Roseville City Council
January 18, 2023

Rancho Cordova
22 | P a g e
City-wide Park Fee Project Descriptions
Park Site 56 Gibson Park (