Fund (2321)

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the Traffic Safety Fund (2321) budget by $27,813 to repay Placer County for overpayments the City received in this fund from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2021.

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
ORDINANCE NO. 6521

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Landscape and Lighting Districts/Community Facilities Districts.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2112
File #: 0800-02
Title:

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Production Wells and Monitoring Well Sites - Property Transfer and Budget Adjustment
Contact: Trevor Joseph 916-517-2578 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/15/2022
Item #: 7.37.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council:

Approve the transfer of responsibility for portions of property contained in eight City-owned parcels from Parks, Recreation and Libraries (PRL) to Environmental Utilities (EU) for development of five of the City’s planned aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) production well and pump station facilities and for land adjacent to a monitoring well.

Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment to transfer $491,054 (the value of the parcels of land) from the Water Construction Fund via the Groundwater Well Property project to the assigned park development projects to offset capital costs.

BACKGROUND
To improve future water supply reliability and reduce risk associated with reliance upon Folsom Reservoir, the Environmental Utilities Department (EU) has been deploying a number of strategies to diversify the City of Roseville’s water portfolio. This includes expanding Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) infrastructure through the construction of groundwater production wells. Since the early 2000s, Roseville has invested in ASR technology. This technology is deployed as a conjunctive use with surface water supplies and harnesses groundwater storage and recovery to become more resilient in the face of climate change, new regulations, and increased statewide water demands.

In 2021, EU completed a detailed well siting evaluation throughout Roseville to determine optimal locations for up to six future ASR groundwater production well and pump station facilities, which could expand the City’s ASR well infrastructure to up to ten wells. One of the core criteria for site selection was to locate well sites on existing public land to limit costs and other potential constraints.

Essentially this property transfer came about due to the following activities based on sites identified on Exhibit A:

Production Well Siting Evaluating Study – Through the drilling of eight exploratory borings throughout the City to identify new production wells, EU identified three preferred sites (Pleasant Grove, Marlin, and Misty Wood) on PRL-managed open space parcels. EU also completed a monitoring well at a single existing City park site (Maidu) as part of this study.

An additional non-City owned site, Campus Oaks, was also evaluated as part of this study (land for this site will be transferred to the City through an existing developer agreement).

The City also expedited the construction of pump stations at two existing developer-installed production wells sites (Westbrook – Well #9 and Solaire – Well #18) due to 2021 drought conditions. The City secured parcels for these wells through previously established developer agreements. Based on the design of these pump stations in FY2022, it was determined a slightly bigger footprint of land than was originally deeded to the City would be necessary for wellhead treatment. For this reason, EU worked with PRL to expand the well sites at these two locations through two lot line adjustments which required transfer of relatively small areas of adjacent PRL-managed parcels to EU.

To determine an equitable financial compensation for the property transfer, EU’s Water Utility hired an independent land appraiser to analyze land values. The appraiser’s analysis, conducted in 2020, included seven City-owned sites that were part of the production well siting evaluation study.

Based on the appraisal data, some valuation considerations agreed to by PRL and EU for the property transfer were:

Open space sites (Pleasant Grove, Marlin and Misty Wood) were valued at 80 percent of market value.

One existing park site (Maidu) was valued at 100 percent of market value.

For the two existing well sites (Westbrook and Solaire) that were not included in the 2020 appraisal, but where EU needed small parcel additions to complete the project, valuation was based on an average of the market value assessments for all parcels considered in the appraisal.

The assessment applied a factor to the acreage to be acquired by EU, depending on whether the planned development was for a monitoring well only or both a monitoring well and a production well at each site. The factor attributed to the monitoring well was 10 percent of the value of the total acreage. If monitoring data supported continuation and construction of a production well, then the remaining 90 percent of the valuation would then be applied.

These factors and the rationale for each site are illustrated in Exhibit B in the property transfer valuation logic columns.

Monitoring wells were not installed at the originally identified sites (Galilee, Central Park, and Vencil Brown), therefore transfer of land or of funds will not occur for these sites.

Exhibit B provides the site name, associated parcel number(s), parcel acreage, acreage and square footage of the proposed transfer to EU, associated market value, and aforementioned property transfer valuation logic. Appraisal reports for each site are attached (Exhibit C).

PRL and EU have reached a mutual agreement on the transfer of the property and associated value.

This initiative will have direct positive impacts to the region’s water supply outlook. These projects also provide economic benefits as building infrastructure creates jobs and will result in immediate economic activity within Roseville.

FISCAL IMPACT
The $491,054 cost of this property purchase will be funded by a transfer from the Water Construction Fund (6120) to PRL projects via the water utility’s Groundwater Well Property project (500059), which has a remaining budget of $1,300,000. The transfer to the following park development projects will offset capital costs and expand opportunities for new improvements:
$14,500 to Maidu Skate Track Rehab Project (500107) in the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Capital Projects Fund
$208,553 to Solaire Park (WB-50) (500102) in the General Fund $268,001 to Gibson Park Site (400004) in the General Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378.

A budget adjustment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required. However, as future well sites are developed, they will incorporate environmental review.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Trevor Joseph, Hydrogeologist
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Exhibits
Ordinance 6502
Budget Adjustment
Exhibit A – Site Location Map
Note: Monitoring Wells were not installed at originally identified sites Galilee, Central Park, and Vencil Brown, therefore transfer of funds will not occur at these sites.

Location Parcel APN(s) Total Parcel
Acreage
Priority Acreage
(EU Interests)
Square foot
(EU Interests)
Low
Range
Low Range
$/Square foot
High
Range
High Range
$/Square foot
Market Value
Conclusion Price
Market Value
$/Square foot
Parks
Managed
Parcel?
Monitoring Well
Installed?
Production Well
(to be) Installed?
Monitoring
Well Costs
Production
Wells Costs
Expanded Site
Costs
Galilee 017-410-068-000 &
017-410-700-000 2.26 & 0.32 - - - - - $6.04 - - $13.02 - - $7.81 No No No
- - - - - -
$0
Pleasant Grove 017-162-074-000 1.56 0.52 22,651 - - $4.88 $549,513 $24.26 $225,000 $9.93 Yes Yes Yes $18,000 $162,000 - - $180,000 Marlin 471-010-007-000 &
471-010-009-000 0.97 & 0.32 0.26 11,326 $83,000 $7.33 $280,000 - - $110,000 $10.60 Yes Yes Yes $8,800 $79,200 - - $88,000
Maidu 469-020-004-000 34.91 0.5 21,780 $83,000 $3.81 $280,000 $12.86 $145,000 $6.52 Yes Yes No $14,500 - - - - $14,500 Misty Woods 477-100-002-000 12.75 0.55 23,958 $83,000 $3.46 $280,000 - - $160,000 $6.68 Yes Yes Yes $12,800 $115,200 - - $128,000 Central Park 017-123-029-000 20.35 - - - - - $6.04 - - $13.02 - - $11.86 Yes No No - - - - - - $0 Vencil Brown 363-030-056-000 9.93 - - - $83,000 - - $280,000 - - - - $7.11 Yes No No - - - - - - $0 Well #9 (Westbrook) 496-230-059-000 &
496-230-058-000 0.11 4,727 - - - - - - - - $160,000 $8.64 Yes
Yes, but not as part of this
property assessment
Yes, but not as part of this
property assessment
- - - - $40,860
$40,860
Well #18 (Solaire) 496-100-004-000 0.11 4,592 - - - - - - - - $160,000 $8.64 Yes
Yes, but not as part of this
property assessment
Yes, but not as part of this
property assessment
- - - - $39,693
$39,693
Totals 8 4 3 $54,100 $356,400 $80,554 $491,054
How costs were generated:
- Open space sites shown in green were valued using 80% of the 'Market Value' price - Existing Park sites shown in blue were valued using 100% of the 'Market Value Conclusion Price' - Sites identified as an "existing Site Expansion' were valued based on an average of the 'Market Value $/Square Foot' equaling $8.46. - 'Monitoring Wells Costs' were assessed as 10% of the total area defined in the 'Square foot (EU interest)' column. - 'Production Wells Costs' were assessed as the remaining 90% of the total area defined in the 'Square foot (EU interest)' column. - Monitoring Wells were not installed at originally identified sites Galilee, Central Park, and Vencil Brown, therefore transfer of funds will not occur at these sites. - Monitoring and Production Wells have already been installed at the 'Existing Site Expansion' sites.

Existing Site
Expansion
Exhibit B - Property Transfer Appraisal Data and Logic Valuation Summary Primary
Secondary
Site Details EU Priority & Interested Area Appraisal Summarized Data Property Transfer Valuation Logic Totals
Exhibit C –
Integra Realty Resources -
Appraisal of Real Property Reports
Integra Realty Resources
Sacramento
Appraisal of Real Property
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Vacant Land
1701 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Roseville, Placer County, California 95747
Prepared For:

City of Roseville
Effective Date of the Appraisal:

April 17, 2020
Report Format:

Appraisal Report – Standard Format
IRR ‐ Sacramento
File Number: 193‐2020‐0135
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Roseville, California
Integra Realty Resources  590 Menlo Drive  T 916.435.3883 Sacramento  Suite 1  F 916.435.4774
Rocklin, CA 95765  www.irr.com
April 20, 2020
Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, CA 95747
SUBJECT:  Market Value Appraisal
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Roseville, Placer County, California 95747
IRR ‐ Sacramento File No. 193‐2020‐0135
Dear Mr. Joseph:

Integra Realty Resources – Sacramento is pleased to submit the accompanying appraisal of the referenced property. The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property. As will be discussed below, the appraised property is a portion of a larger parcel and is not itself a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identified land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value. The client for the assignment is City of Roseville, and the intended use is for asset monitoring and transfer between City Departments.

The subject is a portion of a parcel of vacant land and contains 0.52 acres or 22,651 square feet of land area. The property is zoned P/QP, Public/Quasi‐Public District, and is planned for a public use as a pumping station. Although the subject of this appraisal is land designated for a public use, this report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest economic use, which is multifamily development. The valuation is premised upon the hypothetical condition that the subject is zoned R3/SA‐NR, similar to adjacent development. As of the date of value, the property is gently sloping, and all offsite improvements are in place. A more detailed legal and physical description of the subject property is contained within the attached report.

The appraisal is intended to conform with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute and applicable state appraisal regulations.

Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
April 20, 2020

To report the assignment results, we use the Appraisal Report option of Standards Rule 2‐ 2(a) of USPAP. As USPAP gives appraisers the flexibility to vary the level of information in an Appraisal Report depending on the intended use and intended users of the appraisal, we adhere to the Integra Realty Resources internal standards for an Appraisal Report – Standard Format. This format summarizes the information analyzed, the appraisal methods employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

Based on the valuation analysis in the accompanying report, and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our opinion of value is as follows:

Value Conclusion
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Market Value Fee Simple April 17, 2020 $225,000
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. Implict in the hypothetical condition is the premise that the subject property would be taxed as a vacant parcel zoned for multi family use. The Placer County Assessors Office indicates the subject is currently tax exempt. In this valuation, we estimated property taxes, including ad valorem tax rate and special taxes based on an adjacent parcel (APN: 017‐162‐087). It is assumed the subject property would be taxed similarly i f zoned for multi family development.

1. This report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multi family residential development. Consistent with the highest and best economic use, had the subject property not been previously designated for use as a pumping station, the subject would likely have been zoned for multi family use, as of the date of value. Therefore, the value estimated herein is subject to a hypothetical condition. It is a hypothetical condition of this report that the subject has been zoned for multi family use, consistent with the zoning adjacent to the subject.

2. The appraised property is current a portion of a larger parcel and is not itsel f a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, i f found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
April 20, 2020

conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.

Respectfully submitted,
INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES ‐ SACRAMENTO

Blake Fassler
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3007274
Telephone: 916‐505‐4471
Email: [email protected]
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG013567
Telephone: 916‐435‐3883, ext. 224
Email: [email protected]
Table of Contents
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  1
General Information  3
Identification of Subject  3
Sale History  3
Pending Transactions  3
Purpose of the Appraisal  3
Definition of Market Value  3
Definition of Property Rights Appraised  4
Intended Use and User  4
Applicable Requirements  4
Report Format  4
Prior Services  5
Scope of Work  5
Economic Analysis  7
Area Analysis – Placer County  7
Surrounding Area Analysis  12
Multifamily Market Analysis  17
COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  25
Property Analysis  32
Land Description and Analysis  32
Real Estate Taxes  37
Highest and Best Use  38
Valuation  40
Valuation Methodology  40
Sales Comparison Approach  41
Analysis and Adjustment of Sales  45
Land Value Conclusion  49
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  50
Exposure Time  51
Marketing Period  51
Certification  52
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  54
Addenda
A. Appraiser Qualifications
B. Comparable Data
C. Engagement Letter
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  1
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions
Property Name
Address
Property Type
Owner of Record
Tax ID
Land Area 0.52 acres; 22,651 SF
Zoning Designation
Highest and Best Use
Exposure Time; Marketing Period 6‐9 months; 12 months
Effective Date of the Appraisal April 17, 2020
Date of the Report April 20, 2020
Property Interest Appraised
Sales Comparison Approach
Number of Sales 4
Range of Sale Dates Jan 19 to Apr 20
Range of Prices per SF (Unadjusted) $4.88 ‐ $24.26
Market Value Conclusion $225,000 ($9.93/SF)
City of Roseville
017‐162‐074 (portion of)
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
1701 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Roseville, Placer County, Cali fornia  95747
Land ‐ Residential
The values reported above are subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions set forth in the accompanying report of which this summary is a part. No party other than City of Roseville may use or rely on the information, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report. It is assumed that the users of the report have read the entire report, including all of the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions contained therein.

P/QP, Public / Quasi‐Public District
Mul ti family use
Fee Simple
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. Implict in the hypothetical condition is the premise that the subject property would be taxed as a vacant parcel zoned for multi family use. The Placer County Assessors Office indicates the subject is currently tax exempt. In this valuation, we estimated property taxes, including ad valorem tax rate and special taxes based on an adjacent parcel (APN: 017‐162‐087). It is assumed the subject property would be taxed similarly if zoned for multi family development.

1. This report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multifamily residential development. Consistent with the highest and best economic use, had the subject property not been previously designated for use as a pumping station, the subject would likely have been zoned for multifamily use, as of the date of value. Therefore, the value estimated herein is subject to a hypothetical condi tion. It is a hypothetical condition of this report that the subject has been zoned for multifamily use, consistent with the zoning adjacent to the subject.

2. The appraised property is current a portion of a larger parcel and is not i tsel f a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  2
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

General Information  3
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
General Information
Identification of Subject
The subject is a portion of a parcel of vacant land and contains 0.52 acres or 22,651 square feet of land area. The property is zoned P/QP, Public/Quasi‐Public District, and is planned for a public use as a pumping station. Although the subject of this appraisal is land designated for a public use, this report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest economic use, which is multifamily development. The valuation is premised upon the hypothetical condition that the subject is zoned R3/SA‐NR, similar to adjacent development. As of the date of value, the property is gently sloping, and all offsite improvements are in place. A legal description of the property was requested but not provided.

Property Identification
Address 1701 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Roseville, Cali fornia  95747
Tax ID 017‐162‐074 (portion of)
Owner of Record City of Roseville
Census Tract Number 213.22 / 2
Sale History
To the best of our knowledge, no sale or transfer of ownership has occurred within the past three years.

Pending Transactions
To the best of our knowledge, the property is not subject to an agreement of sale or an option to buy, nor is it listed for sale, as of the effective appraisal date.

Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property as of the effective date of the appraisal, April 17, 2020. As previously stated, the appraised property is a portion of a larger parcel and is not itself a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identified land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value. The date of the report is April 20, 2020. The appraisal is valid only as of the stated effective date or dates.

Definition of Market Value
Market value is defined as:
“The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and General Information  4
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
 Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
 Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;
 A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;  Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
 The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.” (Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Chapter I, Part 34.42[h]; also Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, Federal Register, 75 FR 77449, December 10, 2010, page 77472) Definition of Property Rights Appraised
Fee simple estate is defined as, “Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”
Source: Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015)
Intended Use and User
The intended use of the appraisal is for asset monitoring and transfer between City Departments. The client and intended user is City of Roseville. The appraisal is not intended for any other use or user. No party or parties other than City of Roseville may use or rely on the information, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report.

Applicable Requirements
This appraisal is intended to conform to the requirements of the following:
 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP);  Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute;
 Applicable state appraisal regulations.

Report Format
This report is prepared under the Appraisal Report option of Standards Rule 2‐2(a) of USPAP. As USPAP gives appraisers the flexibility to vary the level of information in an Appraisal Report depending on the intended use and intended users of the appraisal, we adhere to the Integra Realty Resources internal standards for an Appraisal Report – Standard Format. This format summarizes the information General Information  5
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
analyzed, the appraisal methods employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

Prior Services
USPAP requires appraisers to disclose to the client any other services they have provided in connection with the subject property in the prior three years, including valuation, consulting, property management, brokerage, or any other services. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three‐year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

Scope of Work
To determine the appropriate scope of work for the assignment, we considered the intended use of the appraisal, the needs of the user, the complexity of the property, and other pertinent factors. Our concluded scope of work is described below.

Valuation Methodology
Appraisers usually consider the use of three approaches to value when developing a market value opinion for real property. These are the cost approach, sales comparison approach, and income capitalization approach. Use of the approaches in this assignment is summarized as follows:

Approaches to Value
Approach Applicability to Subject Use in Assignment
Cost Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized
Sales Comparison Approach Applicable Utilized
Income Capi talization Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized We use only the sales comparison approach in developing an opinion of value for the subject. This approach is applicable to the subject because there is an active market for similar properties, and sufficient sales data is available for analysis.

The cost approach is not applicable because there are no improvements that contribute value to the property, and the income approach is not applicable because the subject is not likely to generate rental income in its current state.

Research and Analysis
The type and extent of our research and analysis is detailed in individual sections of the report. This includes the steps we took to verify comparable sales, which are disclosed in the comparable sale profile sheets in the addenda to the report. Although we make an effort to confirm the arms‐length nature of each sale with a party to the transaction, it is sometimes necessary to rely on secondary verification from sources deemed reliable.

General Information  6
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Inspection
Blake Fassler conducted an on‐site inspection of the property on April 17, 2020. Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, conducted an on‐site inspection on April 17, 2020.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

Area Analysis – Placer County  7
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Economic Analysis
Area Analysis – Placer County
Introduction
Placer County is part of the four‐county Sacramento Metropolitan Area, along with the counties of Sacramento, Yolo and El Dorado. The county is located in the north‐central part of California, approximately 420 miles north of Los Angeles, 250 miles south of Oregon, 100 miles northeast of San Francisco, 80 miles west of Lake Tahoe and 100 miles southwest of Reno. The southernmost part of Placer County consists of a valley commonly referred to as South Placer, while the remainder of the county is divided into the Gold Country, where parts of Auburn and Colfax are located, and the High Country, which encompasses Tahoe City and Kings Beach along Lake Tahoe. Placer’s largest cities are Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln. Elevations in the county range from 165 feet above sea level in Roseville to 10,000 feet above sea level in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Placer County is developed with a mix of urban and rural uses. The larger cities, namely Roseville and Rocklin, are mostly urban, while the smaller communities, such as Loomis and Newcastle, have remained rural. Auburn and Lincoln both exhibit a combination of urban and rural settings. However, in recent years the city of Lincoln has experienced dramatic growth and development and has become one of the fastest‐growing cities in California.

Population
Placer County has experienced population growth in recent years, primarily in the southern part of the county. The main origin for in‐migration to the region are the Bay Area, other parts of the Sacramento region and Southern California. The state’s population data indicate a strong pattern of movement by residents from the high‐cost, high‐density Bay Area to inland areas in Northern California.

Following is a table depicting the population change in Placer County and its component cities over the past few years.

As indicated in the previous table, Placer County has experienced a strong average rate of annual growth of 1.6% over the past five years. The cities of Rocklin, Roseville and Lincoln are the fastest Population Trends
City 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 %/Yr
Auburn               13,948 13,979 14,110 14,262 14,291 14,392 0.6% Colfax               2,027 2,026 2,048 2,068 2,071 2,073 0.5% Lincoln              45,586 46,159 46,974 47,433 47,808 48,277 1.2% Loomis               6,628 6,648 6,686 6,803 6,848 6,887 0.8% Rocklin              59,891 60,502 61,595 64,397 66,711 69,249 3.1% Roseville            127,873 129,120 132,000 134,110 136,260 139,643 1.8% Unincorporated 112,188 112,892 113,030 114,646 115,491 116,170 0.7% Total 368,141 371,326 376,443 383,719 389,480 396,691 1.6% Source: California Department of Finance
Area Analysis – Placer County  8
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
growing in the region. Loomis and the unincorporated areas have had relatively little growth. Over the past decade, Placer County has been the fastest‐growing county within the four‐county Sacramento MSA (which also includes Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties). It is projected this trend will continue for the near future.

Employment & Economy
The California Employment Development Department has reported the following employment data for Placer County over the past several years.

The average annual unemployment rate in Placer County was 3.1% during 2019. The unemployment rate was 2.7% in Placer County as of December 2019. This compares to the average rates of 3.7% for California and 3.4% for the nation. Most areas within the state and nation, including Placer County, saw declining unemployment rates in 2004 through 2006, increases from 2007 to 2010, and declines during 2011‐2019.

Placer County has a diverse economy, with no one sector accounting for a majority of the employment in the region. The following chart indicates the percentage of total employment for each sector within the county.

Employment Trends
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Labor Force 175,500 176,500 179,800 181,700 185,200 186,700 Employment 164,500 167,600 171,700 174,700 179,400 180,900 Job Growth 2,200 3,100 4,100 3,000 4,700 1,500
Unemployment Rate 6.3% 5.0% 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 3.1%
Source: Cali fornia Empl oyment Development Depa rtment Area Analysis – Placer County  9
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
The area’s largest employment sectors are Trade/Transportation/Utilities, which includes retail and wholesale trade (18.8% of total employment); Educational and Health Services (16.9%); and Leisure and Hospitality (14.0%).

Although many residents commute to employment centers in Sacramento, Placer County offers thousands of jobs and attracts workers from the local area as well as “reverse commuters” from Sacramento and residents of outlying areas such as Marysville/Yuba City to the north. The largest employers in the county, according to the Sacramento Business Journal, are highlighted as follows:

Household Income
Median household income represents a broad statistical measure of well‐being or standard of living in a community. The median income level divides households into two equal segments with one half of households earning less than the median and the other half earning more. The median income is considered to be a better indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates a median household income of $84,357 for Placer County in the year 2018 (most recent data available), which was higher than the state of California’s median income of $71,228.

Transportation
Interstate 80, State Highway 65 and State Highway 193 are the major routes traversing the region.

Major urban arterials in the southern part of the county include Douglas Boulevard, Sierra College Boulevard, Roseville Parkway, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Sunrise Avenue, Auburn‐Folsom Road and Foothills Boulevard.

In addition to roadways within the county limits, south Placer County enjoys proximity to many of the Sacramento region’s freeways that provide access to the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, Central and Southern California to the south, Northern California and Oregon to the north, and Nevada to the east. Sacramento International Airport is situated about 10 miles west of the county border. The county is also home to a couple of small private airports. The region has good railroad service, including the transcontinental Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak. The Capitol Corridor system Largest Employers
Employer Industry Employees
1 Kaiser Permanente Healthcare 6,015
2 Sutter Health Healthcare 5,835
3 Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows Leisure/Hospitality 2,600 4 Thunder Valley Casino Resort Leisure/Hospitality 2,500 5 Sierra Joint Community College District Education 2,149 6 PRIDE Industries Professional/Business Services 1,291 7 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. Electronics/Technology Manufacturing 1,200 8 City of Roseville Government 1,162
9 Safeway Grocery Store 1,119
10 Union Pacific Railroad Co. Inc. Railroad 990
Source: Sacramento Business Journal, The List: Employers ‐ Placer County, December 2019 Area Analysis – Placer County  10
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
provides high‐speed commuter rail service from Roseville to San Jose and Placer County Transit provides seven fixed routes servicing areas from Colfax down to Watt Avenue in Sacramento.

Recreation & Community Services
Placer County has ample community services and recreational opportunities. The County, cities and various park districts operate numerous public parks, golf courses, aquatic centers, libraries and community centers. Many private golf courses are located in the region, and several ski resorts are located in the mountains. Within the county lies a portion of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, a boating, fishing, and swimming retreat.

In terms of higher education, Placer County is home to Sierra College in Rocklin, a two‐year community college offering a wide range of day and evening classes serving over 25,000 students.

Sierra College also has an extension campus located in the Vernon District in Roseville and two additional campuses – the Nevada County and Tahoe‐Truckee campuses. In 2004, William Jessup University, a private Christian college, moved from San Jose to a new facility in Rocklin. Additional university campuses within the county include Brandman University, National University and University of Phoenix, all located in Roseville.

The region offers good health services, including hospitals and medical office facilities. Two hospitals are located in Roseville – the Sutter Roseville Medical Center and Kaiser Permanente. In addition to the hospital, construction has completed for a new state‐of‐the‐art, 210,000 square foot Kaiser Permanente medical campus to replace their existing campus on Riverside Avenue. The city of Auburn is home to Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital, Sutter Medical Center‐Auburn, UC Davis Medical Center, Foundation Medical Clinic and Heritage Medical Center Complex. The city of Lincoln contains medical offices/clinics operated by Sutter, UC Davis, Kaiser and Catholic Healthcare West. In addition to these institutional health care facilities, the county is home to a large and growing number of private physicians, dentists, clinics and other medical specialists.

The city of Roseville is south Placer’s hub for fine dining and entertainment. Several upscale restaurants are situated along Eureka Road, Roseville Parkway and Galleria Boulevard. Roseville and Rocklin both offer two multi‐screen movie theatres, and Auburn has one theatre. Shopping centers are widespread, the largest of which are the Galleria at Roseville, a regional shopping mall that opened in 2000 and was expanded in 2008‐2009, and the Fountains at Roseville, an outdoor lifestyle center that opened in June 2008.

Conclusion
Placer County encompasses a diverse area, with growing cities, small towns and rural areas, and an abundance of open space. The cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln have experienced strong growth in population and development over the past several years. Placer County is one of the most affluent in the greater Sacramento region in terms of household income levels. The area has a number of positive attributes, including seismic stability, a well‐educated work force, good transportation systems, relative affordability and availability of housing compared to the Bay Area, and an excellent level of community services. The long‐term outlook for the region is very good.

Area Analysis – Placer County  11
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Area Map
Surrounding Area Analysis  12
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Surrounding Area Analysis
Location
The subject is located along the south line of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, west of Camino Real Way and east of Sun City Boulevard, within the city of Roseville, Placer County, California. The subject’s neighborhood can generally be described as Blue Oaks Boulevard to the north, Baseline Road to the south, Foothills Boulevard to the east and Fiddyment Road to the west.

Access and Linkages
There are several major thoroughfares in the subject’s neighborhood, making it a central location with convenient access to neighboring communities. The primary north‐south traffic corridors are Foothills Boulevard, Washington Boulevard, Roseville Parkway, Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. The primary east‐west connectors are Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Blue Oaks Boulevard, Junction Boulevard and Baseline Road/Main Street. The road systems provide adequate access to all areas within West Roseville, as well as other nearby neighborhoods and freeway destinations.

Access to the subject neighborhood from the primary highway system serving the Sacramento region is good. The subject property has access to State Highway 65 approximately two miles to the northeast via Pleasant Grove Boulevard. State Highway 65 is a major transportation route linking Roseville to Rocklin, Lincoln and the Marysville/Yuba City area to the north. To the south, State Highway 65 intersects with Interstate 80. Interstate 80 can also be accessed via surface streets by taking Foothills Boulevard to Cirby Way to Riverside Avenue. Interstate 80 is one of two major east‐ west routes through the region, providing access to the San Francisco Bay Area to the west and various Sierra Nevada mountain communities to the east.

Demographics
A demographic profile of the surrounding area, including population, households, and income data, is presented in the following table.

Surrounding Area Analysis  13
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Surrounding Area Demographics
2020 Estimates 1‐Mile Radius 3‐Mile Radius 5‐Mile Radius 95747 (Roseville,
CA) Placer County, CA
Population 2010 14,548 67,255 196,371 52,316 348,432
Population 2020 16,491 82,834 224,465 67,001 398,650
Population 2025 17,328 87,684 235,640 71,241 419,234
Compound % Change 2010‐2020 1.3% 2.1% 1.3% 2.5% 1.4%
Compound % Change 2020‐2025 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0%
Households 2010 5,556 24,529 69,402 19,070 132,627
Households 2020 6,172 30,163 78,881 24,277 153,060
Households 2025 6,446 31,960 82,728 25,809 161,485
Compound % Change 2010‐2020 1.1% 2.1% 1.3% 2.4% 1.4%
Compound % Change 2020‐2025 0.9% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.1%
Median Household Income 2020 $95,132 $98,598 $82,080 $105,426 $88,748 Average Household Size 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6
College Graduate % 39% 38% 31% 40% 38%
Median Age  43 40 38 40 43
Owner Occupied % 77% 74% 66% 78% 71%
Renter Occupied % 23% 26% 34% 22% 29%
Median Owner Occupied Housing Value $502,392 $507,787 $438,194 $530,164 $557,525 Median Year Structure Built 2000 2000 1994 2002 1994
Average Travel Time to Work in Minutes 30 30 29 31 30
Source: Environics Analytics
As shown above, the current population within a 3‐mile radius of the subject is 82,834, and the average household size is 2.7. Population in the area has grown since the 2010 census, and this trend is projected to continue over the next five years. Compared to Placer County overall, the population within a 3‐mile radius is projected to grow at a similar rate.

Median household income is $98,598, which is higher than the household income for Placer County.

Residents within a 3‐mile radius have a similar level of educational attainment than those of Placer County, while median owner occupied home values are lower.

Land Use
The subject neighborhood is improved with single‐ and multi‐family residential development, as well as a significant amount of commercial and public uses. Land uses adjacent to the subject includes residential development to the north and vacant land to the east, west and south.

At the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove and Foothills Boulevard is the Arbor View Retail Center and Pleasant Grove Professional Center. These centers each include multiple buildings, with the Arbor View Center containing a mix of retail and office users, while the Pleasant Grove Professional Center is made up exclusively of office uses. Some of the tenants located in these centers include Lollicup Yogurt and Tea, Verizon, nail and hair salons, dental offices, Zen Massage, Pizza Guys, Los Cabos Grill, Arbor View Montessori, Arbor View Veterinary Clinic, and Loompya Restaurant. At the southwest corner of this intersection is a multi‐building retail and office center identified as the Melbourne Center/Woodcreek Plaza, which includes various inline retail tenants such as Beach Hut Deli, a sushi Surrounding Area Analysis  14
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
restaurant, and a salon. There is an Arco AM/PM gas station and convenience store adjacent to the center.

The subject neighborhood includes several large anchored and unanchored retail centers, primarily located at major intersections. South of the subject property, at the northwest quadrant of Foothills and Junction Boulevards, are two shopping centers identified as Foothill Junction and Foothill Village Oaks. Foothill Junction is anchored by Save Mart and CVS Pharmacy, while Foothill Village Oaks is anchored by Dollar Tree and Gold’s Gym. Across the street from these two projects is another shopping center anchored by California Family Fitness. Among other businesses, this development includes Boston Market, Burger King, Denny’s, and Wells Fargo.

Further south of the subject property, located at the northwest quadrant of Foothills Boulevard and Baseline Road, is a shopping center identified as The Brickyard. This 120,100± square foot project is anchored by Bel Air and Rite Aid, and includes other notable tenants such as Bank of America, River City Bank, Starbucks, and Subway. Located at the southeast quadrant of Foothills Boulevard and Baseline Road is a multi‐building retail project that includes Walgreens, Kreagen, Bird & Pet Clinic Roseville, and various other tenants. Elk Hills Plaza, which includes two strip retail buildings and a freestanding McDonald’s restaurant and a Shell gas station, is positioned at the southeast quadrant of this intersection.

Development of retail projects in the Roseville/Rocklin area intensified as new homes were built and since the opening of the Galleria at Roseville, the most recently constructed regional mall built in the Sacramento area. This mall opened for business in August 2000, and is located at Galleria Boulevard and State Highway 65. The mall recently underwent a major expansion project, adding approximately a half‐million square feet of retail space. Several additional large‐scale retail centers are located adjacent to the Galleria at Roseville. These projects include the Creekside Town Center, The Ridge at Creekside, and Creekside Plaza (formerly known as Tuscany Village). Further, The Fountains lifestyle center is located across from the Galleria at the southwest corner of Galleria Boulevard and Roseville Parkway.

Local residential development is characterized by both new and mature single‐family residential homes, as well as several apartment complexes. Overall, residential properties tend to exhibit effective ages from new to 20± years and are considered to be in average to good condition. New homes have been developed in master planned neighborhoods in Woodcreek Oaks, Silverado Oaks, Highland Reserve and Crocker Ranch. Del Webb Sun City, a retirement community, is located near the subject neighborhood, and consists of over 1,600 single‐family homes for buyers aged 55 and older.

This community includes golf courses and recreation centers operated by the Del Webb Homeowners Association. The subject neighborhood represents an established area of Roseville with a significant population base.

The subject neighborhood is served by several community uses typical of a suburban residential area, including schools, parks, churches, libraries, hospitals and open space. Nearby neighborhood parks include H C Elliot, Bill Santucci, Silverado Oaks and Kaseberg Parks. Mahany Park, a regional park at the southwest quadrant of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, features a softball complex. In addition, this area also houses the Roseville Aquatics Complex and Roseville Sports Center.

There are several golf courses in the neighborhood, including the Woodcreek Golf Club, Diamond Oaks Surrounding Area Analysis  15
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Municipal Golf Course and the private Sierra View Country Club. A fire station is located along the north side of Junction Boulevard, just west of Foothills Boulevard and the Roseville Police Station is located along the south side of Junction Boulevard, just west of Washington Boulevard. Woodcreek High School is located on the west line of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The Placer County Fairgrounds is located at the intersection of Junction Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. There are two main hospitals in Roseville, both of which are located just south of Interstate 80 – Kaiser Permanente, located at the northeast corner of Rocky Ridge Drive and Douglas Boulevard, and Sutter Roseville Medical Center on Roseville Parkway.

Outlook and Conclusions
The subject property is located in an area that experienced strong growth over the most recent expansionary period. The subject has an average location for residential development, with adequate access to supporting commercial services. The characteristics of the subject neighborhood relative to other locales in the region are desirable, and steady demand after a period of stabilization is projected over the long term, though the COVID‐19 pandemic may adversely affect property values in the near‐ term.

Surrounding Area Analysis  16
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Surrounding Area Map

Multifamily Market Analysis  17
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Multifamily Market Analysis
It is noted this section of the report contains market information reported as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2019, prior to the recent events related to the worldwide COVID‐19 outbreak. In light of the fact we are in the early stages of fighting this pandemic, there is very little market data available that would allow us to accurately quantify either the short‐ or long‐term impact on the commercial real estate market. Healthcare and economic responses to this crisis are still unfolding and changing daily.

Integra Realty Resources is monitoring these responses and is committed to keeping our clients and the intended users of our appraisals as informed and up‐to‐date as possible. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section presented following this market analysis section of the report.

The Sacramento multifamily market continues to exhibit strong market fundamentals, building on the steady growth of the past few years. Annual rental rate growth, which hit double digits in 2016, slowed somewhat through 2017 and 2018, but increased in 2019, posting a growth of 4.7%. Vacancy continues to be in the mid‐to‐low three percent range, as delivery of new units has been keeping pace with demand. The region continues to have positive job growth and household income gains, particularly in the government, educational and health services and trade/transportation/utilities sectors, which bodes well for all residential real estate. The increase in home prices over the past several years has impacted overall affordability and, coupled with very limited supply of product at the lower price points, has kept home ownership competition at bay.

Information extracted from the Q4 2019 U.S. Multifamily Figures report by CBRE indicates the Sacramento Metro area was tied for seventh in the nation for annual rent growth, as indicated below.

Multifamily Market Analysis  18
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
New Construction
The following chart indicates the number of multifamily building permits issued over the last 12 years in the four‐county Sacramento MSA (Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer and Yolo Counties). These figures include for‐rent apartments and for‐sale condominiums of projects containing at least five units.

Permit activity for multifamily projects was low during the recovery years of 2010 through 2014, but increased beginning in 2015 to the present, as developers began responding to improving market conditions, particularly very low vacancy. Information from the U.S. Census indicates 2,521 permits were issued in 2017, 1,425 permits issued in 2018 and 1,995 permits issued in 2019.

Third party research reports indicate that the year 2018 was the strongest in terms of new construction in the last 10‐12 years. By the end of 2018, there were 2,032 units under construction, twice as many units as there were at the end of 2017. In total, it is estimated 1,075 units were delivered in 2018, with strong new development activity continuing in 2019. Market participants indicate the number of new units being delivered still remains well below the level that would be required to bring the market to equilibrium. The following information was extracted from several local research reports.
 Colliers International estimates 1,163 new units were delivered in 2019 and an additional 2,707 units are under construction, with 49% of these in the Central Sacramento area.  Kidder Mathews indicates roughly 1,563 apartment units were delivered during 2019 and 2,623 units are under construction as of the fourth quarter 2019.

A summary of significant apartment projects recently completed or under construction are highlighted in the following table.

Multifamily Market Analysis  19
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Vacancy
Historically speaking, the regional apartment market has maintained relatively low vacancy. Over the last decade, after peaking in the 7% range in 2009, the region’s average vacancy rate steadily declined through 2013 and then remained relatively flat near 4% through 2016. By mid‐2017, the vacancy rate decreased to 3.5% and has remained in the low to mid 3% range since, even with the increase in new development. As of the end of 2019, overall vacancy was 3.5%, down 40 basis points from the previous quarter and down 10 basis points year‐over‐year. The following chart shows the region’s average apartment vacancy rate over the past three years.

Apartment Projects New Construction
Project Submarket Number of Units Status
Recently Completed
Campus Oaks Apartments / 500 Roseville Pkwy (Phase I) Roseville/Rocklin 185 Completed Q1 2019 Harvest at Fiddyment Ranch / 1900 Blue Oaks Blvd. Roseville/Rocklin 300 Completed Q2 2019 Hub Apartments / 525 Willard Drive Folsom 230 Completed Q2 2019 Sutter Green / 2205 Natomas Park Drive Natomas 232 Completed Q2 2019 Bidwell Pointe / 125 E Bidwell Street Folsom 140 Completed Q3 2019 19J Apartments Downtown 175 Completed Q3 2019
Academy 65 East Sacramento 90 Completed Q3 2019
The GIO Apartments / 3675 T Street South Sacramento 213 Completed Q3 2019 Talavera Ridge / 2796 Broadstone Pkwy Folsom 293 Completed Q4 2019 Under Construction
The Foundry / Mill Street West Sacramento 69 Delivery Q1 2020 The Press / 1723 20th Street Midtown 277 Delivery Q1 2020 Mesa at Laguna Ridge / 10371 Bruceville Road Laguna / Elk Grove 180 Delivery Q1 2020 Alira / 3949 Truxel Road Natomas 293 Delivery Q2 2020
The Green at West Village (Student Housing) UC Davis  1,000 Delivery Q2 2020 Hub Apartments Phase II / 525 Willard Drive Folsom 130 Delivery Q2 2020 H16 Downtown Sacramento 95 Delivery Q2 2020
Sterling 5th Street Davis 198 Delivery Q2 2020
The Core Natomas Natomas 300 Delivery Q3 2020
E@16 / 1600 E Street Downtown Sacramento 95 Delivery Q4 2020 El Dorado Hills Apartments / 4387 Town Center Dr El Dorado Hills 250 Delivery Q1 2021 601 Capitol Mall / Shorenstein Properties Downtown Sacramento 162 Delivery 2021 Sacramento Commons / 5th‐6th & N‐P Streets Downtown Sacramento 436 Delivery 2021 Source: CoStar; Kidder Mathews Real Estate Market Review; Colliers International Research and Forecast Report Multifamily Market Analysis  20
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Rental Rates
Rental rates have been steadily rising since 2009, with steeper increases from 2013 to 2016 and more moderate increases since then. The average monthly rental rate as of the fourth quarter 2019 was $1,495 per unit, unchanged from the previous quarter, but up 5.7% year‐over‐year. The following chart provides a summary of historical average monthly apartment rental rates.

Moving forward, rent growth will be impacted by the recent enactment of rent control laws. On October 8, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1482 making California the third state to enact a statewide rent control measure impacting residential rental housing. The bill is retroactively effective as of March 15, 2019 and will extend until January 1, 2030. Some key points of the bill are as follows:
 The bill prohibits an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12‐month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living (regional Consumer Price Index from April 1 of the prior year, to April 1 of the current year), or 10%, whichever is lower.  If the same tenant remains in occupancy of a unit over any 12‐month period, the gross rental rate cannot be increased in more than two increments over that 12‐month period.  This law is retroactive to March 15, 2019. If there have been gross rent increases between March 15, 2019 and January 1, 2020 that exceed the limits stated above, the applicable rent shall be the rent on March 15, 2019. It is noted the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment.
 There are several exemptions including for property owners that are not a corporation, Trust or LLC (with corporate members). Also, if the property was issued their initial Certificate of Occupancy within last 15 years, it is not subject to the new law.

Multifamily Market Analysis  21
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
 After a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential property for 12 months, the owner of the property cannot terminate the tenancy without just cause, which is required to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy.

Submarket Data
The following table highlights the average monthly rental rates and vacancy for the Sacramento area submarkets as of the fourth quarter 2019, all of which have continued to record strong occupancy and rent levels.

According to the report, during the fourth quarter 2019, the Central Sacramento and Folsom/Orangevale/Fair Oaks submarkets recorded the highest vacancy at 4.7% and 4.6%, respectively. The Davis and Woodland/West Sacramento submarkets had the lowest vacancy at 0.7% and 1.6%, respectively. All except four submarkets had vacancy levels below 3%.

In the Downtown submarket, steady demand from young professionals desiring to live in Sacramento’s urban core continues to have developers looking to capitalize. Various multifamily projects are underway or planned in the Downtown and Midtown areas, both in the form of new construction as well as renovation of existing buildings; there are 1,326 apartment units under construction in the urban Sacramento area. Suburban submarkets with strong activity include Folsom/El Dorado, where 950 units are under construction, Natomas with 593 units under construction, and Roseville/Rocklin, where roughly 485 units were delivered in the past 12 months.

Submarket ‐ Roseville
To better understand local market conditions for multifamily properties in the subject’s market area, we have utilized CoStar Property Analytics to survey market‐rate multifamily residential properties within three miles of the subject property containing between 3 and 20 units. This query resulted in a total of 97 properties with 571 existing units.

Sacramento Multifamily Market Summary
Submarket Inventory Rental Rates Vacancy
Arden / Arcade 13,891 $1,285 3.7%
Carmichael 9,187 $1,245 3.4%
Central Sacramento 16,705 $1,838 4.7%
Citrus Heights 7,197 $1,344 3.8%
Davis 8,883 $1,916 0.7%
Folsom / Orangevale / Fair Oaks 13,848 $1,653 4.6%
N Sacramento / North Highlands 10,197 $1,345 3.0%
Natomas 12,324 $1,559 4.0%
Rancho Cordova / East Sacramento 11,888 $1,359 3.4%
Roseville / Rocklin 17,185 $1,668 4.0%
South Sacramento 20,530 $1,481 3.4%
Woodland / West Sacramento 8,022 $1,294 1.6%
Sacramento Market Total 149,857 $1,495 3.5%
Source: Colliers International. Sacramento Research and Forecast Report 4th Quarter 2019 Multifamily Market Analysis  22
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
The vacancy rate of the surveyed properties was at the highest point in the first quarter of 2015 at

6.08% and decreased to the lowest point of 5.48% in the second quarter of 2019. Vacancy has been relatively stable over the past several years; however, vacancy has been increasing due to the COVID‐ 19 pandemic. The following chart illustrates the trend for vacancy of the surveyed properties over the past several years.

In addition to the vacancy rate analysis, we also utilized CoStar Property analytics to analyze asking rental rates. The following table summarizes the average asking rates for the surveyed properties since the third quarter of 2018. As shown in the following table, rents have been increasing for all unit types over the past several years.

Average Rent per Unit/Month
Unit Type 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2019 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 One Bedroom $681 $684 $691 $695 $697 $698 $699 $699
Two Bedroom $895 $900 $909 $915 $919 $920 $921 $921
Three Bedrooms $1,478 $1,485 $1,496 $1,504 $1,508 $1,513 $1,513 $1,515 All Bedrooms $769 $773 $781 $786 $788 $788 $790 $790
Multifamily Market Analysis  23
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Over the past several quarters, there has been ongoing demand for rental housing in the subject’s immediate area and the demand has pushed rental rates upward. However, it is demand is expected to decrease due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Sales Activity
Sales activity for apartments in the region has been strong for several years. Volume totaled $1.87 billion in apartment sales during 2018, the highest on record. The year 2019 recorded $1.34 billion of sales volume, with $261.5 million of that occurring in the fourth quarter. Apartment capitalization rates have trended downward over the past few years but appear to be moderating in recent months.

Some notable sales transactions that occurred during the fourth quarter 2019 are summarized in the following table.

Conclusion
Over the past several years, the Sacramento apartment market has been among the strongest in the nation, fueled by significant population growth, moderate job growth and very low unemployment.

The market had been expanding with significant new construction activity, positive rental rate growth and vacancy rates below equilibrium.

While underlying economic factors were in place for sustained growth in the regional multifamily market, the COVID‐19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the economy, bringing an end to what had been the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. As of the effective date of this appraisal, the counties that make up the Sacramento MSA have issued public health Stay‐At‐Home Orders, coupled with a statewide order issued by the governor on March 19th which direct residents to stay at home except to perform essential activities necessary for the health and safety of individuals and their families. The statewide order is in place indefinitely. These unprecedented measures undertaken to prevent the spread and reduce the impact of the virus have left just "essential" businesses open.

The following excerpt from market research reports published by Costar summarizes how the market is viewing the current COVID‐19 pandemic.
“Given the current lack of pertinent economic data points as the crises unfolds, analysis of the virus's longer‐term ramifications, specific to the commercial real estate market, are difficult to know. Near term economic figures will likely decline sharply, Sacramento Area Notable Sales Transactions
Project Number of Units Submarket Sale Price Price / Unit Miramonte & Trovas Apts 440 Natomas $104,000,000 $236,364 The Creek at 2645 168 South Natomas $72,000,000 $428,571 Broadleaf Apartments 244 Pocket‐Greenhaven $68,450,000 $280,533 Copper Creek 268 Carmichael / Citrus Heights $48,000,000 $179,104 Sterline Pointe Apartments 250 Arden/Arcade $33,000,000 $132,000 Sierra Park Townhomes 104 North Highlands $19,650,000 $188,942 Cobble Creek Apts 48 Arden/Arcade $7,367,000 $153,479
Country Village 46 Carmichael $6,800,000 $147,826
Source: Colliers International, Kidder Mathews
Multifamily Market Analysis  24
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
with long term effects on businesses, unemployment, and wage growth likely dependent on the length of the crisis. The depth and breadth of the current coronavirus outbreak will depend on both the healthcare response, as well as the economic and fiscal policy responses. Those responses are still unfolding, with several levels of economic stimulus looking to protect those being most affected by the virus.” While the near‐term outlook for the Sacramento multifamily market is uncertain, strong fundamentals in place prior to the recent events surrounding COVID‐19 position the market for stability over the long term.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  25
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations
The best measure of any impact on values due to COVID‐19 would be in direct transaction indicators that are objectively verified and clearly show datapoints, current pricing discovery, and the ability to measure movement in values from a prior baseline; and to understand direction in overall values. This would include sales transactions, leasing activity, vacancy rates and/or cap rates that have visibly moved off of early Q1 levels (baseline), or form a conclusive basis for new pricing. However, given the novelty and recency of this event, minimal activity is evident from which to draw benchmark comparisons based on transactional data.

In the absence of transaction data, there is empirical data in the market that can be gleaned and assist in estimating the valuation metrics and assessing their reliability in estimating current value. In this initial phase of the pandemic, early emerging trends include:
 Market confidence (fundamental economic fear)
 Expectations of impaired property/operating performance  Re‐pricing risk (debt and equity)
 Liquidity duration
 Impaired market and pricing activity
All or some of the above may be shorter term issues, but others may linger and have a lasting impact on valuations in the commercial real estate (CRE) sector along a continuum of time.

At this juncture, the global question facing market participants is: “How long does this crisis last and how deep will its impact become?” At a minimum, Q2 economic performance will be dismal based on most economic forecasts. Shelter‐in‐Place and Stay‐at‐Home Executive Orders for most of the U.S. states now run through April 30, at a minimum.

As of April 1, market confidence was moderate (for the moment) but uncertain in its moderate conviction. Many governments are inducing incentives to support their national economies. On March 27, 2020, the U.S. Congress approved a $2 Trillion stimulus package intended to support payrolls and create economic “breathing room.” The length of the current social‐distancing measures likely impacts future operating performance.

One of the unknowns is, “How long can the world stay shut down, with everyone staying in their home?”  There remains hope the onset of summer will slow the virus transmission, there is active concern for healthcare workers and their families, and concern for our own families. A psychologically important factor affecting market confidence is the shocking rate of supply disruption at all levels, particularly in medical supplies and protective equipment; all the more alarming to a U.S. population accustomed to everything on demand.

Based on discussions and interviews with a wide range of market participants, a variety of factors and concerns are prevalent in the market that will likely have a negative impact broadly on CRE values, depending on property type and region. Essential Service Providers will be less impacted (distribution facilities, medical facilities, grocery service) as these sectors performance is expected to continue.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  26
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
However, the broader market will experience myriad issues based on survey respondents including:

Uncertainty
 Restricted Access to capital
 Unemployment concerns (increasing to 15% in Q2)
 GDP decline (‐30% in Q2)
 Duration of crisis
Lender Concerns
 DSCR are impacted based on changes in rental revenue and collections  Loan covenants could trigger due to changes in near‐term value  Borrowers are concerned about their tenants' ability to pay rent  Borrowers are concerned about their ability to keep their loans current  Lenders are also concerned about the need for loan modifications or work outs Publicly Traded Securities
 Stock indexes are down approximately 25% to 30%
 REIT pricing down approximately 25%
 Crude Oil down approximately 40%
Return Requirements
 Interest rates may stay in the 4%‐ 4.5% range, despite the Federal Reserve’s reduction efforts.

Banks have to tightly manage their capital reserves and ratios and therefore are requiring higher spreads for current risk profile
 Durability of Cash Flow forces (new) equity investors to reprice risk.  Standby (available, uncommitted) equity now has to be patient until a clearer “path forward” emerges.  Impact on cap rates would be upward
Each of the above observations provides empirical evidence that the market has shifted downward and real estate values will likewise impacted, but to what degree is not certain.

Few experts or economists at this point are willing to state a threshold duration at which point everything will return to normal quickly, versus a duration of limited economic activity that spirals into worldwide recession. At the moment, the prevailing hope of the world is that science miraculously manufactures a cure, while in the meantime, all social activity ceases worldwide.

Integra Current Valuation Framework (April 1 – present) The preceding property market analysis focuses on recent historic trends before the physical and social impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic were revealed in the U.S. in early March 2020. The property market analysis was current through Q4‐2019 with trends and indications for solid growth by most all market participants. Many current market participants believe the commercial real estate (CRE) markets will return to trend – the lingering question, “How long will it take?” remains uncertain.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  27
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
What we do know with reasonable certainty.
 At a minimum, Q2 economic performance will be dismal.  Shelter‐in‐Place and Stay‐at‐Home executive orders will have a profound impact on GDP with rising unemployment damaging forward economic performance for 3, if not 6 months at a minimum.
 The Federal Reserve’s attempt to lower nominal rates was thwarted by lenders setting floors on spreads. Congress subsequently approved a $2 Trillion stimulus package on Friday March 27, 2020. This could provide some economic relief, but businesses, owners, investors, and bankers need to support payroll retention and an aggressive program of economic goodwill throughout all sectors of the economy.

Everything forward beyond those three known factors remains subject to considerable uncertainty.

Our current surveys of market participants (March 11 – March 30, 2020) indicates a focus in the following areas impacting value:
 Impacts could (should) vary by property type, class, and location  Cost of capital (both debt and equity) is increasing, but at different rates for different asset classes
 Declines in property operations/forecasts (NOI) vary in duration based on property type, class; location; and tenant durability under potential recessionary pressures  Increases in cap rates (and normalized yields) will vary by property type, class and location as will the underlying assumptions on stabilized or periodic cash flow  Marketing times for most assets will increase, but the next 45 days will be uncertain on outright marketability regardless of price. This so far has not yet occurred, although deals and listings have slowed dramatically in these first few weeks. To a large extent, deal flow has halted based on the sheer physical constraints imposed on property showings/due diligence, etc. under current distancing restrictions).  Market Sentiment in the coming 14 – 30 days regarding healthcare performance/business performance/employment security/physical security will affect market investment expectations, yields, and the temperament for risk.

Impact by Property Type, Class & Location
Below is a graph prepared by Greenstreet Advisors plotting the sensitivity (and risk) associated with various property types with the negative impact on value being greater for those assets with greater sensitivity. Those assets relating to essential business operations (grocery, medical, distribution) are less affected than for example lodging and malls where social distancing is more difficult.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  28
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Cost of Capital/Liquidity
The cost of capital, both for debt and equity, had been at near historic lows pre crisis. Borrowers had a myriad of options from a variety of capital sources. As the crisis began to unfold in early 2020, treasury rates were moving down as the Fed sought to keep the market liquid. When it became clear the global crisis had landed in the United States, the Fed moved rates to near zero. Many lending institutions instituted floors (spreads widened) because the fixed costs of doing a deal had to be covered.

As lenders are coming to grips with the severity of the economic outlook, many have pulled back from the market altogether while others reacted by raising interest rates, lowering loan to values, or a combination of both. There are clearly some lenders who are “out” while others remain in the market.

There are fewer options in the market and those options are more expensive today than 30 days ago.

The rise in cost varies notably by property type with agency lenders and HUD determined to provide liquidity to the multi‐family market while at the other end of the spectrum, financing a hotel is challenging, land financing is non‐ existent.  Assets focused on essential business operations (e.g., grocery or last mile industrial) remain in favor as do net leased assets with recession‐resistant business profiles.

Equity is less clear at the moment. While large pools of capital were being raised through 2019 and into Q1‐2020, the strategy has suddenly shifted. Equity is available, and deals are finalizing that were contracted pre‐COVID, on the strength of the equity sponsor, but deal flow will likely pause for 15‐30 days as equity repricing occurs. This will coincide (hopefully) with an abatement (or clarity) in the world’s critical health status by May 1, 2020.

Declines in Property Operations/Forecasts
The lodging, retail, student housing and senior sectors are generally viewed as expecting to suffer the greatest. Once again, this varies by location and type. Restaurant retail is generally viewed as having greatest risk but is expected to rebound quickly as pent‐up demand explodes when everyone can COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  29
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
leave their home. Grocery retail is currently performing well with big box stores setting record sales per square foot.

Radical changes in the employment picture will begin to affect the housing sector, both single family and apartments. Apartments will not be immune or “safe” from lost rent, varying by type and location depending on the tenant base employment and its’ ability to whether a 6 to 12‐month contraction.

There is an expectation in the market that, for many retail centers, tenants will not be paying rent.

Without customers, particularly in states with stay‐at‐home orders, there simply is no revenue available. Tenants and owners alike are reviewing force majeure clauses in their leases.

Rent projections are being held flat in modeling cash flows going forward with the length of time dependent on the asset type.

Depending upon whether values are based on yield capitalization (DCF) or direct capitalization, care must be given to provide “stabilized” forecasts to capitalize; and to normalize yield levels for projecting variable year yield cap.

Premiums on Capitalization Rates
While many deals have fallen out of contract, other deals are still closing. Some are closing at their pre‐crisis contract price levels while many deals are being re‐traded in the market with discounts influenced by property type, location and buyer/seller motivations.

As the transaction market solidifies, the impact on capitalization rates will become clearer. Some market participants believe the answer to market value lies in the capitalization rates while others believe rates are not moving but net operating income in the short run is being impacted. Once again, the answers vary by property type and location.

Clearly the cost of capital (debt and equity) has increased. Valuation theory suggests via band of investment analysis that as interest rates and cash on cash equity rates increase, capitalization rates increase. A 100 basis point upward movement in interest rates for example, combined with a modest rise in equity returns, can move capitalization rates up over 100 basis points. We temper this analysis however with the understanding that it is difficult to settle on the inputs given the wide range of data in the market. In addition, care must be taken not to “double hit” the analysis by modeling significantly lower net income via lower performance projections and at the same time raising the return requirements.

Normalization of Yields
All yield capitalization is based on forward forecasting of property performance to generate a current cash flow, and future forecasted reversion. Therefore, the timeframe for the market to reach a point of pricing transparency to “return to par” is the critical assumption in the yield cap.

The longer or less likely the assumptions are, the higher the near‐term yields. Valuation theory and past downward economic cycles suggest a shortening of the holding period and a normalization of “overall yield” applied over the shorter holding period.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  30
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
As the transaction market solidifies, the impact on investment rates and relationship of assumption risk to market risk will become clearer.

Marketing and Exposure Time
At the present time, there is consensus of declining market demand in CRE transactions, due to market conditions ensuing from COVID‐19. It is natural to assume that exposure time on properties either for sale or lease, will likely be extended. Comparing pre‐COVID‐19 exposure periods (perhaps the best) to the banking crisis of 2008/2009 (perhaps the worst) can glean some differences that could extrapolate to exposure time going forward, i.e. from peak to trough.

Source: Costar – data presented in Months
Days on the market increased substantially in the last economic crisis of 2008‐2009, with an average of 21 months on market for major property classes. The trailing 12 months preceding the COVID‐19 crisis, days on the market were 11 months.

Based on this historical perspective, exposure time could potentially double from current levels. This would have to be tempered recognizing that the depth and duration of this current economic crisis is tied to a health crisis and may have a conclusion more closely tied to its resolution.

General Public Market Sentiment
General public market sentiment is a changing rollercoaster with each passing day. Right now, sentiment is cautious and trying not to overreact. Provide some relief, negotiate in good faith; try and be humane and understand the entire world is in this together. Some countries take two weeks off each year for holiday, and their entire economy doesn’t fall apart. The world is not going to take another four‐week vacation from large components of consumer‐facing and public activities.

Most humans are sequestered in their homes with limited social contact, with reasoned concerns for the health and safety of our families and friends, all the while consuming worldwide coverage and analysis of atypical death rates from an infectious virus not seen in over 100 years.

Market sentiment more than likely gets worse in the coming weeks before it gets better absent the announcement of a miracle cure / treatment during that time.

Conclusion
This heightened uncertainty forms the basis of defined risk. Considering the subject’s relative sensitivity to the COVID‐19 risks as of the effective date, the valuation Integra rates the relative risks of the subject property as of the effective date as follows:

Property Type Sensitivity to Risk  Low – The subject is vacant multifamily land.

Sector DOM ‐ March 2008‐2009 DOM March 2018‐2019 Change/Mo  % Change Office 29.6 14.8 14.8 50%
Retail 15 11.4 3.6 76%
Industrial 19.6 6.7 12.9 34%
Average 21.4 11.0 10.4 51%
COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  31
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Property Location Sensitivity to Risk  Low – While still located in California where the majority of the nations confirmed cases are,
Placer County has a less dense population and
has only seen a small number of cases.

Cost of Capital Impact\Risk  Low to Moderate– Continued capital appears available, and investment in multifamily
properties is expected to continue.  Spreads are
currently reasonable, and agency lending
remains available competitively.

Land Description and Analysis  32
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Property Analysis
Land Description and Analysis
Land Description
Land Area 0.52 acres; 22,651 SF
Source of Land Area Public Records
Primary Street Frontage Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Shape Irregular
Corner No
Topography Generally level and at street grade
Drainage No problems reported or observed
Environmental Hazards None reported or observed
Ground Stability No problems reported or observed
Flood Area Panel Number 06061C‐0938H
Date November 2, 2018
Zone X
Description Outside of 500‐year floodplain
Insurance Required? No
Zoning; Other Regulations
Zoning Jurisdiction City of Roseville Planning Department Zoning Designation P/QP
Description Public / Quasi ‐Public District
Legally Conforming? Appears to be legally conforming
Zoning Change Likely? No
Permitted Uses The public/quasi ‐public district is applied to land intended for education, religious assembly, governmental offices, municipal corporation yards, water treatment plants, power generating facilities (including privately owned facilities ), and other publicly‐owned facilities.

Other Land Use Regulations None noted
Utilities
Service Provider
Water City of Roseville
Sewer City of Roseville
Electricity Roseville Electric
Natural Gas PG&E
Local Phone Various
The subject is currently zoned P/QP, Public/Quasi‐ Public District, and is planned for a public use as a pumping station. As previously noted, this report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multifamily residential development. It is a hypothetical Land Description and Analysis  33
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
condition of this report that the subject is zoned R3/SA‐NR, similar to adjacent development. As of the date of value, the property is gently sloping, and all offsite improvements are in place. We are not experts in the interpretation of zoning ordinances. An appropriately qualified land use attorney should be engaged if a determination of compliance with zoning is required.

The permitted uses for land within the R‐3, Attached Housing District, includes multiple‐family housing. Specifically, the types of land use intended for the R‐3 zoning district include apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and similar and related compatible uses.

Potential Development Density
Based on the maximum density of 19.7 units per acre under the R‐3 zoning, the subject site could be developed with 10 residential units. This density is similar to that of surrounding developments.

Easements, Encroachments and Restrictions
We were not provided a current title report to review. We are not aware of any easements, encroachments, or restrictions that would adversely affect value. Our valuation assumes no adverse impacts from easements, encroachments, or restrictions, and further assumes that the subject has clear and marketable title.

Seismic Hazards
According to the Seismic Safety Commission, the subject property is located within Zone 3, which is considered to be the lowest risk zone in California. There are only two zones in California: Zone 4, which is assigned to areas near major faults; and Zone 3, which is assigned to all other areas of more moderate seismic activity. In addition, the subject is not located in a Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly referred to as an Alquist‐Priolo Special Study Zone), as defined by Special Publication 42 (revised January 1994) of the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.

Conclusion of Land Analysis
Overall, the physical characteristics of the site and the availability of utilities result in functional utility suitable for a variety of uses including those permitted by zoning. We are not aware of any other particular restrictions on development.

Land Description and Analysis  34
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Looking southeast across the subject property  Looking south across the subject property Looking west along Pleasant Grove Boulevard  Looking east along Pleasant Grove Boulevard Land Description and Analysis  35
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Parcel Map
*Boundaries are approximate

Land Description and Analysis  36
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Site Plan
Real Estate Taxes  37
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Real Estate Taxes
The property tax system in California was amended in 1978 by Article XIII to the State Constitution, commonly referred to as Proposition 13. It provides for a limitation on property taxes and for a procedure to establish the current taxable value of real property by reference to a base year value, which is then modified annually to reflect inflation (if any). Annual increases cannot exceed 2% per year.

The base year was set at 1975‐76 or any year thereafter in which the property is substantially improved or changes ownership. When either of these two conditions occurs, the property is to be re‐ appraised at market value, which becomes the new base year assessed value. Proposition 13 also limits the maximum tax rate to 1% of the value of the property, exclusive of bonds and direct charges.

Bonded indebtedness approved prior to 1978, and any bonds subsequently approved by a two‐thirds vote of the district in which the property is located, can be added to the 1% tax rate.

The subject property is not currently a legal parcel, and tax information is not available for the larger parcel. In examining property tax records for an adjacent property (APN:017‐162‐087), the subject is located in a tax rate area with an ad valorem rate of 1.134741%. Further, the adjacent property similar to other surrounding projects is encumbered by direct charges, one of which represents bond debt for City of Roseville Woodcreek W CFD #1, which expires in the year 2030. Based on the current annual payment of the adjacent property and remaining term, and using a discount rate of 4.5%, the present value of bond debt is estimated at $0.86 per square feet of land area. Applying this to the subject land area the estimated present value of the bond debt is $19,544.

Highest and Best Use  38
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Highest and Best Use
Process
Before a property can be valued, an opinion of highest and best use must be developed for the subject site, both as vacant, and as improved. By definition, the highest and best use must be:
 Physically possible.
 Legally permissible under the zoning regulations and other restrictions that apply to the site.  Financially feasible.
 Maximally productive, i.e., capable of producing the highest value from among the permissible, possible, and financially feasible uses.

As Vacant
Legally Permissible
The subject is currently zoned P/QP and designated for a public use. As previously noted, this report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multifamily residential development. The highest economic use of the site is based on R‐3 zoning, Attached Housing District, similar to the adjacent parcels. Permitted uses within the R‐3 zoning includes multiple‐family housing. Under the R‐3 zoning, the maximum allowable density of 19.7 units per acre, the subject site could be developed with 10 residential units. To our knowledge, there are no legal restrictions such as easements or deed restrictions that would effectively limit the use of the property. Based upon a hypothetical condition, the subject is zoned for multifamily development.

Given prevailing land use patterns in the area, only multifamily residential use is given further consideration in determining highest and best use of the site, as though vacant.

Physically Possible
The physical characteristics of a site that affect its possible use(s) include, but are not limited to, location, street frontage, visibility, access, size, shape, topography, availability of utilities, off‐site improvements, easements and soil and subsoil conditions. The physical characteristics are examined to see if they are suited for the legally permissible use.

Locational considerations include the compatibility and position of the subject property with respect to surrounding uses. Based on our physical inspection of the subject property, we know of no reason why the property would not support development. The size, shape and topography of the subject property appear adequate for development, similar to other projects currently developing in the immediate area.

The subject is not located within a floodplain. In addition, the property is not located within a Fault‐ Rupture Hazard Zone. All utility services are available to the parcels, and evidence of development in the immediate area provides additional support for the possibility of development.

Based on the physical characteristics of the subject property, multifamily residential development is considered physically possible and most appropriate.

Highest and Best Use  39
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Financially Feasible
Financial feasibility depends on supply and demand influences. With respect to financial feasibility of multifamily residential development, as shown in the Multifamily Market Overview, vacancy rates for apartment properties in the region have been stable and market rents have been on the rise. Based upon current market supply and demand factors for apartment properties in the subject’s area, the outlook is optimistic. Additionally, the subject is located in proximity to several office parks, schools, major thoroughfares, and recreational parks making it a convenient location. Multifamily residential development is considered financially feasible. While the parcel adjacent to the subject is vacant because owned by a company that specializes in senior care and services, there are several market projects in the surrounding area. Note that market participants are cautious at this time due to the COVID‐19 crisis. If market conditions decline and market vacancy increases substantially, new multifamily development would most likely no longer be feasible.

Maximally Productive
Legal, physical and market conditions have been analyzed to evaluate the highest and best use of the subject property as vacant. The analysis is presented to evaluate the type of use(s) that will generate the greatest level of future benefits possible to the property. Based on the factors previously discussed, the maximally productive use of the subject (as vacant) is for near term multifamily residential development that would maximize the density allowed under the R‐3 zone.

Conclusion
Multifamily residential use is the only use that meets the four tests of highest and best use. Therefore, it is concluded to be the highest and best use of the subject property as if vacant.

Most Probable Buyer
Given the subject’s specific characteristics, the most probable buyer of the subject property would be a developer seeking to develop the property with a multifamily property that would maximize the density allowed under the R‐3 zone and lease it to stabilized occupancy.

Valuation Methodology  40
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Valuation
Valuation Methodology
Appraisers usually consider three approaches to estimating the market value of real property. These are the cost approach, sales comparison approach and the income capitalization approach.

The cost approach assumes that the informed purchaser would pay no more than the cost of producing a substitute property with the same utility. This approach is particularly applicable when the improvements being appraised are relatively new and represent the highest and best use of the land or when the property has unique or specialized improvements for which there is little or no sales data from comparable properties.

The sales comparison approach assumes that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring another existing property with the same utility. This approach is especially appropriate when an active market provides sufficient reliable data. The sales comparison approach is less reliable in an inactive market or when estimating the value of properties for which no directly comparable sales data is available. The sales comparison approach is often relied upon for owner‐user properties.

The income capitalization approach reflects the market’s perception of a relationship between a property’s potential income and its market value. This approach converts the anticipated net income from ownership of a property into a value indication through capitalization. The primary methods are direct capitalization and discounted cash flow analysis, with one or both methods applied, as appropriate. This approach is widely used in appraising income‐producing properties.

Reconciliation of the various indications into a conclusion of value is based on an evaluation of the quantity and quality of available data in each approach and the applicability of each approach to the property type.

The methodology employed in this assignment is summarized as follows:

Approaches to Value
Approach Applicability to Subject Use in Assignment
Cost Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized
Sales Comparison Approach Applicable Utilized
Income Capi talization Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach  41
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Sales Comparison Approach
To develop an opinion of the subject’s land value, as if vacant and available to be developed to its highest and best use, we utilize the sales comparison approach. This approach develops an indication of value by researching, verifying, and analyzing sales of similar properties.

Our sales research focused on transactions within the following parameters:
 Location: Roseville and surrounding areas
 Size: 0.25 to 2 acres
 Use: Multifamily use
 Transaction Date: 2018 or later
For this analysis, we use price per square foot as the appropriate unit of comparison because market participants typically compare sale prices and property values on this basis. The most relevant sales are summarized in the following table.

Sales Comparison Approach  42
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Summary of Comparable Land Sales
No. Name/Address
Sale
Date;
Status
Effective Sale
Price
SF;
Acres Zoning
$/SF
Land $/Acre
1 304 Washington Blvd Mar‐19 $845,433 34,848 $24.26 $1,056,791 Roseville Closed 0.80
Placer County
CA
Tax ID: 011‐145‐005, 011‐146‐018, ‐019
2 Grove Street Feb‐19 $254,900 52,272 $4.88 $212,416
Grove St.  Closed 1.20
Rocklin
Placer County
CA
Tax ID: 045‐090‐062‐000
3 Residences at West Oaks Jan‐19 $438,658 47,916 $9.15 $398,780 W. Oaks Blvd.  Closed 1.10
Rocklin
Placer County
CA
Tax ID: 365‐020‐030
4 S Whitney Boulevard Apr‐20 $698,739 71,003 $9.84 $428,674 S. Whitney Blvd.  Listing 1.63
Rocklin
Placer County
CA
Tax ID: 016‐240‐039‐000
Subject 22,651
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard 0.52
Roseville, CA
Comments: This comparable represents the sale of 3 non‐contiguous parcels located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Washington Boulevard in Old Roseville. It appears the City of Roseville financed the transaction; however, the terms are unknown. The property is currently being developed as Main Street Plaza apartments, which will consist of of a 44‐unit mixed‐use affordable housing complex with 3,000 square feet of community‐integrated commercial space, a 21‐unit affordable housing complex and a public pedestrian paseo.

Comments: This is a sale of a vacant residential lot with potential to build five units. There is a utility pole and easement at the street entrance. The site is relatively level with all off site improvements in place Comments: This is a closed sale of multifamily land that was previously planned to be constructed with a fire station. The city decided to sell the property after another fire station was constructed nearby. As a condition of the sale, the property had to be rezoned to R‐3 prior to the close of escrow. The property was originally listed in 2014.

Comments: This is a current listing of multifamily land with entitlements to build 20 units. The property is relatively level and has all of the off site improvements in place.

Public / Quasi‐
Public District
Multi family
Planned
Development ‐
Residential
Planned
Development ‐
Residential
Old Town
Historic
District, Special
Area,
Downtown
Sales Comparison Approach  43
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Comparable Land Sales Map
Sales Comparison Approach  44
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Sale 1
304 Washington Blvd
Sale 2
Grove Street
Sale 3
Residences at West Oaks
Sale 4
S Whitney Boulevard
Sales Comparison Approach  45
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Analysis and Adjustment of Sales
The sales are compared to the subject and adjusted to account for material differences that affect value. The adjustment process is typically applied through either quantitative or qualitative analysis, or a combination of the two. Quantitative adjustments are often developed as dollar or percentage amounts and are most credible when there is sufficient data to perform a paired sales analysis.

While we present percentage adjustments in the adjustment grid that follows, they are based on qualitative judgment rather than empirical research as there is not sufficient data to develop a sound quantitative estimate. Although the adjustments appear to be mathematically precise, they are merely intended to illustrate the appraisers’ thought process. Except for market conditions, our adjustments are based on a scale, with a minor adjustment in the range of 1‐5% and a substantial adjustment considered to be 20% or greater.

Our rating of each comparable sale in relation to the subject is the basis for the adjustments. If the comparable is superior to the subject, its sale price is adjusted downward to reflect the subject’s relative attributes; if the comparable is inferior, its price is adjusted upward.

Adjustments are considered for the following factors, in the sequence shown below.

Adjustment Factor  Accounts For  Comments
Effective Sale Price  Atypical economics of a transaction, such as demolition cost or
expenditures by buyer at time of
purchase.

The subject is encumbered by
bonds. The adjustments are
described further in this section.

Real Property Rights  Fee simple, leased fee, leasehold, partial interest, etc.

The comparables all represent fee
simple transactions. Consequently,
no adjustments are required for
property rights conveyed.

Financing Terms  Seller financing, or assumption of
existing financing, at non‐market
terms.

Sale 1 is a seller financed
transaction and while the terms of
the financing are unknown it is
expected to be superior compared
to traditional financing; therefore, it
is adjusted downward. All of the
remaining comparables are cash to
seller transactions and do not
require an adjustment.

Conditions of Sale  Extraordinary motivation of buyer
or seller, assemblage, forced sale.

Sale 4 is current listing as opposed
to a closed sale and is adjusted
downward for typical buyer/seller
negotiations.

Sales Comparison Approach  46
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Adjustment Factor  Accounts For  Comments
Market Conditions  Changes in the economic
environment over time that affect
the appreciation and depreciation
of real estate.

Due to current market uncertainty
with the COVID‐19 pandemic, we
have not adjusted any comparables
transferring in 2019 for market
conditions. All of the comparables
transferred in 2019; therefore, no
adjustments are required for
market conditions.

Location  Market or submarket area
influences on sale price;
surrounding land use influences.

The subject is located in the
western portion of Roseville. Sales 2
and 4 are located in an inferior area
of Rocklin and receive an upward
adjustment. Similar to Sales 2 and 4,
Sale 1 is located in an inferior area
of Roseville and receives an upward
adjustment.

Access/Exposure  Convenience to transportation
facilities; ease of site access;
visibility; traffic counts.

No adjustments required.

Size  Inverse relationship that often
exists between parcel size and unit
value.

Sales 2 through 4 are larger than the
subject and receive an upward
adjustment.

Shape and
Topography
Primary physical factors that affect
the utility of a site for its highest
and best use.

There is a utility pole and easement
at the street entrance of Sale 2;
therefore, it requires an upward
adjustment.

Zoning  Government regulations that affect
the types and intensities of uses
allowable on a site.

Under the subject’s R‐3 zoning, the
maximum density is 19.7 units per
acre. Sale 1 has a higher density
than the subject due to its allowable
building height and density bonus
received from low income housing
requirements; therefore, it receives
a downward adjustment. Sales 2
through 4 have a lower allowable
density compared to the subject
and are adjusted upward.

Entitlements  The specific level of governmental
approvals attained pertaining to
development of a site.

Sale 1 is entitled to be developed
with a 44‐unit mixed‐use affordable
housing complex with a 3,000
square foot community‐integrated
Sales Comparison Approach  47
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Adjustment Factor  Accounts For  Comments
commercial space along with a 21‐
unit affordable housing complex
and a public pedestrian paseo. The
entitlements for Sale 1 are superior
to the subject and warrant a
downward adjustment. Sale 4 also
has entitlements in place for 20
multifamily units and is adjusted
downward. No further adjustments
are required for entitlements.

Off‐Site
Improvements
Gutters; streets; sidewalks;
streetlights; public utilities etc.

No adjustments required.

Present Value of Bonds
Bond debt can have a direct impact on the amount for which a property will sell, particularly when the bond debt is significant. The subject is encumbered by bonds. In an effort to account for the difference in bond indebtedness, we have established a present value amount for the bond encumbrance based on the annual assessment associated with the subject. The present value amount is based on the annual assessment payment, a discount rate of 4.5% and the remaining term from the date of value.

None of the comparables are encumbered by bond debt. The comparables are adjusted to the subject on a dollar‐for‐dollar basis. The calculation of the bond adjustment is shown below.

The following table summarizes the adjustments we make to each sale.

Bond Calculations
Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4
Comparable Bonds PSF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Subjects Bonds PSF $0.86 $0.86 $0.86 $0.86
Difference ‐$0.86 ‐$0.86 ‐$0.86 ‐$0.86
Comparable Land Area 34,848 52,272 47,916 71,003
Adjustment ‐$30,067 ‐$45,100 ‐$41,342 ‐$61,261
Sales Comparison Approach  48
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Land Sales Adjustment Grid
Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 Address 1701 Pleasant
Grove Blvd.
304 Washington
Blvd.

Grove St.  W. Oaks Blvd.  S. Whitney Blvd.

Ci ty Roseville Roseville Rocklin Rocklin Rocklin
County Placer Placer Placer Placer Placer
Sale Date Mar‐19 Feb‐19 Jan‐19 Apr‐20
Sale Status Closed Closed Closed Listing
Sale Price $875,500 $300,000 $480,000 $760,000
Price Adjustment ‐$30,067 ‐$45,100 ‐$41,342 ‐$61,261
Description of Adjustment Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds
Effective Sale Price $845,433 $254,900 $438,658 $698,739 Square Feet 22,651 34,848 52,272 47,916 71,003
Acres 0.52 0.80 1.20 1.10 1.63
Zoning Code P/QP HD/SA‐DT PD ‐ R 4.5 R‐3 PD‐R
Zoning Description Public / Quasi‐
Public District
Old Town Historic
District, Special
Area, Downtown
Planned
Development ‐
Residential
Multi family Planned
Development ‐
Residential
$24.26 $4.88 $9.15 $9.84
Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple
––––
Seller financing Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller ‐20% – – –
Market Market Market Listing
– – – ‐5%
Market Conditions 4/17/2020 Mar‐19 Feb‐19 Jan‐19 Apr‐20 Annual % Adjustment – – – –
$19.41 $4.88 $9.15 $9.35
5% 5% – 5%
––––
– 5% 5% 10%
– 5% – –
‐10% 20% 5% 5%
‐30% – – ‐10%
––––
Net $ Adjustment ‐$6.79 $1.71 $0.92 $0.93
Net % Adjustment ‐35% 35% 10% 10%
Final Adjusted Price $12.62 $6.58 $10.07 $10.28
Overall Adjustment ‐48% 35% 10% 5%
Average
Indicated Value
Location
Shape and Topography
Off‐Site Improvements
Range of Adjusted Prices
Access/Exposure
Size
Price per Square Foot
Property Rights
Financing Terms
Conditions of Sale
Cumulative Adjusted Price
% Adjustment
% Adjustment
% Adjustment
Zoning
Entitlements
$6.58 ‐ $12.62
$9.89
$10.00
Sales Comparison Approach  49
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Land Value Conclusion
Prior to adjustment, the sales reflect a range of $4.88 ‐ $24.26 per square foot. After adjustment, the range is narrowed to $6.58 ‐ $12.62 per square foot, with an average of $9.89 per square foot. Sale 4 receives limited weight because it is an active listing as opposed to a closed sale. Sale 1 receives guarded reliance because it is a seller financed transaction with entitlements in place. Most emphasis is given to Sale 3 because it required the least amount of gross adjustments. With most emphasis placed on Sale 3, we arrive at the following estimate of market value for the subject property, based on a hypothetical condition, via the sales comparison approach:

Land Value Conclusion
Indicated Value per Square Foot $10.00
Subject Square Feet 22,651
Indicated Value $226,512
Rounded $225,000
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  50
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value
As discussed previously, we use only the sales comparison approach in developing an opinion of value for the subject. The cost and income approaches are not applicable, and are not used.

Based on the preceding valuation analysis and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our value opinion follows:

Value Conclusion
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Market Value Fee Simple April 17, 2020 $225,000
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. Implict in the hypothetical condition is the premise that the subject property would be taxed as a vacant parcel zoned for multi family use. The Placer County Assessors Office indicates the subject is currently tax exempt. In this valuation, we estimated property taxes, including ad valorem tax rate and special taxes based on an adjacent parcel (APN: 017‐162‐087). It is assumed the subject property would be taxed similarly if zoned for multi family development.

1. This report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multifamily residential development. Consistent with the highest and best economic use, had the subject property not been previously designated for use as a pumping station, the subject would likely have been zoned for multifamily use, as of the date of value. Therefore, the value estimated herein is subject to a hypothetical condi tion. It is a hypothetical condition of this report that the subject has been zoned for multifamily use, consistent with the zoning adjacent to the subject.

2. The appraised property is current a portion of a larger parcel and is not i tsel f a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  51
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

Exposure Time
Exposure time is the period a property interest would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal. In attempting to estimate a reasonable exposure time for the subject property, we looked at both the historical exposure times of a number of sales, as well as current and past economic conditions. Based on a survey of market participants, a transfer of multifamily land properties in the region typically occurs within 6‐9 months of exposure. It is estimated the exposure time for the subject property, if appropriately priced, would have been within 6‐9 months of initial exposure.

Marketing Period
Marketing time is an estimate of the time to sell a property interest in real estate at the estimated market value during the period immediately after the effective date of value. A reasonable marketing time is estimated by comparing the recent exposure time of similar properties, and then taking into consideration current and future economic conditions and how they may impact marketing of the subject property. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and economic uncertainty we estimate the marketing period would be longer at 12 months.

Certification  52
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Certification
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three‐year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as well as applicable state appraisal regulations.

9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

11. Blake Fassler made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, has personally inspected the subject.

12. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person(s) signing this certification.

13. We have experience in appraising properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP.

14. As of the date of this report, Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

Certification  53
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard

15. As of the date of this report, Blake Fassler, has completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirements for Candidates/Practicing Affiliates of the Appraisal Institute.

Blake Fassler
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3007274
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG013567
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  54
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are limited by the following standard assumptions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. The title is marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, encroachments, easements and restrictions. The property is under responsible ownership and competent management and is available for its highest and best use.

2. There are no existing judgments or pending or threatened litigation that could affect the value of the property.

3. There are no hidden or undisclosed conditions of the land or of the improvements that would render the property more or less valuable. Furthermore, there is no asbestos in the property.

4. The revenue stamps placed on any deed referenced herein to indicate the sale price are in correct relation to the actual dollar amount of the transaction.

5. The property is in compliance with all applicable building, environmental, zoning, and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.

6. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.

This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. An appraisal is inherently subjective and represents our opinion as to the value of the property appraised.

2. The conclusions stated in our appraisal apply only as of the effective date of the appraisal, and no representation is made as to the effect of subsequent events.

3. No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated.

4. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal, and we reserve the right to revise or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies. If any environmental impact statement is required by law, the appraisal assumes that such statement will be favorable and will be approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies.

5. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, we are not required to give testimony, respond to any subpoena or attend any court, governmental or other hearing with reference to the property without compensation relative to such additional employment.

6. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or survey of the property included in this report is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered to be scaled accurately for size. The appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  55
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
covers the property as described in this report, and the areas and dimensions set forth are assumed to be correct.

7. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in our appraisal.

8. We accept no responsibility for considerations requiring expertise in other fields. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, legal descriptions and other legal matters such as legal title, geologic considerations such as soils and seismic stability; and civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and other engineering and environmental matters. Such considerations may also include determinations of compliance with zoning and other federal, state, and local laws, regulations and codes.

9. The distribution of the total valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. The appraisal report shall be considered only in its entirety. No part of the appraisal report shall be utilized separately or out of context.

10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute) shall be disseminated through advertising media, public relations media, news media or any other means of communication (including without limitation prospectuses, private offering memoranda and other offering material provided to prospective investors) without the prior written consent of the persons signing the report.

11. Information, estimates and opinions contained in the report and obtained from third‐party sources are assumed to be reliable and have not been independently verified.

12. Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute predictions of future operating results.

13. If the property is subject to one or more leases, any estimate of residual value contained in the appraisal may be particularly affected by significant changes in the condition of the economy, of the real estate industry, or of the appraised property at the time these leases expire or otherwise terminate.

14. Unless otherwise stated in the report, no consideration has been given to personal property located on the premises or to the cost of moving or relocating such personal property; only the real property has been considered.

15. The current purchasing power of the dollar is the basis for the values stated in the appraisal; we have assumed that no extreme fluctuations in economic cycles will occur.

16. The values found herein are subject to these and to any other assumptions or conditions set forth in the body of this report but which may have been omitted from this list of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.

17. The analyses contained in the report necessarily incorporate numerous estimates and assumptions regarding property performance, general and local business and economic Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  56
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters. Some estimates or assumptions, however, inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analysis will vary from our estimates, and the variations may be material.

18. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific survey or analysis of the property to determine whether the physical aspects of the improvements meet the ADA accessibility guidelines. We claim no expertise in ADA issues, and render no opinion regarding compliance of the subject with ADA regulations.

Inasmuch as compliance matches each owner’s financial ability with the cost to cure the non‐ conforming physical characteristics of a property, a specific study of both the owner’s financial ability and the cost to cure any deficiencies would be needed for the Department of Justice to determine compliance.

19. The appraisal report is prepared for the exclusive benefit of you, your subsidiaries and/or affiliates. It may not be used or relied upon by any other party. All parties who use or rely upon any information in the report without our written consent do so at their own risk.

20. No studies have been provided to us indicating the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the subject property or in the improvements, and our valuation is predicated upon the assumption that the subject property is free and clear of any environment hazards including, without limitation, hazardous wastes, toxic substances and mold. No representations or warranties are made regarding the environmental condition of the subject property. IRR ‐ Sacramento, Integra Realty Resources, Inc., and their respective officers, owners, managers, directors, agents, subcontractors or employees (the “Integra Parties”), shall not be responsible for any such environmental conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.

Because we are not experts in the field of environmental conditions, the appraisal report cannot be considered as an environmental assessment of the subject property.

21. The persons signing the report may have reviewed available flood maps and may have noted in the appraisal report whether the subject property is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. However, we are not qualified to detect such areas and therefore do not guarantee such determinations. The presence of flood plain areas and/or wetlands may affect the value of the property, and the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that wetlands are non‐existent or minimal.

22. We are not a building or environmental inspector. The Integra Parties do not guarantee that the subject property is free of defects or environmental problems. Mold may be present in the subject property and a professional inspection is recommended.

23. The appraisal report and value conclusions for an appraisal assume the satisfactory completion of construction, repairs or alterations in a workmanlike manner.

24. IRR ‐ Sacramento is an independently owned and operated company. The parties hereto agree that Integra shall not be liable for any claim arising out of or relating to any appraisal report or any information or opinions contained therein as such appraisal report is the sole and exclusive responsibility of IRR ‐ Sacramento. In addition, it is expressly agreed that in any Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  57
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
action which may be brought against the Integra Parties arising out of, relating to, or in any way pertaining to the engagement letter, the appraisal reports or any related work product, the Integra Parties shall not be responsible or liable for any incidental or consequential damages or losses, unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct. It is further expressly agreed that the collective liability of the Integra Parties in any such action shall not exceed the fees paid for the preparation of the assignment (unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct). It is expressly agreed that the fees charged herein are in reliance upon the foregoing limitations of liability.

25. IRR ‐ Sacramento is an independently owned and operated company, which has prepared the appraisal for the specific intended use stated elsewhere in the report. The use of the appraisal report by anyone other than the Client is prohibited except as otherwise provided.

Accordingly, the appraisal report is addressed to and shall be solely for the Client’s use and benefit unless we provide our prior written consent. We expressly reserve the unrestricted right to withhold our consent to your disclosure of the appraisal report or any other work product related to the engagement (or any part thereof including, without limitation, conclusions of value and our identity), to any third parties. Stated again for clarification, unless our prior written consent is obtained, no third party may rely on the appraisal report (even if their reliance was foreseeable).

26. The conclusions of this report are estimates based on known current trends and reasonably foreseeable future occurrences. These estimates are based partly on property information, data obtained in public records, interviews, existing trends, buyer‐seller decision criteria in the current market, and research conducted by third parties, and such data are not always completely reliable. The Integra Parties are not responsible for these and other future occurrences that could not have reasonably been foreseen on the effective date of this assignment. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance. While we are of the opinion that our findings are reasonable based on current market conditions, we do not represent that these estimates will actually be achieved, as they are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. Moreover, we assume competent and effective management and marketing for the duration of the projected holding period of this property.

27. All prospective value opinions presented in this report are estimates and forecasts which are prospective in nature and are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. In addition to the contingencies noted in the preceding paragraph, several events may occur that could substantially alter the outcome of our estimates such as, but not limited to changes in the economy, interest rates, and capitalization rates, behavior of consumers, investors and lenders, fire and other physical destruction, changes in title or conveyances of easements and deed restrictions, etc. It is assumed that conditions reasonably foreseeable at the present time are consistent or similar with the future.

28. The appraisal is also subject to the following:

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  58
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. Implict in the hypothetical condition is the premise that the subject property would be taxed as a vacant parcel zoned for multi family use. The Placer County Assessors Office indicates the subject is currently tax exempt. In this valuation, we estimated property taxes, including ad valorem tax rate and special taxes based on an adjacent parcel (APN: 017‐162‐087). It is assumed the subject property would be taxed similarly if zoned for multi family development.

1. This report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest and best economic use, which is multifamily residential development. Consistent with the highest and best economic use, had the subject property not been previously designated for use as a pumping station, the subject would likely have been zoned for multifamily use, as of the date of value. Therefore, the value estimated herein is subject to a hypothetical condi tion. It is a hypothetical condition of this report that the subject has been zoned for multifamily use, consistent with the zoning adjacent to the subject.

2. The appraised property is current a portion of a larger parcel and is not i tsel f a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

Addenda
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Addendum A
Appraiser Qualifications
Blake Fassler Sacramento
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T
F
3825 Atherton Rd
# 500
Rocklin, CA 95765
Experience
Mr. Fassler is a licensed appraiser with Integra Realty Resources, a real estate appraisal firm that engages in a wide variety of real estate valuation and consultation assignments.

He began his appraisal career in March 2017 with Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer in Rocklin, California. Currently, Mr. Fassler is obtaining experience in the valuation and analysis of various types of real estate by working on a wide variety of property typed including, but not limited to: multifamily, office, retail, industrial, vacant land, and residential subdivisions.

Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, 3007274, Expires February 2022 Education
Bachelor of Science in Management Science University of California, San Diego Appraisal Courses Completed are as follows:

Basic Appraisal Principles
Basic Appraisal Procedures
General Appraiser Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use (USPAP), Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice General Appraiser Report Writing and Case Studies
General Appraiser Site Valuation and Cost Approach
General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach
General Appraiser Income Approach Part 1
General Appraiser Income Approach Part 2
4-Hour Federal and California Statutory and Regulator Laws [email protected] - 916-505-4471

Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI San Francisco
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T 916-435-3883
F 916-435-4774
San Francisco, CA 95765
Experience
Mr. Ziegenmeyer is a Certified General real estate appraiser and holds the Appraisal Institute's MAI designation. In 1989, Mr. Ziegenmeyer began his career in real estate as a controller for a commercial and residential real estate development corporation. In 1991 he began appraising and continued to be involved in appraisal assignments covering a wide variety of properties, including office, retail, industrial, residential income and subdivisions throughout the Central Valley area of California, Northern Nevada, and within the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. Over the past several years, Mr. Ziegenmeyer has handled many of the firm’s master-planned property appraisals and has developed expertise in the valuation of Community Facilities Districts and Assessment Districts. In early 2015, Mr. Ziegenmeyer obtained the Appraisal Institute's MAI designation. Kevin is currently Senior Managing Director of the Integra-San Francisco office and Managing Director of the Integra-Sacramento office.

Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, AG013567, Expires June 2021 Education
Academic:

Bachelor of Science in Accounting, Azusa Pacific University, California Appraisal and Real Estate Courses:

Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A, B & C
Basic Valuation Procedures
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A
Advanced Income Capitalization
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Advanced Applications
IRS Valuation Summit I & II
2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 Economic Forecast
Business Practices and Ethics
Contemporary Appraisal Issues with Small Business Administration Financing General Demonstration Appraisal Report Writing Seminar
7-Hour National USPAP Update Course
Valuation of Easements and Other Partial Interests
2009 Summer Conference
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2008 Economic Update
Valuation of Conservation Easements
Subdivision Valuation
2005 Annual Fall Conference
General Comprehensive Exam Module I, II, III & IV
Advanced Income Capitalization
Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches
2004 Central CA Market Update
Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling
Forecast 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004
Land Valuation Assignments
[email protected] - 916-435-3883 x224
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI San Francisco
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T 916-435-3883
F 916-435-4774
San Francisco, CA 95765
Education (Cont'd)
Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures
Highest & Best Use and Market Analysis
Entitlements, Land Subdivision & Valuation
Real Estate Value Cycles
El Dorado Hills Housing Symposium
Federal Land Exchanges
M & S Computer Cost-Estimating, Nonresidential
[email protected] - 916-435-3883 x224

About IRR
Integra Realty Resources, Inc. (IRR) provides world‐class commercial real estate valuation, counseling, and advisory services. Routinely ranked among leading property valuation and consulting firms, we are now the largest independent firm in our industry in the United States, with local offices coast to coast and in the Caribbean.

IRR offices are led by MAI‐designated Senior Managing Directors, industry leaders who have over 25 years, on average, of commercial real estate experience in their local markets. This experience, coupled with our understanding of how national trends affect the local markets, empowers our clients with the unique knowledge, access, and historical perspective they need to make the most informed decisions.

Many of  the nation's  top  financial institutions, developers, corporations, law  firms, and government agencies rely on our professional real estate opinions to best understand the value, use, and feasibility of real estate in their market.

Local Expertise...Nationally!
irr.com
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Addendum B
Comparable Data

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 1
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  304 Washington Blvd
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential
Address:  304 Washington Blvd.

City/State/Zip:  Roseville, CA 95678
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Historic District
IRR Event ID:    2298294
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $875,500
Effective Sale Price:   $875,500
Sale Date:   03/04/2019
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $1,094,375
$/Land SF(Gross):   $25.12
Grantor/Seller:  City of Roseville
Grantee/Buyer:  Main Street Plaza, LLC.

Assemblage:  Yes
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
Financing:  Seller financing
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  12818 & 12819
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Secondary Verific. Source:  CoStar
Improvement and Site Data
MSA:  Sacramento‐‐Roseville‐‐Arden‐
Arcade, CA
011‐145‐005,
011‐146‐018, ‐019
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:

Acres(Gross):  0.80
Land‐SF(Gross):  34,848
Shape:   Irregular
Topography:  Level
Corner Lot:  Yes
Zoning Code:   HD/SA‐DT
Zoning Desc.:  Old Town Historic District,
Special Area, Downtown
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This comparable represents the sale of 3 non‐contiguous parcels located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Washington Boulevard in Old Roseville. It appears the City of Roseville financed the transaction; however, the terms are unknown. The property is currently being developed as Main Street Plaza apartments, which will consist of of a 44‐unit mixed‐use affordable housing complex with 3,000 square feet of community‐integrated commercial space, a 21‐unit
affordable housing complex and a public pedestrian paseo. 304 Washington Blvd

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 2
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  Grove Street
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential
Address:  Grove St.

City/State/Zip:  Rocklin, CA 95677
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2445070
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $300,000
Effective Sale Price:   $300,000
Sale Date:   02/05/2019
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $250,000
$/Land SF(Gross):   $5.74
$/Unit:   $60,000 /Unit
Grantor/Seller:  Roger E & Virginia M Reis
Grantee/Buyer:  Jason Pasquetti
Assemblage:  No
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  8047
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  045‐090‐062‐000
Acres(Gross):  1.20
Land‐SF(Gross):  52,272
No. of Units (Potential):  5
Zoning Code:   PD ‐ R 4.5
Zoning Desc.:  Planned
Development ‐ Residential
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a sale of a vacant residential lot with potential to build five units. There is a utility pole and easement at the street entrance. The site is relatively level with all off site improvements in place
Grove Street

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 3
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  Residences at West Oaks
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Multifamily
Address:  W. Oaks Blvd.

City/State/Zip:  Rocklin, CA 95765
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2445051
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $480,000
Effective Sale Price:   $480,000
Sale Date:   01/17/2019
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $436,364
$/Land SF(Gross):   $10.02
$/Unit:   $28,235 /Unit
Grantor/Seller:  City of Rocklin
Grantee/Buyer:  The Residences at West Oaks
LLC
Assemblage:  No
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  4318
Verified By:  Scott Moller
Verification Date:  05/22/2017
Verification Type:  Confirmed‐Seller
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  365‐020‐030
Acres(Gross):  1.10
Land‐SF(Gross):  47,916
No. of Units (Potential):  17
Zoning Code:   R‐3
Zoning Desc.:  Multifamily
Flood Plain:   No
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This a sale multifamily land that was previous slated to be constructed with a fire station. The city decided to sell the property after another fire station was constructed nearby.

The property had to be rezoned to R‐3 prior to the transfer of the property. The property was originally listed in 2014.

Residences at West Oaks
Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 4
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  S Whitney Boulevard
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Multifamily
Address:  S. Whitney Blvd.

City/State/Zip:  Rocklin, CA 95677
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2445036
Sale Information
Listing Price:   $760,000
Effective Listing Price:   $760,000
Listing Date:   04/16/2020
Sale Status:  Listing
$/Acre(Gross):   $466,258
$/Land SF(Gross):   $10.70
$/Unit:   $38,000 /Unit
Grantor/Seller:  USA Investment Assoc Inc &
Kenyo America Inc USA
Grantee/Buyer:  Listing
Assemblage:  No
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  016‐240‐039‐000
Acres(Gross):  1.63
Land‐SF(Gross):  71,002
No. of Units (Potential):  20
Zoning Code:   PD‐R
Zoning Desc.:  Planned
Development ‐ Residential
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a current listing of multifamily land with entitlements to build 20 units. The property is relatively level and has all of the off site improvements in place.

S Whitney Boulevard
Addenda
1701 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Addendum C
Engagement Letter

Integra Realty Resources
Sacramento
Appraisal of Real Property
805 Cirby Way
Vacant Land
805 Cirby Way
Roseville, Placer County, California 95661
Prepared For:

City of Roseville
Effective Date of the Appraisal:

April 20, 2020
Report Format:

Appraisal Report – Standard Format
IRR ‐ Sacramento
File Number: 193‐2020‐0136
805 Cirby Way
Roseville, California
Integra Realty Resources  590 Menlo Drive  T 916.435.3883 Sacramento  Suite 1  F 916.435.4774
Rocklin, CA 95765  www.irr.com
April 28, 2020
Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, CA 95747
SUBJECT:  Market Value Appraisal
805 Cirby Way
Roseville, Placer County, California 95661
IRR ‐ Sacramento File No. 193‐2020‐0136
Dear Mr. Joseph:

Integra Realty Resources – Sacramento is pleased to submit the accompanying appraisal of the referenced property. The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property. As will be discussed below, the appraised property is a portion of a larger parcel and is not itself a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identified land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value. The client for the assignment is City of Roseville, and the intended use is for asset monitoring and transfer between City departments.

The subject is a portion of a parcel of vacant land and contains 0.26 acres or 11,326 square feet of land area. The property is zoned R‐1, which is a Single‐Family Residential District. As of the date of value, the property is generally level and all offsite improvements are in place.

A more detailed legal and physical description of the subject property is contained within the attached report.

The appraisal is intended to conform with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute and applicable state appraisal regulations.

To report the assignment results, we use the Appraisal Report option of Standards Rule 2‐ 2(a) of USPAP. As USPAP gives appraisers the flexibility to vary the level of information in an Appraisal Report depending on the intended use and intended users of the appraisal, we adhere to the Integra Realty Resources internal standards for an Appraisal Report – Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
April 28, 2020

Standard Format. This format summarizes the information analyzed, the appraisal methods employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

Based on the valuation analysis in the accompanying report, and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our opinion of value is as follows:

Value Conclusion
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Market Value Fee Simple April 20, 2020 $110,000
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. It is an extraordinary assumption of this report, that in spite of the subject’s narrow configuration with frontage on three public right‐of‐ways that there is sufficient set back area to permit construction of a residential dwelling. If this proves incorrect it could discernably and adversely impact the value estimate within this report.

2. The subject is a lot located adjacent to a subdivision. It is assumed utility extentions (wet and dry) for the subject property are in average condition. If, at some future date, inordinate utility extension/connection costs are necessary, this will have a detrimental impact on value. In that instance, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion of value stated herein.

1. The appraised property is currently a portion of a larger parcel and is not itsel f a legally trans ferable parcel.

Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, i f found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
April 28, 2020

in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.

Respectfully submitted,
INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES ‐ SACRAMENTO
Blake Fassler
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3007274
Telephone: 916‐505‐4471
Email: [email protected]
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG013567
Telephone: 916‐435‐3883, ext. 224
Email: [email protected]
Table of Contents
805 Cirby Way
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  1
General Information  3
Identification of Subject  3
Sale History  3
Pending Transactions  3
Purpose of the Appraisal  3
Definition of Market Value  3
Definition of Property Rights Appraised  4
Intended Use and User  4
Applicable Requirements  4
Report Format  4
Prior Services  5
Scope of Work  5
Economic Analysis  7
Area Analysis – Placer County  7
Surrounding Area Analysis  12
Residential Market Analysis  17
COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  22
Property Analysis  29
Land Description and Analysis  29
Real Estate Taxes  35
Highest and Best Use  36
Valuation  38
Valuation Methodology  38
Sales Comparison Approach  39
Analysis and Adjustment of Sales  43
Land Value Conclusion  46
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  47
Exposure Time  48
Marketing Period  48
Certification  49
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  51
Addenda
A. Appraiser Qualifications
B. Comparable Data
C. Engagement Letter
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  1
805 Cirby Way
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions
Address
Property Type
Owner of Record
Tax ID
Land Area 0.26 acres; 11,326 SF
Zoning Designation
Highest and Best Use
Exposure Time; Marketing Period 9‐12 months; 12 months
Effective Date of the Appraisal April 20, 2020
Date of the Report April 28, 2020
Property Interest Appraised
Sales Comparison Approach
Number of Sales 4
Range of Sale Dates Oct 18 to Jan 20
Range of Prices per Property (Unadjusted) $83,000 ‐ $280,000 Market Value Conclusion $110,000
The values reported above are subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions set forth in the accompanying report of which this summary is a part. No party other than City of Roseville may use or rely on the information, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report. It is assumed that the users of the report have read the entire report, including all of the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions contained therein.

R 1, Single‐Family Residential District
Residential use
Fee Simple
City of Roseville
471‐010‐007 (portion of)
805 Cirby Way
Roseville, Placer County, California  95661
Land ‐ Residential
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. It is an extraordinary assumption of this report, that in spite of the subject’s narrow configuration with frontage on three public right‐of‐ways that there is sufficient set back area to permit construction of a residential dwelling. If this proves incorrect it could discernably and adversely impact the value estimate within this report.

2. The subject is a lot located adjacent to a subdivision. It is assumed utility extentions (wet and dry) for the subject property are in average condition. If, at some future date, inordinate utility extension/connection costs are necessary, this will have a detrimental impact on value. In that instance, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion of value stated herein.

1. The appraised property is currently a portion of a larger parcel and is not itsel f a legally transferable parcel.

Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a speci fic assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, i f found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions  2
805 Cirby Way
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

General Information  3
805 Cirby Way
General Information
Identification of Subject
The subject is a portion of a parcel of vacant land and contains 0.26 acres or 11,326 square feet of land area. The property is zoned R‐1, which is a Single‐Family Residential District. As of the date of value, the property is generally level and all offsite improvements are in place. A legal description of the property was requested but not provided.

Property Identification
Address 805 Cirby Way
Roseville, Cali fornia  95661
Tax ID 471‐010‐007 (portion of)
Owner of Record City of Roseville
Sale History
To the best of our knowledge, no other sale or transfer of ownership has occurred within the past three years.

Pending Transactions
To the best of our knowledge, the property is not subject to an agreement of sale or an option to buy, nor is it listed for sale, as of the effective appraisal date.

Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property as of the effective date of the appraisal, April 20, 2020. As will be discussed below, the appraised property is a portion of a larger parcel and is not itself a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identified land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value. The date of the report is April 28, 2020. The appraisal is valid only as of the stated effective date or dates.

Definition of Market Value
Market value is defined as:
“The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
 Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
General Information  4
805 Cirby Way
 Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;
 A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;  Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
 The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.” (Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Chapter I, Part 34.42[h]; also Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, Federal Register, 75 FR 77449, December 10, 2010, page 77472) Definition of Property Rights Appraised
Fee simple estate is defined as, “Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”
Source: Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015)
Intended Use and User
The intended use of the appraisal is for asset monitoring and transfer between City departments. The client and intended user is City of Roseville. The appraisal is not intended for any other use or user. No party or parties other than City of Roseville may use or rely on the information, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report.

Applicable Requirements
This appraisal is intended to conform to the requirements of the following:
 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP);  Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute;
 Applicable state appraisal regulations.

Report Format
This report is prepared under the Appraisal Report option of Standards Rule 2‐2(a) of USPAP. As USPAP gives appraisers the flexibility to vary the level of information in an Appraisal Report depending on the intended use and intended users of the appraisal, we adhere to the Integra Realty Resources internal standards for an Appraisal Report – Standard Format. This format summarizes the information analyzed, the appraisal methods employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

General Information  5
805 Cirby Way
Prior Services
USPAP requires appraisers to disclose to the client any other services they have provided in connection with the subject property in the prior three years, including valuation, consulting, property management, brokerage, or any other services. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three‐year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

Scope of Work
To determine the appropriate scope of work for the assignment, we considered the intended use of the appraisal, the needs of the user, the complexity of the property, and other pertinent factors. Our concluded scope of work is described below.

Valuation Methodology
Appraisers usually consider the use of three approaches to value when developing a market value opinion for real property. These are the cost approach, sales comparison approach, and income capitalization approach. Use of the approaches in this assignment is summarized as follows:

Approaches to Value
Approach Applicability to Subject Use in Assignment
Cost Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized
Sales Comparison Approach Applicable Utilized
Income Capitalization Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized We use only the sales comparison approach in developing an opinion of value for the subject. This approach is applicable to the subject because there is an active market for similar properties; however, there is a scarcity of sales data that is considered similar to the subject property due to the subject’s characteristics. As will be discussed further later in this report, the subject is configured as a narrow site with frontage along three public right‐of‐ways. One of the right‐of‐ways is Cirby Way, a heavily traveled route. There are existing houses along this roadway. The subject’s site characteristics will be considered in our valuation.

The cost approach is not applicable because there are no improvements that contribute value to the property, and the income approach is not applicable because the subject is not likely to generate rental income in its current state.

Research and Analysis
The type and extent of our research and analysis is detailed in individual sections of the report. This includes the steps we took to verify comparable sales, which are disclosed in the comparable sale profile sheets in the addenda to the report. Although we make an effort to confirm the arms‐length nature of each sale with a party to the transaction, it is sometimes necessary to rely on secondary verification from sources deemed reliable.

General Information  6
805 Cirby Way
Inspection
Blake Fassler conducted an on‐site inspection of the property on April 20, 2020. Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, conducted an on‐site inspection on April 20, 2020.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

Area Analysis – Placer County  7
805 Cirby Way
Economic Analysis
Area Analysis – Placer County
Introduction
Placer County is part of the four‐county Sacramento Metropolitan Area, along with the counties of Sacramento, Yolo and El Dorado. The county is located in the north‐central part of California, approximately 420 miles north of Los Angeles, 250 miles south of Oregon, 100 miles northeast of San Francisco, 80 miles west of Lake Tahoe and 100 miles southwest of Reno. The southernmost part of Placer County consists of a valley commonly referred to as South Placer, while the remainder of the county is divided into the Gold Country, where parts of Auburn and Colfax are located, and the High Country, which encompasses Tahoe City and Kings Beach along Lake Tahoe. Placer’s largest cities are Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln. Elevations in the county range from 165 feet above sea level in Roseville to 10,000 feet above sea level in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Placer County is developed with a mix of urban and rural uses. The larger cities, namely Roseville and Rocklin, are mostly urban, while the smaller communities, such as Loomis and Newcastle, have remained rural. Auburn and Lincoln both exhibit a combination of urban and rural settings. However, in recent years the city of Lincoln has experienced dramatic growth and development and has become one of the fastest‐growing cities in California.

Population
Placer County has experienced population growth in recent years, primarily in the southern part of the county. The main origin for in‐migration to the region are the Bay Area, other parts of the Sacramento region and Southern California. The state’s population data indicate a strong pattern of movement by residents from the high‐cost, high‐density Bay Area to inland areas in Northern California.

Following is a table depicting the population change in Placer County and its component cities over the past few years.

As indicated in the previous table, Placer County has experienced a strong average rate of annual growth of 1.6% over the past five years. The cities of Rocklin, Roseville and Lincoln are the fastest Population Trends
City 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 %/Yr
Auburn               13,948 13,979 14,110 14,262 14,291 14,392 0.6% Colfax               2,027 2,026 2,048 2,068 2,071 2,073 0.5% Lincoln              45,586 46,159 46,974 47,433 47,808 48,277 1.2% Loomis               6,628 6,648 6,686 6,803 6,848 6,887 0.8% Rocklin              59,891 60,502 61,595 64,397 66,711 69,249 3.1% Roseville            127,873 129,120 132,000 134,110 136,260 139,643 1.8% Unincorporated 112,188 112,892 113,030 114,646 115,491 116,170 0.7% Total 368,141 371,326 376,443 383,719 389,480 396,691 1.6% Source: California Department of Finance
Area Analysis – Placer County  8
805 Cirby Way
growing in the region. Loomis and the unincorporated areas have had relatively little growth. Over the past decade, Placer County has been the fastest‐growing county within the four‐county Sacramento MSA (which also includes Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties). It is projected this trend will continue for the near future.

Employment & Economy
The California Employment Development Department has reported the following employment data for Placer County over the past several years.

The average annual unemployment rate in Placer County was 3.1% during 2019. The unemployment rate was 2.7% in Placer County as of December 2019. This compares to the average rates of 3.7% for California and 3.4% for the nation. Most areas within the state and nation, including Placer County, saw declining unemployment rates in 2004 through 2006, increases from 2007 to 2010, and declines during 2011‐2019.

Placer County has a diverse economy, with no one sector accounting for a majority of the employment in the region. The following chart indicates the percentage of total employment for each sector within the county.

Employment Trends
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Labor Force 175,500 176,500 179,800 181,700 185,200 186,700 Employment 164,500 167,600 171,700 174,700 179,400 180,900 Job Growth 2,200 3,100 4,100 3,000 4,700 1,500
Unemployment Rate 6.3% 5.0% 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 3.1%
Source: Cali fornia Empl oyment Development Depa rtment Area Analysis – Placer County  9
805 Cirby Way
The area’s largest employment sectors are Trade/Transportation/Utilities, which includes retail and wholesale trade (18.8% of total employment); Educational and Health Services (16.9%); and Leisure and Hospitality (14.0%).

Although many residents commute to employment centers in Sacramento, Placer County offers thousands of jobs and attracts workers from the local area as well as “reverse commuters” from Sacramento and residents of outlying areas such as Marysville/Yuba City to the north. The largest employers in the county, according to the Sacramento Business Journal, are highlighted as follows:

Household Income
Median household income represents a broad statistical measure of well‐being or standard of living in a community. The median income level divides households into two equal segments with one half of households earning less than the median and the other half earning more. The median income is considered to be a better indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates a median household income of $84,357 for Placer County in the year 2018 (most recent data available), which was higher than the state of California’s median income of $71,228.

Transportation
Interstate 80, State Highway 65 and State Highway 193 are the major routes traversing the region.

Major urban arterials in the southern part of the county include Douglas Boulevard, Sierra College Boulevard, Roseville Parkway, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Sunrise Avenue, Auburn‐Folsom Road and Foothills Boulevard.

In addition to roadways within the county limits, south Placer County enjoys proximity to many of the Sacramento region’s freeways that provide access to the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, Central and Southern California to the south, Northern California and Oregon to the north, and Nevada to the east. Sacramento International Airport is situated about 10 miles west of the county border. The county is also home to a couple of small private airports. The region has good railroad service, including the transcontinental Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak. The Capitol Corridor system Largest Employers
Employer Industry Employees
1 Kaiser Permanente Healthcare 6,015
2 Sutter Health Healthcare 5,835
3 Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows Leisure/Hospitality 2,600 4 Thunder Valley Casino Resort Leisure/Hospitality 2,500 5 Sierra Joint Community College District Education 2,149 6 PRIDE Industries Professional/Business Services 1,291 7 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. Electronics/Technology Manufacturing 1,200 8 City of Roseville Government 1,162
9 Safeway Grocery Store 1,119
10 Union Pacific Railroad Co. Inc. Railroad 990
Source: Sacramento Business Journal, The List: Employers ‐ Placer County, December 2019 Area Analysis – Placer County  10
805 Cirby Way
provides high‐speed commuter rail service from Roseville to San Jose and Placer County Transit provides seven fixed routes servicing areas from Colfax down to Watt Avenue in Sacramento.

Recreation & Community Services
Placer County has ample community services and recreational opportunities. The County, cities and various park districts operate numerous public parks, golf courses, aquatic centers, libraries and community centers. Many private golf courses are located in the region, and several ski resorts are located in the mountains. Within the county lies a portion of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, a boating, fishing, and swimming retreat.

In terms of higher education, Placer County is home to Sierra College in Rocklin, a two‐year community college offering a wide range of day and evening classes serving over 25,000 students.

Sierra College also has an extension campus located in the Vernon District in Roseville and two additional campuses – the Nevada County and Tahoe‐Truckee campuses. In 2004, William Jessup University, a private Christian college, moved from San Jose to a new facility in Rocklin. Additional university campuses within the county include Brandman University, National University and University of Phoenix, all located in Roseville.

The region offers good health services, including hospitals and medical office facilities. Two hospitals are located in Roseville – the Sutter Roseville Medical Center and Kaiser Permanente. In addition to the hospital, construction has completed for a new state‐of‐the‐art, 210,000 square foot Kaiser Permanente medical campus to replace their existing campus on Riverside Avenue. The city of Auburn is home to Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital, Sutter Medical Center‐Auburn, UC Davis Medical Center, Foundation Medical Clinic and Heritage Medical Center Complex. The city of Lincoln contains medical offices/clinics operated by Sutter, UC Davis, Kaiser and Catholic Healthcare West. In addition to these institutional health care facilities, the county is home to a large and growing number of private physicians, dentists, clinics and other medical specialists.

The city of Roseville is south Placer’s hub for fine dining and entertainment. Several upscale restaurants are situated along Eureka Road, Roseville Parkway and Galleria Boulevard. Roseville and Rocklin both offer two multi‐screen movie theatres, and Auburn has one theatre. Shopping centers are widespread, the largest of which are the Galleria at Roseville, a regional shopping mall that opened in 2000 and was expanded in 2008‐2009, and the Fountains at Roseville, an outdoor lifestyle center that opened in June 2008.

Conclusion
Placer County encompasses a diverse area, with growing cities, small towns and rural areas, and an abundance of open space. The cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln have experienced strong growth in population and development over the past several years. Placer County is one of the most affluent in the greater Sacramento region in terms of household income levels. The area has a number of positive attributes, including seismic stability, a well‐educated work force, good transportation systems, relative affordability and availability of housing compared to the Bay Area, and an excellent level of community services. The long‐term outlook for the region is very good.

Area Analysis – Placer County  11
805 Cirby Way
Area Map
Surrounding Area Analysis  12
805 Cirby Way
Surrounding Area Analysis
Location
The boundaries of a neighborhood identify the physical area that influences the value of the subject properties. These boundaries may coincide with observable changes in prevailing land use or occupant characteristics. Physical features such as the type of development, street patterns, terrain, vegetation and parcel size tend to identify neighborhoods. Roadways, waterways and changing elevations can also create neighborhood boundaries.

The subject property is located along the north line of Cirby Way, east of Marlin Drive and west of San Simeon Drive, within the city of Roseville, Placer County, California. The subject’s neighborhood is generally bounded by the Vernon Street to the west, the Sierra College Boulevard to the east, Douglas Boulevard to the north and Antelope Road to the south.

Access and Linkages
The subject property is located along the north line of Cirby Way. To the north, Douglas Boulevard provides access to Interstate 80, a major east‐west freeway that connects the Sacramento Metropolitan Area to Davis and San Francisco to the west, and Roseville and Reno to the east. The interstate also provides access to Sacramento’s Central Business District and the area’s major freeways and highways, including Interstate 5, the Capital City Freeway and State Highway 99.

Another major north‐south thoroughfare in the subject’s area is Sunrise Boulevard, which is located to the east of the subject property. This thoroughfare provides access to other areas of Roseville to the north and Fair Oaks, Rancho Cordova and Mather to the south, before terminating at Grant Line Road.

Sunrise Boulevard also provides access to U.S. Highway 50, one of the main east‐west routes in Sacramento. In an easterly direction, it provides access to the city of Folsom, various foothills communities, and the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Lake Tahoe. In a westerly direction, U.S. Highway 50 provides access to the Sacramento’s Central Business District and the area’s major freeways and highways.

Public transportation in the area is provided by the Sacramento Regional Transit District, which operates fixed bus routes and light rail. They operate 64 bus routes and 37.5 miles of light rail covering 418 square‐miles throughout Sacramento County.

Demographics
A demographic profile of the surrounding area, including population, households, and income data, is presented in the following table.

Surrounding Area Analysis  13
805 Cirby Way
Surrounding Area Demographics
2020 Estimates 1‐Mile Radius 3‐Mile Radius 5‐Mile Radius 95661 (Roseville,
CA) Placer County, CA
Population 2010 14,900 111,035 306,709 29,826 348,432
Population 2020 14,970 115,745 330,106 32,139 398,650
Population 2025 15,203 118,915 342,838 33,422 419,234
Compound % Change 2010‐2020 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4%
Compound % Change 2020‐2025 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0%
Households 2010 5,961 42,249 114,570 11,719 132,627
Households 2020 6,222 44,893 123,246 12,918 153,060
Households 2025 6,397 46,406 127,980 13,527 161,485
Compound % Change 2010‐2020 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.4%
Compound % Change 2020‐2025 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1%
Median Household Income 2020 $62,836 $72,605 $75,698 $84,342 $88,748 Average Household Size 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6
College Graduate % 25% 26% 30% 39% 38%
Median Age  42 40 39 43 43
Owner Occupied % 56% 62% 63% 60% 71%
Renter Occupied % 44% 38% 37% 40% 29%
Median Owner Occupied Housing Value $395,231 $384,828 $416,266 $547,093 $557,525 Median Year Structure Built 1977 1979 1984 1986 1994
Average Travel Time to Work in Minutes 28 28 29 27 30
Source: Environics Analytics
As shown above, the current population within a 3‐mile radius of the subject is 115,745, and the average household size is 2.6. Population in the area has grown since the 2010 census, and this trend is projected to continue over the next five years. Compared to Placer County overall, the population within a 3‐mile radius is projected to grow at a faster rate.

Median household income is $72,605, which is lower than the household income for Placer County.

Residents within a 3‐mile radius have a considerably lower level of educational attainment than those of Placer County, while median owner occupied home values are considerably lower.

Land Use
Land uses within the subject’s neighborhood primarily consist of commercial development along neighborhood thoroughfares, with residential land uses found along interior streets. The area was initially built out approximately 40‐50 years ago, and the area is characterized by smaller single‐ and multi‐tenant commercial uses. There is also a prevalence of auto‐related uses on Auburn Boulevard.

The city of Citrus Heights contributed to a revitalization effort in recent years, with significant capital contributions to public projects such as Sylvan Corners, a pedestrian‐friendly shopping center at the intersection of Old Auburn Boulevard, Auburn Boulevard and Sylvan Road.

Residential development in the subject neighborhood is extensive and consists of both single‐family‐ and multifamily‐residential properties. In the immediate area, most of the single‐family homes represent mature construction, with newer development, primarily situated west of Roseville Road.

Most of the existing residential build‐out within the subject neighborhood was generally constructed five‐ to 30‐years ago. Multifamily uses are also present, particularly along major thoroughfares.

Surrounding Area Analysis  14
805 Cirby Way
The Grand Oaks Shopping Center is located southwest of the subject along the west line of Auburn Boulevard. Tenants in the center include Dollar General, Bank of America, Mary’s Thrift Store, a beauty salon and two restaurants. Studio Movie Grill, a nationally recognized move theatre, plans to convert the former K‐Mart building at Riverside and Interstate 80 into a 1,300‐seat movie theatre. Big Lots will also occupy a 34,000 square foot space within the center. The center is currently anchored by Smart & Final Extra! and Gold’s Gym. There are two additional suites approximately 5,000 square feet within the center that have yet to be leased. It is unclear the exact date in which the center will be complete, but it is expected to be sometime in 2020.

Commercial development is heavily concentrated along major neighborhood thoroughfares including Douglas Boulevard, Auburn Boulevard, Old Auburn Road, Sunrise Boulevard and Greenback Lane. At the northwest quadrant of Auburn Boulevard and Twin Oaks Avenue/Auburn Oaks Avenue, is a commercial center identified as Auburn Oaks Plaza, which currently has many vacant suites.

Northwest of the subject along North Sunrise Avenue is a strong retail presence. This area is home to the Roseville Auto Mall, Centerpointe Marketplace, as well as several shopping centers and big‐box stores including The Home Depot and Fry’s Electronics. North of Interstate 80 is the Galleria at Roseville regional mall. Additionally, large‐scale retail projects have been developed adjacent to the Galleria, including the Creekside Town Center, Tuscany Village, The Fountains and The Ridge shopping centers. Traveling east along Douglas Boulevard (between Interstate 80 and Sierra College Boulevard) is additional retail development with multiple anchored centers.

There are several community uses in the neighborhood, such as schools, religious facilities, medical facilities, parks, and recreational and cultural facilities. There are multiple parks within the subject’s neighborhood, including Maidu Regional Park, Eastwood Park, Sierra Gardens Park and Olympus Park.

Maidu Regional Park is the largest of these and represents the area’s primary recreational facility, housing several softball fields, batting cages, a community center, a skateboard park and a basketball court. Traveling along Douglas Boulevard, the Folsom Lake Recreational Center is approximately seven miles east of the subject. Oakmont High School, Granite Bay High School and Roseville High School are the area’s primary secondary schools. Sierra Community College (main campus) is located to the north of the subject in Rocklin, and also services the area. There is a satellite campus for Sierra Community College at the northeast corner of Sunrise Avenue and Frances Drive.

Lastly, it should be noted there is new medical facility that was constructed in the Fall of 2019 by Kaiser Permanente just west of the subject. This property is intended to provide non‐emergency medical and pharmaceutical services and also consist of offices for administrative staff.

Outlook and Conclusions
In summary, the neighborhood is considered to be in a mature stage of development. The area is approximately 95% built‐out and is characterized by a mix of residential and commercial developments, along with community facilities. There is a large amount of single‐family development on interior streets with several apartment developments and small retail stores and centers along main thoroughfares. The composition of residential elements and commercial related support facilities generally provides stable conditions for the neighborhood. The neighborhood balance of uses and current activity indicate long‐term growth potential, especially considering its location near Surrounding Area Analysis  15
805 Cirby Way
several major transportation routes, though the COVID‐19 pandemic may adversely affect property values in the near‐term.

Surrounding Area Analysis  16
805 Cirby Way
Surrounding Area Map

Residential Market Analysis  17
805 Cirby Way
Residential Market Analysis
Given prevailing land use patterns and the subject’s zoning, a likely use of the property is for residential development. In the following paragraphs, we examine supply and demand indicators for residential development in the subject’s area.

Submarket Overview
The subject is located in the City of Roseville. The subject is adjacent to older home construction and is considered to have good transportation linkages. The neighborhood is characterized as a suburban area that appeals to both local workers and commuters. Based on existing surrounding homes and new projects under development, the subject characteristics best support a project designed for a combination of entry‐level and/or first‐time move‐up home buyers.

Single‐Family Building Permits
Single‐family building permits for the city of Roseville as well as Placer County totals are shown in the following table.

New Home Pricing and Sales
The Gregory Group surveys active new home projects in California and Nevada. On the following page we present a table containing indicators for active single‐family residential projects the subject’s County for the past three years. The data include both attached and detached projects, but the vast majority of units are detached homes.

Building Permits
Year City of Roseville Placer County
2007 1,050 2,188
2008 676 1,393
2009 602 1,130
2010 635 1,087
2011 411 812
2012 663 1,189
2013 535 1,268
2014 645 1,636
2015 967 1,996
2016 862 2,107
2017 1,191 2,500
2018 808 1,884
2019 998 2,035
2020 (Feb.) 156 319
Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database
Residential Market Analysis  18
805 Cirby Way
In terms of the number of home sales in Placer County, over the last 12 months, the average was 2.54 sales per month per project, which was slightly down from the average for the prior 12‐month period of 2.57 sales per month per project.

Active New Home Projects Pricing and Absorption
There are 27 active projects in the market areas of Roseville with average lot sizes 10,000 square feet or below. These projects are summarized in the tables below and on the following page, based on data from the First Quarter of 2020.

New Home Sales History
Time
Period Average price
% Change
Average Price
Average Home
Size (SF)
Average
Price/Avg
SF
% Change
Price/SF
Quarter
Sold
Number of
Projects
Sold Per Proj.

Per Month
1Q 2016 $490,226 ‐ 2,675 $183.26 ‐ 428 49 2.91
2Q 2016 $500,866 2.2% 2,700 $185.51 1.2% 462 53 2.91
3Q 2016 $512,573 2.3% 2,735 $187.41 1.0% 352 53 2.21
4Q 2016 $519,126 1.3% 2,737 $189.67 1.2% 401 55 2.43
1Q 2017 $520,325 0.2% 2,698 $192.86 1.7% 493 59 2.79
2Q 2017 $526,062 1.1% 2,688 $195.71 1.5% 700 61 3.83
3Q 2017 $513,858 ‐2.3% 2,610 $196.88 0.6% 341 55 2.07
4Q 2017 $519,636 1.1% 2,606 $199.40 1.3% 332 56 1.98
1Q 2018 $517,797  ‐0.4% 2,538 $204.02 2.3% 520 60 2.89
2Q 2018 $533,097  3.0% 2,566 $207.75 1.8% 535 57 3.13
3Q 2018 $546,323  2.5% 2,568 $212.74 2.4% 373 50 2.49
4Q 2018 $552,195  1.1% 2,570 $214.86 1.0% 248 47 1.76
1Q 2019 $558,717  1.2% 2,587 $215.97 0.5% 399 47 2.83
2Q 2019 $562,415  2.9% 2,559 $219.78 3.3% 433 55 2.62
3Q 2019 $561,823  1.7% 2,533 $221.80 3.2% 388 54 2.40
4Q 2019 $551,303  ‐1.3% 2,477 $222.57 3.1% 372 54 2.30
Residential Market Analysis  19
805 Cirby Way
Active Projects
Project Master Plan Community Developer
Average
Price
Avg.

Home
Average
Price/SF
Typical
Lot Size
Units
Planne
Units
Offered
Units
Sold
Units
Unsold
Blume Solaire Roseville Taylor Morrison Homes $483,657 2,314 $209 5,000 73 73 73 0 Cadence WestPark Roseville KB Home $472,500 2,119 $223 4,050 88 66 65 1 Catalina Fiddyment Farm Roseville Taylor Morrison Homes $487,990 2,314 $211 5,250 45 16 5 11 Corvara Fiddyment Farm Roseville Lennar Homes $534,990 2,469 $217 4,000 134 65 60 5 Eclipse Heritage Solaire Roseville Lennar Homes $584,657 2,627 $223 6,000 156 97 88 9 Farms at Riolo Mariposa No Roseville Homes by Towne $486,765 2,271 $214 7,000 107 51 34 17 Fieldstone Fiddyment Farm Roseville Richmond American Homes $477,700 2,172 $220 6,500 60 5 2 3 Larissa Heritage Solaire Roseville Lennar Homes $514,990 2,111 $244 5,000 91 91 82 9 Liberty Village No Roseville Taylor Morrison Homes $410,990 1,775 $232 2,200 53 45 32 13 Meridian Heritage Solaire Roseville Lennar Homes $435,240 1,546 $282 4,500 175 104 96 8 Monarch Fiddyment Farm Roseville Taylor Morrison Homes $520,323 2,468 $211 5,775 94 16 8 8 Monterosa Fiddyment Farm Roseville Lennar Homes $553,990 2,569 $216 5,500 68 68 64 4 Monument Village Sierra Vista Roseville JMC Homes $489,990 2,100 $233 4,500 92 68 68 0 Morgan Ranch No Roseville Homes by Towne $602,917 3,024 $199 10,000 61 36 28 8 Northwood ll Fiddyment Farm Roseville JMC Homes $445,990 1,455 $307 5,775 116 116 116 0 Palisade Village Sierra Vista Roseville JMC Homes $439,490 1,631 $269 3,600 88 42 41 1 Pinnacle Village Sierra Vista Roseville JMC Homes $612,990 2,657 $231 7,150 82 51 50 1 Ravenna No Roseville JMC Homes $503,323 1,961 $257 5,775 92 14 3 11 Summerwood Fiddyment Farm Roseville JMC Homes $497,490 1,826 $272 6,050 125 125 125 0 The Hills at Paradiso  Solaire Roseville Woodside Homes $478,990 1,971 $243 4,500 58 39 35 4 The Ridge at Paradiso Solaire Roseville Woodside Homes $515,657 2,175 $237 5,500 42 28 23 5 The Summit WestPark Roseville Meritage Homes $547,450 2,648 $207 6,600 152 100 87 13 Treo Solaire Roseville Taylor Morrison Homes $533,740 2,695 $198 6,000 72 72 72 0 Valleybrook Fiddyment Farm Roseville JMC Homes $754,990 3,572 $211 8,500 70 62 58 4 Veranda Stone Ridge Roseville Elliott Homes $414,200 1,652 $251 3,000 149 120 120 0 Wildwood Fiddyment Farm Roseville JMC Homes $602,190 2,716 $222 6,600 169 115 108 7 Woodbridge Fiddyment Farm Roseville Signature Homes $590,687 2,648 $223 5,500 116 65 62 3 Minimum $410,990  1,455 $198.05  2,200
Maximum $754,990  3,572 $306.52  10,000
Average $518,292  2,277 $231.86  5,549
Residential Market Analysis  20
805 Cirby Way
Conclusions
We have summarized some of the key points from this section as follows:
 Building permit activity for single‐family residences in Roseville reached a peak about nine years ago, then fell precipitously during the recessionary period, but has been increasing in more recent years and has recently set a new high point in building permit activity in 2017.  New home pricing in Placer County has been in a general increasing pattern over the last four years, the average price and average price per square foot per home has steadily increased and reached its highest point in the most recent quarter.
 New home pricing per square foot of living area in Roseville has been generally increasing over the last three to four years.
 There are currently 27 active new home projects in Roseville with lot sizes of 10,000 square feet and under. This is among the highest levels of active projects observed since the past expansionary period.
 Absorption rates within new home projects in Roseville have ranged from 0.7 to 6.8 sales per month over the past year, with an average of 3.2 sales per month. Note a majority of the newer projects have a lower average per month because they have recently started selling homes.

Aborption
Project  Builder
Avg. Home
Price
Avg.

Home Size
Lot Size
(SF)
4Q
2019
3Q
2019
2Q
2019
1Q
2019
12‐
Month
Avg. Per
Quarter
Avg. Per
Month
Blume Taylor Morrison Homes $483,657 2,314 5,000 9 0 14 6 29 7.3 2.4 Cadence KB Home $472,500 2,119 4,050 30 5 15 15 65 16.3 5.4 Catalina Taylor Morrison Homes $487,990 2,314 5,250 5 0 ‐ ‐ 5 2.5 0.8 Corvara Lennar Homes $534,990 2,469 4,000 16 10 14 4 44 11.0 3.7 Eclipse Heritage Lennar Homes $584,657 2,627 6,000 16 6 6 19 47 11.8 3.9 Farms at Riolo Mariposa Homes by Towne $486,765 2,271 7,000 2 4 4 4 14 3.5 1.2 Fieldstone Richmond American Homes $477,700 2,172 6,500 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2.0 0.7 Larissa Heritage Lennar Homes $514,990 2,111 5,000 9 5 14 11 39 9.8 3.3 Liberty Village Taylor Morrison Homes $410,990 1,775 2,200 25 7 0 ‐ 32 10.7 3.6 Meridian Heritage Lennar Homes $435,240 1,546 4,500 11 12 19 5 47 11.8 3.9 Monarch Taylor Morrison Homes $520,323 2,468 5,775 4 4 ‐ ‐ 8 4.0 1.3 Monterosa Lennar Homes $553,990 2,569 5,500 5 23 22 2 52 13.0 4.3 Monument Village JMC Homes $489,990 2,100 4,500 17 21 28 2 68 17.0 5.7 Morgan Ranch Homes by Towne $602,917 3,024 10,000 7 2 2 4 15 3.8 1.3 Northwood ll JMC Homes $445,990 1,455 5,775 8 6 10 25 49 12.3 4.1 Palisade Village JMC Homes $439,490 1,631 3,600 27 14 ‐ ‐ 41 20.5 6.8 Pinnacle Village JMC Homes $612,990 2,657 7,150 15 12 16 7 50 12.5 4.2 Ravenna JMC Homes $503,323 1,961 5,775 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 3.0 1.0 Summerwood JMC Homes $497,490 1,826 6,050 11 13 10 3 37 9.3 3.1 The Hills at Paradiso  Woodside Homes $478,990 1,971 4,500 14 6 8 6 34 8.5 2.8 The Ridge at Paradiso Woodside Homes $515,657 2,175 5,500 11 3 5 4 23 5.8 1.9 The Summit Meritage Homes $547,450 2,648 6,600 16 9 9 8 42 10.5 3.5 Treo Taylor Morrison Homes $533,740 2,695 6,000 2 6 1 13 22 5.5 1.8 Valleybrook JMC Homes $754,990 3,572 8,500 11 5 10 13 39 9.8 3.3 Veranda Elliott Homes $414,200 1,652 3,000 0 0 12 26 38 9.5 3.2 Wildwood JMC Homes $602,190 2,716 6,600 13 13 8 7 41 10.3 3.4 Woodbridge Signature Homes $590,687 2,648 5,500 5 2 9 8 24 6.0 2.0 Total 294 188 236 192
No. of Active Projects 27 25 22 21
Quarterly Pro‐Rata 10.9 7.5 10.7 9.1
Monthly Pro‐Rata 3.6 2.5 3.6 3.0

3.2 Average Monthly Pro‐Rata
Residential Market Analysis  21
805 Cirby Way
 Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, we heard of some markets across the nation cooling somewhat and concerns related to the potential of a recession in the next year or two. It appears the COVID‐ 19 pandemic has accelerated the timeline for recession, and it is believed to occur in the near term with many market participants uncertain about today’s market. Overall, demand for new homes in the subject’s market area remains stable, despite the concerns with COVID‐19.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  22
805 Cirby Way
COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations
The best measure of any impact on values due to COVID‐19 would be in direct transaction indicators that are objectively verified and clearly show data points, current pricing discovery, and the ability to measure movement in values from a prior baseline; and to understand direction in overall values. This would include sales transactions, leasing activity, vacancy rates and/or cap rates that have visibly moved off of early Q1 levels (baseline), or form a conclusive basis for new pricing. However, given the unique nature and recency of this event, minimal activity is evident from which to draw benchmark comparisons based on transactional data.

In the absence of transaction data, there is empirical data in the market that can be gleaned and assist in estimating the valuation metrics and assessing their reliability in estimating current value. In this initial phase of the pandemic, early emerging trends include:
 Market confidence (fundamental economic fear)
 Expectations of impaired property/operating performance  Re‐pricing risk (debt and equity)
 Liquidity duration
 Impaired market and pricing activity
All or some of the above may be shorter‐term issues, but others may linger and have a lasting impact on valuations in the commercial real estate (CRE) sector along a continuum of time.

At this juncture, the global question facing market participants is: “How long does this crisis last and how deep will its impact become?” At a minimum, Q2 economic performance will be dismal based on most economic forecasts. Shelter‐in‐Place and Stay‐at‐Home Executive Orders for most of the U.S. states now run through April 30, at a minimum.

As of April 1, market confidence was moderate (for the moment) but uncertain in its moderate conviction. Many governments are inducing incentives to support their national economies. On March 27, 2020, the U.S. Congress approved a $2 Trillion stimulus package intended to support payrolls and create economic “breathing room.” The length of the current social‐distancing measures likely impacts future operating performance.

One of the unknowns is, “How long can the world stay shut down, with everyone staying in their home?” There remains hope the onset of summer will slow the virus transmission; there is active concern for healthcare workers and their families, and concern for our own families. A psychologically important factor affecting market confidence is the shocking rate of supply disruption at all levels, particularly in medical supplies and protective equipment; all the more alarming to a U.S. population accustomed to everything on demand.

Based on discussions and interviews with a wide range of market participants, a variety of factors and concerns are prevalent in the market that will likely have a negative impact broadly on CRE values, depending on property type and region. Essential Service Providers will be less impacted (distribution COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  23
805 Cirby Way
facilities, medical facilities, grocery service) as the performance of these sectors is expected to continue.

However, the broader market will experience myriad issues based on survey respondents including:

Uncertainty
 Restricted access to capital
 Unemployment concerns (increasing to 15% in Q2)
 GDP decline (‐30% in Q2)
 Duration of crisis
Lender Concerns
 DSCR are impacted based on changes in rental revenue and collections  Loan covenants could trigger due to changes in near‐term value  Borrowers are concerned about their tenants' ability to pay rent  Borrowers are concerned about their ability to keep their loans current  Lenders are also concerned about the need for loan modifications or work outs Publicly Traded Securities
 Stock indexes are down approximately 25% to 30%
 REIT pricing down approximately 25%
 Crude oil down approximately 40%
Return Requirements
 Interest rates may stay in the 4%‐ 4.5% range, despite the Federal Reserve’s reduction efforts.

Banks have to tightly manage their capital reserves and ratios and therefore are requiring higher spreads for current risk profile
 Durability of Cash Flow forces (new) equity investors to reprice risk. Standby (available, uncommitted) equity now has to be patient until a clearer “path forward” emerges  Impact on cap rates would be upward
Each of the above observations provides empirical evidence that the market has shifted downward and real estate values will likewise be impacted, but to what degree is not certain.

Few experts or economists at this point are willing to state a threshold duration at which point everything will return to normal quickly, versus a duration of limited economic activity that spirals into worldwide recession. At the moment, the prevailing hope of the world is that science miraculously manufactures a cure, while in the meantime, all social activity ceases worldwide.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  24
805 Cirby Way
Integra Current Valuation Framework (April 1 – present) The preceding property market analysis focuses on recent historic trends before the physical and social impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic were revealed in the U.S. in early March 2020. The property market analysis was current through Q1‐2020 with trends and indications for solid growth by most all market indicators. Many current market participants believe the commercial real estate (CRE) markets will return to trend – the lingering question, “How long will it take?” remains uncertain.

What we do know with reasonable certainty:
 At a minimum, Q2 economic performance will be dismal.  Shelter‐in‐Place and Stay‐at‐Home executive orders will have a profound impact on GDP with rising unemployment damaging forward economic performance for three, if not six months at a minimum.
 The Federal Reserve’s attempt to lower nominal rates was thwarted by lenders setting floors on spreads. Congress subsequently approved a $2 Trillion stimulus package on Friday March 27, 2020. This could provide some economic relief, but businesses, owners, investors, and bankers need to support payroll retention and an aggressive program of economic goodwill throughout all sectors of the economy.

Everything forward beyond those three known factors remains subject to considerable risk/uncertainty.

The current macro‐framework to sustain through this pandemic is to take 2007 “Blend and Extend” methods, and enhance them. Be wary of repricing assets too quickly (downward), lest all asset prices collapse. A market equilibrium in transaction pricing will need to be reset over the coming 60 days, therefore do not delay in providing banking liquidity, and direct incentives to support a transaction reset. Do not backstop transaction repricing for too long because artificial pricing support could become unsustainable, prolonging economic recovery.

Our current surveys of market participants (March 11 – March 30, 2020) indicates a focus in the following areas impacting value:
 Impacts could (should) vary by property type, class, and location  Cost of capital (both debt and equity) is increasing, but at different rates for different asset classes
 Declines in property operations/forecasts (NOI) vary in duration based on property type, class; location; and tenant durability under potential recessionary pressures  Increases in cap rates (and normalized yields) will vary by property type, class and location as will the underlying assumptions on stabilized or periodic cash flow  Marketing times for most assets will increase, but the next 45 days will be uncertain on outright marketability regardless of price. This so far has not yet occurred, although deals and listings have slowed dramatically in these first few weeks. To a large extent, deal flow has COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  25
805 Cirby Way
halted based on the sheer physical constraints imposed on property showings/due diligence, etc. under current distancing restrictions.
 Market sentiment in the coming 14 ‐ 30 days regarding healthcare performance/business performance/employment security/physical security will affect market investment expectations, yields, and the temperament for risk.

Impact by Property Type, Class & Location
Below is a graph prepared by Greenstreet Advisors plotting the sensitivity (and risk) associated with various property types with the negative impact on value being greater for those assets with greater sensitivity. Those assets relating to essential business operations (grocery, medical, distribution) are less affected than for example lodging and malls where social distancing is more difficult.

Cost of Capital/Liquidity
The cost of capital, both for debt and equity, had been at near historic lows pre crisis. Borrowers had a myriad of options from a variety of capital sources. As the crisis began to unfold in early 2020, treasury rates were moving down as the Fed sought to keep the market liquid. When it became clear the global crisis had landed in the United States, the Fed moved rates to near zero. Many lending institutions instituted floors (spreads widened) because the fixed costs of doing a deal had to be covered.

As lenders are coming to grips with the severity of the economic outlook, many have pulled back from the market altogether while others reacted by raising interest rates, lowering loan to values, or a combination of both. There are clearly some lenders who are “out” while others remain in the market.

There are fewer options in the market and those options are more expensive today than 30 days ago.

The rise in cost varies notably by property type with agency lenders and HUD determined to provide liquidity to the multi‐family market while at the other end of the spectrum, financing a hotel is challenging, land financing is nonexistent. Assets focused on essential business operations (e.g., grocery or last mile industrial) remain in favor as do net leased assets with recession‐resistant business profiles.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  26
805 Cirby Way
Equity is less clear at the moment. While large pools of capital were being raised through 2019 and into Q1‐2020, the strategy has suddenly shifted. Equity is available, and deals are finalizing that were contracted pre‐COVID‐19, on the strength of the equity sponsor, but deal flow will likely pause for 15‐ 30 days as equity repricing occurs. This will coincide (hopefully) with an abatement (or clarity) in the world’s critical health status by May 1, 2020.

Declines in Property Operations/Forecasts
The lodging, retail, student housing and senior sectors are generally viewed as expecting to suffer the greatest. Once again, this varies by location and type. Restaurant retail is generally viewed as having greatest risk but is expected to rebound quickly as pent‐up demand explodes when everyone can leave their home. Grocery retail is currently performing well with big box stores setting record sales per square foot.

Radical changes in the employment picture will begin to affect the housing sector, both single‐family and apartments. Apartments will not be immune or “safe” from lost rent, varying by type and location depending on the tenant base employment and its ability to weather a 6 to 12‐month contraction.

There is an expectation in the market that, for many retail centers, tenants will not be paying rent.

Without customers, particularly in states with stay‐at‐home orders, there simply is no revenue available. Tenants and owners alike are reviewing force majeure clauses in their leases.

Rent projections are being held flat in modeling cash flows going forward with the length of time dependent on the asset type.

Depending upon whether values are based on yield capitalization (DCF) or direct capitalization, care must be given to provide “stabilized” forecasts to capitalize; and to normalize yield levels for projecting variable year yield cap.

Premiums on Capitalization Rates
While many deals have fallen out of contract, other deals are still closing. Some are closing at their pre‐crisis contract price levels while many deals are being re‐traded in the market with discounts influenced by property type, location and buyer/seller motivations.

As the transaction market solidifies, the impact on capitalization rates will become clearer. Some market participants believe the answer to market value lies in the capitalization rates while others believe rates are not moving but net operating income in the short run is being impacted. Once again, the answers vary by property type and location.

Clearly, the cost of capital (debt and equity) has increased. Valuation theory suggests via band of investment analysis that as interest rates and cash on cash equity rates increase, capitalization rates increase. A 100 basis point upward movement in interest rates for example, combined with a modest rise in equity returns, can move capitalization rates up over 100 basis points. We temper this analysis however with the understanding that it is difficult to settle on the inputs given the wide range of data in the market. In addition, care must be taken not to “double hit” the analysis by modeling COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  27
805 Cirby Way
significantly lower net income via lower performance projections and at the same time raising the return requirements.

Normalization of Yields
All yield capitalization is based on forward forecasting of property performance to generate a current cash flow, and future forecasted reversion. Therefore, the timeframe for the market to reach a point of pricing transparency to “return to par” is the critical assumption in the yield cap.

The longer or less likely the assumptions are, the higher the near‐term yields. Valuation theory and past downward economic cycles suggest a shortening of the holding period and a normalization of “overall yield” applied over the shorter holding period.

As the transaction market solidifies, the impact on investment rates and relationship of assumption risk to market risk will become clearer.

Marketing and Exposure Time
At the present time, there is consensus of declining market demand in CRE transactions, due to market conditions ensuing from COVID‐19. It is natural to assume that exposure time on properties either for sale or lease, will likely be extended. Comparing pre‐COVID‐19 exposure periods (perhaps the best) to the banking crisis of 2008/2009 (perhaps the worst) can glean some differences that could extrapolate to exposure time going forward, i.e. from peak to trough.

Sector  Months on Market
March 2008‐09
Months on Market
March 2018‐19
Change in Months  % Change Peak to
Trough
Office  29.6  14.8  14.8  100%
Retail  15  11.4  3.6  32%
Industrial  19.6  6.7  12.9  192%
Average  21.4  11.0  10.4  95%
Source: Costar – data presented in Months
Days on the market increased substantially in the last economic crisis of 2008‐2009, with an average of 21 months on market for major property classes. The trailing 12 months preceding the COVID‐19 crisis, days on the market were 11 months.

Based on this historical perspective, marketing time could potentially double from current levels. This would have to be tempered recognizing that the depth and duration of this current economic crisis is tied to a health crisis and may have a conclusion more closely tied to its resolution.

General Public Market Sentiment
General public market sentiment is a changing rollercoaster with each passing day. Right now, sentiment is cautious and trying not to overreact, but provide some relief, negotiate in good faith; try and be humane and understand the entire world is in this together. Some countries take two weeks off each year for holiday, and their entire economy doesn’t fall apart. The world is not going to take another four‐week vacation from large components of consumer‐facing and public activities.

COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuations  28
805 Cirby Way
Most humans are sequestered in their homes with limited social contact, with reasoned concerns for the health and safety of our families and friends, all the while consuming worldwide coverage and analysis of atypical death rates from an infectious virus not seen in over 100 years.

Market sentiment more than likely gets worse in the coming weeks before it gets better absent the announcement of a miracle cure / treatment during that time.

Conclusion
This heightened uncertainty forms the basis of defined risk. Considering the subject’s relative sensitivity to the COVID‐19 risks as of the effective date of the valuation, Integra rates the relative risks of the subject property as of the effective date as follows:

Risk Analysis
Property Type Sensitivity to Risk  Low – The subject is vacant residential land.

Property Location Sensitivity to Risk  Low – While still located in California, where there are more cases than a majority of the
country, Placer County has a less dense
population and has only seen a small number of
cases.

Cost of Capital Impact\Risk  Low to Moderate– Continued capital appears available, and investment in residential
properties is expected to continue. Spreads are
currently reasonable, and agency lending
remains available competitively.

Land Description and Analysis  29
805 Cirby Way
Property Analysis
Land Description and Analysis
Land Description
Land Area 0.26 acres; 11,326 SF
Source of Land Area Public Records
Primary Street Frontage Cirby Way
Secondary Street Frontage Marlin Drive
Shape Irregular
Corner Yes
Topography Generally level and at street grade
Drainage No problems reported or observed
Environmental Hazards None reported or observed
Ground Stability No problems reported or observed
Flood Area Panel Number 06061C‐1031H
Date November 2, 2018
Zone X
Description Outside of 500‐year floodplain
Insurance Required? No
Zoning; Other Regulations
Zoning Jurisdiction City of Roseville Planning Department Zoning Designation R 1
Description Single‐Family Residential District
Legally Conforming? Appears to be legally conforming
Zoning Change Likely? No
Permitted Uses The R‐1, single‐family residential district is intended for detached, single‐ family homes and similar and related uses inclusive of half‐plexes.

Site Coverage 35% for 2 story; 45% for 1 story
Minimum Front Setbacks (Feet) 20 ft for interior lots; 15 ft for corner lots; 20 ft minimum driveway depth Minimum Side Setbacks (Feet) 5 ft interior; 15 ft street side on corner Minimum Rear Setbacks (Feet) 20% of lot depth; need not exceed 20 ft; 10 ft minimum Other Land Use Regulations None noted
Utilities
Service Provider
Water Placer County Water Agency
Sewer Placer County
Electricity Roseville Electric
Natural Gas PG&E
Local Phone Various
Land Description and Analysis  30
805 Cirby Way
It appears that a small portion of the subject, northwest corner of the property, is located in the FW, floodway zone. This zone prohibits any development on that section of the property; however, it does not appear that it will have any material effect on the property. The maximum allowable density, under the R‐1 zoning, is 1.2 units per acre, the subject site could be developed with only one residential unit. It is noted that the subdivision adjacent to the east of the subject has a density of four units per acre. In its current condition the subject is non‐conforming, we presume that the subject is legally non‐conforming based on the density of the adjacent subdivision. Attempts were made to contact the City of Roseville Planning Department regarding the density, but attempts were not returned. We are not experts in the interpretation of zoning ordinances. An appropriately qualified land use attorney should be engaged if a determination of compliance with zoning is required.

Easements, Encroachments and Restrictions
We were not provided a current title report to review. We are not aware of any easements, encroachments, or restrictions that would adversely affect value. Our valuation assumes no adverse impacts from easements, encroachments, or restrictions, and further assumes that the subject has clear and marketable title.

Seismic Hazards
According to the Seismic Safety Commission, the subject property is located within Zone 3, which is considered to be the lowest risk zone in California. There are only two zones in California: Zone 4, which is assigned to areas near major faults; and Zone 3, which is assigned to all other areas of more moderate seismic activity. In addition, the subject is not located in a Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly referred to as an Alquist‐Priolo Special Study Zone), as defined by Special Publication 42 (revised January 1994) of the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.

Conclusion of Land Analysis
Overall, the physical characteristics of the site and the availability of utilities result in functional utility suitable for a variety of uses including those permitted by zoning. We are not aware of any other particular restrictions on development.

Land Description and Analysis  31
805 Cirby Way

Looking south across the subject property  Looking northeast across the subject property Looking north across the subject property  Looking southwest across the subject property Looking west along Marlin Drive  Looking east along Marlin Drive Land Description and Analysis  32
805 Cirby Way
Looking east along Cirby Way  Looking west along Cirby Way Land Description and Analysis  33
805 Cirby Way
Site Plan

Land Description and Analysis  34
805 Cirby Way
Parcel Map
*Boundaries are approximate
Real Estate Taxes  35
805 Cirby Way
Real Estate Taxes
The property tax system in California was amended in 1978 by Article XIII to the State Constitution, commonly referred to as Proposition 13. It provides for a limitation on property taxes and for a procedure to establish the current taxable value of real property by reference to a base year value, which is then modified annually to reflect inflation (if any). Annual increases cannot exceed 2% per year.

The base year was set at 1975‐76 or any year thereafter in which the property is substantially improved or changes ownership. When either of these two conditions occurs, the property is to be re‐ appraised at market value, which becomes the new base year assessed value. Proposition 13 also limits the maximum tax rate to 1% of the value of the property, exclusive of bonds and direct charges.

Bonded indebtedness approved prior to 1978, and any bonds subsequently approved by a two‐thirds vote of the district in which the property is located, can be added to the 1% tax rate.

The subject property is not currently a legal parcel, and tax information is not available for the larger parcel. The subject property has a tax exemption associated with ad valorem taxes, as the current entity occupying the property is a government entity and is tax exempt from ad valorem taxes. Note that if the tenant/user were to change to a private entity, ad valorem taxes would apply. In examining property tax records for an adjacent property, the subject is located in a tax rate area with an ad valorem rate of 1.073793%.

Highest and Best Use  36
805 Cirby Way
Highest and Best Use
Process
Before a property can be valued, an opinion of highest and best use must be developed for the subject site, both as vacant, and as improved. By definition, the highest and best use must be:
 Physically possible.
 Legally permissible under the zoning regulations and other restrictions that apply to the site.  Financially feasible.
 Maximally productive, i.e., capable of producing the highest value from among the permissible, possible, and financially feasible uses.

As Vacant
Legally Permissible
The subject is currently zoned R‐1 and designated for single family use. Under the R‐1 zoning, the maximum allowable density of 1.2 units per acre, the subject site could be developed with only one residential unit. To our knowledge, there are no legal restrictions such as easements or deed restrictions that would effectively limit the use of the property. The subject is zoned for single family residential development. Given prevailing land use patterns in the area, only single family residential use is given further consideration in determining highest and best use of the site, as though vacant.

Physically Possible
The physical characteristics of a site that affect its possible use(s) include, but are not limited to, location, street frontage, visibility, access, size, shape, topography, availability of utilities, off‐site improvements, easements and soil and subsoil conditions. The physical characteristics are examined to see if they are suited for the legally permissible use.

Locational considerations include the compatibility and position of the subject property with respect to surrounding uses. Based on our physical inspection of the subject property, we know of no reason why the property would not support development. The size, shape and topography of the subject property appear adequate for development, similar to other projects currently developing in the immediate area.

The vast majority of the subject land area is not located within a floodplain. However, the northwest corner of the subject property is located in FW, floodway, zone. This zone prohibits any development on that section of the property; however, it does not appear that it will have any material effect on the property. In addition, the property is not located within a Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zone. All utility services are available to the parcels, and evidence of development in the immediate area provides additional support for the possibility of development.

Based on the physical characteristics of the subject property, single family residential development is considered physically possible and most appropriate.

Highest and Best Use  37
805 Cirby Way
Financially Feasible
Financial feasibility depends on supply and demand influences. With respect to financial feasibility of single‐family residential development, in recent months merchant builders have acquired unimproved lots for near term construction, and there are multiple active projects in the area that demonstrate demand for new homes. In addition to bulk lot transactions, there have been a number of single remnant lot sales within the past several quarters. Finished lots are transferring for prices that exceed the sum of unimproved lots and site development costs, which reflects completion of site development is financially feasible. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and stay at home orders in place, it is deemed financially feasible to construct a new residential dwelling on the subject, after a short term (three months) interim hold.

Maximally Productive
Legal, physical and market conditions have been analyzed to evaluate the highest and best use of the subject property as vacant. The analysis is presented to evaluate the type of use(s) that will generate the greatest level of future benefits possible to the property. Based on the factors previously discussed, the maximally productive use of the subject (as vacant) is for near term single‐family residential development (within 12 months). Specifically, construction of a home consistent with the design and quality of homes in the vicinity. As cited above, a short (three months) interim hold due to COVID‐19 may be warranted.

Most Probable Buyer
Taking into account the functional utility of the site and area development trends, the probable buyer is either a speculative homebuilder or an individual home buyer.

Valuation Methodology  38
805 Cirby Way
Valuation
Valuation Methodology
Appraisers usually consider three approaches to estimating the market value of real property. These are the cost approach, sales comparison approach and the income capitalization approach.

The cost approach assumes that the informed purchaser would pay no more than the cost of producing a substitute property with the same utility. This approach is particularly applicable when the improvements being appraised are relatively new and represent the highest and best use of the land or when the property has unique or specialized improvements for which there is little or no sales data from comparable properties.

The sales comparison approach assumes that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring another existing property with the same utility. This approach is especially appropriate when an active market provides sufficient reliable data. The sales comparison approach is less reliable in an inactive market or when estimating the value of properties for which no directly comparable sales data is available. The sales comparison approach is often relied upon for owner‐user properties.

The income capitalization approach reflects the market’s perception of a relationship between a property’s potential income and its market value. This approach converts the anticipated net income from ownership of a property into a value indication through capitalization. The primary methods are direct capitalization and discounted cash flow analysis, with one or both methods applied, as appropriate. This approach is widely used in appraising income‐producing properties.

Reconciliation of the various indications into a conclusion of value is based on an evaluation of the quantity and quality of available data in each approach and the applicability of each approach to the property type.

The methodology employed in this assignment is summarized as follows:

Approaches to Value
Approach Applicability to Subject Use in Assignment
Cost Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized
Sales Comparison Approach Applicable Utilized
Income Capitalization Approach Not Applicable Not Utilized Sales Comparison Approach  39
805 Cirby Way
Sales Comparison Approach
To develop an opinion of the subject’s land value, as if vacant and available to be developed to its highest and best use, we utilize the sales comparison approach. This approach develops an indication of value by researching, verifying, and analyzing sales of similar properties.

Our sales research focused on transactions within the following parameters:
 Location: Roseville and surrounding areas
 Size: 6,000 to 50,000 square feet
 Use: Residential use
 Transaction Date: 2018 or later
For this analysis, we use price per lot as the appropriate unit of comparison because market participants typically compare sale prices and property values on this basis. In addition to analyzing closed sales, we searched for active listings of residential lot sales. However, we were unable to identify any listings in the subject’s area that were comparable and competitive with the subject.

Therefore, a listing was not included. It should; be noted that Comparable #1 represents a pending sale. As previously stated, there is a scarcity of sales data that is considered similar to the subject property due to the subject’s characteristics. Again, the subject is configured as a narrow site with frontage along three public right‐of‐ways. One of the right‐of‐ways is Cirby Way, a heavily traveled route. There are existing houses along this roadway. The subject’s site characteristics will be considered in  our valuation.

The most relevant sales are summarized in the following table.

Sales Comparison Approach  40
805 Cirby Way
Summary of Comparable Land Sales
No. Name/Address
Sale
Date;
Status Sale Price
SF;
Acres Zoning
1 4765 Racetrack Road Jan‐20 $145,000 12,188
4765 Racetrack Rd.  In‐Contract 0.28
Rocklin
Placer County
CA
2 509 Oak Ravine Court Oct‐19 $280,000 16,805
509 Oak Ravine Ct.  Closed 0.39
Roseville
Placer County
CA
3 450 Diamond Oaks Road Dec‐18 $120,000 8,337
450 Diamond Oaks Rd.  Closed 0.19
Roseville
Placer County
CA
4 506 Church Street Oct‐18 $83,000 7,427
506 Church St.  Closed 0.17
Roseville
Placer County
CA
Subject 11,326
805 Cirby Way 0.26
Roseville, CA
Residential
General
Commercial
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Single‐Family
Residential
District
Comments: This comparable represents the pending sale of the residential lot at 4765 Racetrack Road, Rocklin.

On‐site work is underway at the comparable, as well as a few adjacent lots. It appears the lot is pending while the seller completes grading on‐site, extension of wet and dry utilities and presumable offsites (Racetrack). The offsites are underimproved, just Racetrack Road (not curbs, gutters sidewalk and street lights). This particularly area is characterized with offsite only being the street.

Comments: This is a closed sale of a residential lot within the Stoneridge area of Roseville. All offsite improvements were in place and as of this report the buyer is approximately 40% complete on the new home.

This lot is located in a very desirable area of east Roseville and offers a discernably superior location when compared to the subject.

Comments: This is a sale of a residential lot with all offsite improvements in place. The property is sloped and will require grading prior to developing.

Comments: This sale represents the transfer of a 7,427 square foot parcel that had a vacant residential dwelling on it as of the date of sale (as of this report date the old house is still in place, it is at the end of its economic life).

The sites underlying zoning is for General Commercial uses. However, as cited its prior use was residential. The comparable is flanked on one side by a residential dwelling and on the other by a small commercial building.

While either use may be viable, greater profitability likely liens the way of residential use.

Sales Comparison Approach  41
805 Cirby Way
Comparable Land Sales Map
Sales Comparison Approach  42
805 Cirby Way
Sale 1
4765 Racetrack Road
Sale 2
509 Oak Ravine Court
Sale 3
450 Diamond Oaks Road
Sale 4
506 Church Street
Sales Comparison Approach  43
805 Cirby Way
Analysis and Adjustment of Sales
The comparable transactions are adjusted based on the profile of the subject property with regard to categories that affect market value. Adjustments may be categorized as either superior or inferior, with qualitative adjustments applied accordingly. If a comparable has an attribute considered superior to that of the subject, it is adjusted downward to negate the effect the item has on the price of the comparable. The opposite is true of categories considered inferior to the subject. The adjustments are made in consideration of the appraiser’s experience and knowledge and interviews with market participants. Adjustments are considered for the following factors, in the sequence shown below.

Adjustment Factor  Accounts For  Comments
Effective Sale Price  Atypical economics of a transaction, such as demolition cost or
expenditures by buyer at time of
purchase.

No adjustments required.

Real Property Rights  Fee simple, leased fee, leasehold, partial interest, etc.

All the comparables represent fee
simple estate transactions.

Therefore, adjustments for property
rights are not necessary.

Financing Terms  Seller financing, or assumption of
existing financing, at non‐market
terms.

The comparable sales were cash to
the seller transactions and do not
require adjustments.

Conditions of Sale  Extraordinary motivation of buyer
or seller, assemblage, forced sale.

It is noted that Sale 1 is a pending
transaction. Based typical
buyer/seller negotiations, this
pending transfer is adjusted
downward.

Market Conditions  Changes in the economic
environment over time that affect
the appreciation and depreciation
of real estate.

Demand for residential lots was
stable in the 12 months leading up
to the COVID‐19. Due to current
market uncertainty, we have not
adjusted any comparables
transferring in 2019 for market
conditions. Sales 3 and 4 transfer in
late 2018 and also do not require an
adjustment for market conditions.

Location  Market or submarket area
influences on sale price;
surrounding land use influences.

Sale 1 is located in a mature
neighborhood of Rocklin which is
considered to be inferior and is
adjusted upward. Sale 2 is located in
the Stoneridge area of Roseville
which is considered to be
Sales Comparison Approach  44
805 Cirby Way
significantly superior and is adjusted
downward. Sale 3 is located in a
superior area of Roseville and
requires a moderate downward
adjustment. Sale 4 is located in
Downtown Roseville adjacent to the
railroad tracks; therefore, it is
adjusted upward.

Access/Exposure  Convenience to transportation
facilities; ease of site access;
visibility; traffic counts.

No adjustments required.

Size  Inverse relationship that often
exists between parcel size and unit
value.

Sale 2 is larger than the subject and
requires a minor downward
adjustment. Sales 3 and 4 are
smaller than the subject and require
small upward adjustments.

Shape and
Topography
Primary physical factors that affect
the utility of a site for its highest
and best use.

All of the comparables offer
superior overall site utility to the
subject’s odd shape and narrow
configuration. Accordingly,
comparables 1, 2, and 4 are
adjusted downward. Sale 3 has
sloped topography that will require
grading prior to development of the
property; therefore, the slope of the
comparable creates a similar
negative impact on the comparable
as the subject’s configuration. Thus,
no net adjustment is warranted for
comparable 3.

Zoning  Government regulations that affect
the types and intensities of uses
allowable on a site.

Sale 4 is zoned general commercial
but, the property had a residence
previously built on the property.

Further, the property is surrounded
by residential development.

However, it appears that it requires
a condition use permit to construct
a residential use. Therefore, it is
adjusted upward.

Entitlements  The specific level of governmental
approvals attained pertaining to
development of a site.

No adjustments required.

Sales Comparison Approach  45
805 Cirby Way
Off Site
Improvements
Gutters; streets; sidewalks;
streetlights; public utilities
Sale 1 does not have any off site
improvements; however, they are
not required for development of the
property. Therefore, no
adjustments for off site
improvements are required.

The following table summarizes the adjustments we make to each sale.

Land Sales Adjustment Grid
Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 Address 805 Cirby Way  4765 Racetrack Rd.  509 Oak Ravine Ct.  450 Diamond Oaks Rd.
506 Church St.

Ci ty Roseville Rocklin Roseville Roseville Roseville
County Placer Placer Placer Placer Placer
Sale Date Jan‐20 Oct‐19 Dec‐18 Oct‐18
Sale Status In‐Contract Closed Closed Closed
Sale Price $145,000 $280,000 $120,000 $83,000
Square Feet 11,326 12,188 16,805 8,337 7,427
Zoning Code R 1 R‐1 R 1 R‐1 GC
Zoning Description Single‐Family
Residential
District
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Residential General
Commercial
$145,000 $280,000 $120,000 $83,000
Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple
====
Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller ====
Pending Market Market Market
‐‐ = = =
Market Conditions 4/20/2020 Jan‐20 Oct‐19 Dec‐18 Oct‐18 Adj us tment = = = =
+ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ++
====
=‐ ++
‐ ‐ =‐
===+
====
====
Overall Adjustment ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ +++
Indicated Value $110,000
Zoning
Entitlements
Access/Exposure
Size
Sale Price
Property Rights
Financing Terms
Conditions of Sale
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
Location
Shape and Topography
Off Site Improvements
Sales Comparison Approach  46
805 Cirby Way
Land Value Conclusion
The market data set consists of various sales that are considered reasonable indicators of market value for the fee simple interest of the subject property. Prior to adjustment, the sales reflect a range of $83,000 ‐ $280,000 per lot. The wide disparity in the unadjusted range is largely attributable to the size of the lot, location, and shape and topography. Based upon the analysis presented, a ranking analysis of the subject and comparable sales is presented in the table below:

Bulk Lot Ranking Summary
Property Sale Date
$/ Loaded Lot
(Unadjusted) Net Adjustment
Comparable 2 Oct‐19 $280,000 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
Comparable 1 Jan‐20 $145,000 ‐‐
Comparable 3 Dec‐18 $120,000 ‐
Subject Property ‐‐ $110,000
Comparable 4 Oct‐18 $83,000 +++
As shown, the price per lot value indicator for the subject property is estimated to be lower than Sales 1 and 2 and higher than 4. Further, it is estimated to be most similar to Sale 3. Guarded reliance is placed on Sale 4 as it was previously developed with a residence; however, it is zoned general commercial and would likely require a conditional use permit to construct a residence. Less emphasis is also placed on Sale 2 as it is located in a superior area. An estimate of market value of $110,000 is estimated for the subject property via the sales comparison approach.

Land Value Conclusion
Indicated Value $110,000
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  47
805 Cirby Way
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value
As discussed previously, we use only the sales comparison approach in developing an opinion of value for the subject. The cost and income approaches are not applicable, and are not used.

Based on the preceding valuation analysis and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our value opinion follows:

Value Conclusion
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Market Value Fee Simple April 20, 2020 $110,000
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. It is an extraordinary assumption of this report, that in spite of the subject’s narrow configuration with frontage on three public right‐of‐ways that there is sufficient set back area to permit construction of a residential dwelling. If this proves incorrect it could discernably and adversely impact the value estimate within this report.

2. The subject is a lot located adjacent to a subdivision. It is assumed utility extentions (wet and dry) for the subject property are in average condition. If, at some future date, inordinate utility extension/connection costs are necessary, this will have a detrimental impact on value. In that instance, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion of value stated herein.

1. The appraised property is currently a portion of a larger parcel and is not itsel f a legally trans ferable parcel.

Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

IMPORTANT MARKET CONDITIONS WARNING: Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐ 19)
The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19), declared an outbreak by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 and subsequently reclassified as a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, has created substantial uncertainty in the worldwide financial markets. Concerns about the ongoing spread of the COVID‐19 (Corona) Virus have resulted in cancellations of a substantial number of business meetings, conferences, and sporting and entertainment events in the coming 3‐6 months; the implementation of personal quarantine procedures; a 30‐day lock‐out for travel from most of Europe to the U.S.; and substantial reductions (and restrictions) in other travel by air, rail, bus, and ship.

Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value  48
805 Cirby Way
As of the effective date of this report, tourism, lodging, and tourist‐related food and beverage and retail sectors are experiencing negative effects due to the substantial decline in social movement and activity. A prolonged outbreak could have a significant impact on other real estate sectors, especially considering the surge in unemployment in recent weeks.

Given the degree of overall uncertainty present in the economy, forecasts and projections contained herein may change dramatically, or differently than projected under stable market conditions. Our valuation is based upon the best information as of the effective date. Please refer to the COVID‐19 Impact on Current Valuation section of the attached report.

Exposure Time
Exposure time is the period a property interest would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal. In attempting to estimate a reasonable exposure time for the subject property, we looked at both the historical exposure times of a number of sales, as well as current and past economic conditions. Based on a survey of market participants, a transfer of residential land properties in the region typically occurs within 9‐12 months of exposure. It is estimated the exposure time for the subject property, if appropriately priced, would have been within 9‐12 months of initial exposure.

Marketing Period
Marketing time is an estimate of the time to sell a property interest in real estate at the estimated market value during the period immediately after the effective date of value. A reasonable marketing time is estimated by comparing the recent exposure time of similar properties, and then taking into consideration current and future economic conditions and how they may impact marketing of the subject property. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and economic uncertainty we estimate the marketing period would be longer at 12 months.

Certification  49
805 Cirby Way
Certification
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three‐year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as well as applicable state appraisal regulations.

9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

11. Blake Fassler made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, has personally inspected the subject.

12. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person(s) signing this certification.

13. We have experience in appraising properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP.

14. As of the date of this report, Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI, has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

Certification  50
805 Cirby Way

15. As of the date of this report, Blake Fassler, has completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirements for Candidates/Practicing Affiliates of the Appraisal Institute.

Blake Fassler
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3007274
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG013567
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  51
805 Cirby Way
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are limited by the following standard assumptions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. The title is marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, encroachments, easements and restrictions. The property is under responsible ownership and competent management and is available for its highest and best use.

2. There are no existing judgments or pending or threatened litigation that could affect the value of the property.

3. There are no hidden or undisclosed conditions of the land or of the improvements that would render the property more or less valuable. Furthermore, there is no asbestos in the property.

4. The revenue stamps placed on any deed referenced herein to indicate the sale price are in correct relation to the actual dollar amount of the transaction.

5. The property is in compliance with all applicable building, environmental, zoning, and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.

6. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.

This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. An appraisal is inherently subjective and represents our opinion as to the value of the property appraised.

2. The conclusions stated in our appraisal apply only as of the effective date of the appraisal, and no representation is made as to the effect of subsequent events.

3. No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated.

4. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal, and we reserve the right to revise or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies. If any environmental impact statement is required by law, the appraisal assumes that such statement will be favorable and will be approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies.

5. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, we are not required to give testimony, respond to any subpoena or attend any court, governmental or other hearing with reference to the property without compensation relative to such additional employment.

6. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or survey of the property included in this report is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered to be scaled accurately for size. The appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  52
805 Cirby Way
covers the property as described in this report, and the areas and dimensions set forth are assumed to be correct.

7. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in our appraisal.

8. We accept no responsibility for considerations requiring expertise in other fields. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, legal descriptions and other legal matters such as legal title, geologic considerations such as soils and seismic stability; and civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and other engineering and environmental matters. Such considerations may also include determinations of compliance with zoning and other federal, state, and local laws, regulations and codes.

9. The distribution of the total valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. The appraisal report shall be considered only in its entirety. No part of the appraisal report shall be utilized separately or out of context.

10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute) shall be disseminated through advertising media, public relations media, news media or any other means of communication (including without limitation prospectuses, private offering memoranda and other offering material provided to prospective investors) without the prior written consent of the persons signing the report.

11. Information, estimates and opinions contained in the report and obtained from third‐party sources are assumed to be reliable and have not been independently verified.

12. Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute predictions of future operating results.

13. If the property is subject to one or more leases, any estimate of residual value contained in the appraisal may be particularly affected by significant changes in the condition of the economy, of the real estate industry, or of the appraised property at the time these leases expire or otherwise terminate.

14. Unless otherwise stated in the report, no consideration has been given to personal property located on the premises or to the cost of moving or relocating such personal property; only the real property has been considered.

15. The current purchasing power of the dollar is the basis for the values stated in the appraisal; we have assumed that no extreme fluctuations in economic cycles will occur.

16. The values found herein are subject to these and to any other assumptions or conditions set forth in the body of this report but which may have been omitted from this list of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.

17. The analyses contained in the report necessarily incorporate numerous estimates and assumptions regarding property performance, general and local business and economic Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  53
805 Cirby Way
conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters. Some estimates or assumptions, however, inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analysis will vary from our estimates, and the variations may be material.

18. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific survey or analysis of the property to determine whether the physical aspects of the improvements meet the ADA accessibility guidelines. We claim no expertise in ADA issues, and render no opinion regarding compliance of the subject with ADA regulations.

Inasmuch as compliance matches each owner’s financial ability with the cost to cure the non‐ conforming physical characteristics of a property, a specific study of both the owner’s financial ability and the cost to cure any deficiencies would be needed for the Department of Justice to determine compliance.

19. The appraisal report is prepared for the exclusive benefit of you, your subsidiaries and/or affiliates. It may not be used or relied upon by any other party. All parties who use or rely upon any information in the report without our written consent do so at their own risk.

20. No studies have been provided to us indicating the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the subject property or in the improvements, and our valuation is predicated upon the assumption that the subject property is free and clear of any environment hazards including, without limitation, hazardous wastes, toxic substances and mold. No representations or warranties are made regarding the environmental condition of the subject property. IRR ‐ Sacramento, Integra Realty Resources, Inc., and their respective officers, owners, managers, directors, agents, subcontractors or employees (the “Integra Parties”), shall not be responsible for any such environmental conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.

Because we are not experts in the field of environmental conditions, the appraisal report cannot be considered as an environmental assessment of the subject property.

21. The persons signing the report may have reviewed available flood maps and may have noted in the appraisal report whether the subject property is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. However, we are not qualified to detect such areas and therefore do not guarantee such determinations. The presence of flood plain areas and/or wetlands may affect the value of the property, and the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that wetlands are non‐existent or minimal.

22. We are not a building or environmental inspector. The Integra Parties do not guarantee that the subject property is free of defects or environmental problems. Mold may be present in the subject property and a professional inspection is recommended.

23. The appraisal report and value conclusions for an appraisal assume the satisfactory completion of construction, repairs or alterations in a workmanlike manner.

24. IRR ‐ Sacramento is an independently owned and operated company. The parties hereto agree that Integra shall not be liable for any claim arising out of or relating to any appraisal report or any information or opinions contained therein as such appraisal report is the sole and exclusive responsibility of IRR ‐ Sacramento. In addition, it is expressly agreed that in any Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  54
805 Cirby Way
action which may be brought against the Integra Parties arising out of, relating to, or in any way pertaining to the engagement letter, the appraisal reports or any related work product, the Integra Parties shall not be responsible or liable for any incidental or consequential damages or losses, unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct. It is further expressly agreed that the collective liability of the Integra Parties in any such action shall not exceed the fees paid for the preparation of the assignment (unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct). It is expressly agreed that the fees charged herein are in reliance upon the foregoing limitations of liability.

25. IRR ‐ Sacramento is an independently owned and operated company, which has prepared the appraisal for the specific intended use stated elsewhere in the report. The use of the appraisal report by anyone other than the Client is prohibited except as otherwise provided.

Accordingly, the appraisal report is addressed to and shall be solely for the Client’s use and benefit unless we provide our prior written consent. We expressly reserve the unrestricted right to withhold our consent to your disclosure of the appraisal report or any other work product related to the engagement (or any part thereof including, without limitation, conclusions of value and our identity), to any third parties. Stated again for clarification, unless our prior written consent is obtained, no third party may rely on the appraisal report (even if their reliance was foreseeable).

26. The conclusions of this report are estimates based on known current trends and reasonably foreseeable future occurrences. These estimates are based partly on property information, data obtained in public records, interviews, existing trends, buyer‐seller decision criteria in the current market, and research conducted by third parties, and such data are not always completely reliable. The Integra Parties are not responsible for these and other future occurrences that could not have reasonably been foreseen on the effective date of this assignment. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance. While we are of the opinion that our findings are reasonable based on current market conditions, we do not represent that these estimates will actually be achieved, as they are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. Moreover, we assume competent and effective management and marketing for the duration of the projected holding period of this property.

27. All prospective value opinions presented in this report are estimates and forecasts which are prospective in nature and are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. In addition to the contingencies noted in the preceding paragraph, several events may occur that could substantially alter the outcome of our estimates such as, but not limited to changes in the economy, interest rates, and capitalization rates, behavior of consumers, investors and lenders, fire and other physical destruction, changes in title or conveyances of easements and deed restrictions, etc. It is assumed that conditions reasonably foreseeable at the present time are consistent or similar with the future.

28. The appraisal is also subject to the following:

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions  55
805 Cirby Way
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. It is an extraordinary assumption of this report, that in spite of the subject’s narrow configuration with frontage on three public right‐of‐ways that there is sufficient set back area to permit construction of a residential dwelling. If this proves incorrect it could discernably and adversely impact the value estimate within this report.

2. The subject is a lot located adjacent to a subdivision. It is assumed utility extentions (wet and dry) for the subject property are in average condition. If, at some future date, inordinate utility extension/connection costs are necessary, this will have a detrimental impact on value. In that instance, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion of value stated herein.

1. The appraised property is currently a portion of a larger parcel and is not itsel f a legally trans ferable parcel.

Thus, for purposes of this valuation, our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identi fied land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value.

The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment‐speci fic assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Addenda
805 Cirby Way
Addendum A
Appraiser Qualifications
Blake Fassler Sacramento
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T
F
3825 Atherton Rd
# 500
Rocklin, CA 95765
Experience
Mr. Fassler is a licensed appraiser with Integra Realty Resources, a real estate appraisal firm that engages in a wide variety of real estate valuation and consultation assignments.

He began his appraisal career in March 2017 with Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer in Rocklin, California. Currently, Mr. Fassler is obtaining experience in the valuation and analysis of various types of real estate by working on a wide variety of property typed including, but not limited to: multifamily, office, retail, industrial, vacant land, and residential subdivisions.

Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, 3007274, Expires February 2022 Education
Bachelor of Science in Management Science University of California, San Diego Appraisal Courses Completed are as follows:

Basic Appraisal Principles
Basic Appraisal Procedures
General Appraiser Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use (USPAP), Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice General Appraiser Report Writing and Case Studies
General Appraiser Site Valuation and Cost Approach
General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach
General Appraiser Income Approach Part 1
General Appraiser Income Approach Part 2
4-Hour Federal and California Statutory and Regulator Laws [email protected] - 916-505-4471

Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI San Francisco
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T 916-435-3883
F 916-435-4774
San Francisco, CA 95765
Experience
Mr. Ziegenmeyer is a Certified General real estate appraiser and holds the Appraisal Institute's MAI designation. In 1989, Mr. Ziegenmeyer began his career in real estate as a controller for a commercial and residential real estate development corporation. In 1991 he began appraising and continued to be involved in appraisal assignments covering a wide variety of properties, including office, retail, industrial, residential income and subdivisions throughout the Central Valley area of California, Northern Nevada, and within the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. Over the past several years, Mr. Ziegenmeyer has handled many of the firm’s master-planned property appraisals and has developed expertise in the valuation of Community Facilities Districts and Assessment Districts. In early 2015, Mr. Ziegenmeyer obtained the Appraisal Institute's MAI designation. Kevin is currently Senior Managing Director of the Integra-San Francisco office and Managing Director of the Integra-Sacramento office.

Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, AG013567, Expires June 2021 Education
Academic:

Bachelor of Science in Accounting, Azusa Pacific University, California Appraisal and Real Estate Courses:

Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A, B & C
Basic Valuation Procedures
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A
Advanced Income Capitalization
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Advanced Applications
IRS Valuation Summit I & II
2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 Economic Forecast
Business Practices and Ethics
Contemporary Appraisal Issues with Small Business Administration Financing General Demonstration Appraisal Report Writing Seminar
7-Hour National USPAP Update Course
Valuation of Easements and Other Partial Interests
2009 Summer Conference
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2008 Economic Update
Valuation of Conservation Easements
Subdivision Valuation
2005 Annual Fall Conference
General Comprehensive Exam Module I, II, III & IV
Advanced Income Capitalization
Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches
2004 Central CA Market Update
Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling
Forecast 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004
Land Valuation Assignments
[email protected] - 916-435-3883 x224
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI San Francisco
Integra Realty Resources
irr.com
T 916-435-3883
F 916-435-4774
San Francisco, CA 95765
Education (Cont'd)
Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures
Highest & Best Use and Market Analysis
Entitlements, Land Subdivision & Valuation
Real Estate Value Cycles
El Dorado Hills Housing Symposium
Federal Land Exchanges
M & S Computer Cost-Estimating, Nonresidential
[email protected] - 916-435-3883 x224

About IRR
Integra Realty Resources, Inc. (IRR) provides world‐class commercial real estate valuation, counseling, and advisory services. Routinely ranked among leading property valuation and consulting firms, we are now the largest independent firm in our industry in the United States, with local offices coast to coast and in the Caribbean.

IRR offices are led by MAI‐designated Senior Managing Directors, industry leaders who have over 25 years, on average, of commercial real estate experience in their local markets. This experience, coupled with our understanding of how national trends affect the local markets, empowers our clients with the unique knowledge, access, and historical perspective they need to make the most informed decisions.

Many of  the nation's  top  financial institutions, developers, corporations, law  firms, and government agencies rely on our professional real estate opinions to best understand the value, use, and feasibility of real estate in their market.

Local Expertise...Nationally!
irr.com
805 Cirby Way
Addendum B
Comparable Data

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 1
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  4765 Racetrack Road
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Single Family Lot
Address:  4765 Racetrack Rd.

City/State/Zip:  Rocklin, CA 95677
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2446784
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $145,000
Effective Sale Price:   $145,000
Sale Date:   01/29/2020
Sale Status:  In‐Contract
$/Acre(Gross):   $518,227
$/Land SF(Gross):   $11.90
Grantor/Seller:  Equity Smart Investments
Grantee/Buyer:  Listing
Assemblage:  No
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  045‐090‐003
Acres(Gross):  0.28
Land‐SF(Gross):  12,188
Zoning Code:   R‐1
Zoning Desc.:  Single Family Residential
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a sale of a residential lot with utilities stubbed to the lot. The buyer is responsible for connection fees at building permit. There are no offsite improvements in place, but they are not required.
4765 Racetrack Road

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 2
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  509 Oak Ravine Court
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Single Family Lot
Address:  509 Oak Ravine Ct.

City/State/Zip:  Roseville, CA 95661
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2446795
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $280,000
Effective Sale Price:   $280,000
Sale Date:   10/04/2019
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $725,765
$/Land SF(Gross):   $16.66
Grantor/Seller:  The Davis Family Living Trust
Grantee/Buyer:  Vman LLC
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  77322
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  456‐190‐003
Acres(Gross):  0.39
Land‐SF(Gross):  16,805
Zoning Code:   R 1
Zoning Desc.:  Single Family Residential
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a closed sale of a residential lot located with the Stoneridge area of Roseville. All of the offsite improvements are in place and the property is generally level.
509 Oak Ravine Court

Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 3
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  450 Diamond Oaks Road
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Single Family Lot
Address:  450 Diamond Oaks Rd.

City/State/Zip:  Roseville, CA 95678
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2446845
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $120,000
Effective Sale Price:   $120,000
Sale Date:   12/14/2018
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $626,959
$/Land SF(Gross):   $14.39
Grantor/Seller:  VLASAK J & M L/TR
Grantee/Buyer:  MAKOVEY OLEG
Portfolio Sale:  No
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  89868
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  015‐360‐022‐000
Acres(Gross):  0.19
Land‐SF(Gross):  8,337
Zoning Code:   R‐1
Zoning Desc.:  Residential
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a sale of a residential lot with all offsite improvements in place. The property is sloped and will require grading prior to developing.
450 Diamond Oaks Road
Land Sale Profile  Sale No. 4
Location & Property Identification
Property Name:  506 Church Street
Sub‐Property Type:  Residential, Single Family Lot
Address:  506 Church St.

City/State/Zip:  Roseville, CA 95678
County:  Placer
Market Orientation:   Suburban
IRR Event ID:    2446838
Sale Information
Sale Price:   $83,000
Effective Sale Price:   $83,000
Sale Date:   10/24/2018
Sale Status:  Closed
$/Acre(Gross):   $486,804
$/Land SF(Gross):   $11.18
Grantor/Seller:  GARCIA J A & A O TRUST
Grantee/Buyer:  MARTINEZ JUAN JOSE
GUERRA
Assets Sold:  Real estate only
Property Rights:  Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed:  100.00
Financing:  Cash to seller
Document Type:  Deed
Recording No.:  77556
Verification Type:  Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID:  012‐151‐007
Acres(Gross):  0.17
Land‐SF(Gross):  7,426
Zoning Code:   GC
Zoning Desc.:  General Commercial
Source of Land Info.:  Public Records
Comments
This is a sale of a vacant residential lot with all of the off site improvements in place. There was a previous residence on the property that has since been demolished.
506 Church Street
Addenda
805 Cirby Way
Addendum C
Engagement Letter

Integra Realty Resources
Sacramento
Appraisal of Real Property
1550 Maidu Drive
Vacant Land
1550 Maidu Dr.

Roseville, Placer County, California 95661
Prepared For:

City of Roseville
Effective Date of the Appraisal:

April 20, 2020
Report Format:

Appraisal Report – Standard Format
IRR ‐ Sacramento
File Number: 193‐2020‐0137
1550 Maidu Drive
Roseville, California
Integra Realty Resources  590 Menlo Drive  T 916.435.3883 Sacramento  Suite 1  F 916.435.4774
Rocklin, CA 95765  www.irr.com
April 29, 2020
Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, CA 95747
SUBJECT:  Market Value Appraisal
1550 Maidu Drive
Roseville, Placer County, California 95661
IRR ‐ Sacramento File No. 193‐2020‐0137
Dear Mr. Joseph:

Integra Realty Resources – Sacramento is pleased to submit the accompanying appraisal of the referenced property. The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property. As will be discussed below, the appraised property is a portion of a larger parcel and is not itself a legally transferable parcel. Thus, for purposes of this valuation our estimate of value is premised on a hypothetical condition that the identified land area of the subject is in fact a legally transferable parcel as of the date of value. The client for the assignment is City of Roseville, and the intended use is for asset monitoring and transfer between City Departments.

The subject is a portion of a parcel of vacant land and contains 0.51 acres or 22,216 square feet of land area. The property is zoned PR, Park and Recreation, and is currently used as a park. Although the subject of this appraisal is land designated for a public use, this report considers the value of the subject property based on its highest economic use, which is single family residential development. The valuation is premised upon the hypothetical condition that the subject is zoned R‐1, similar to adjacent development. As of the date of value, the property is generally level, and all offsite improvements are in place. It is noted that the subject is currently improved with a batting cage facility and the costs to demolish the facility would be minimal. Therefore, it is presumed that the demolition costs for the batting cage and ancillary improvements would be only nominally above the overall costs to prepare the lot for vertical improvements. A more detailed legal and physical description of the subject property is contained within the attached report.

Trevor Joseph
City of Roseville
April 29, 2020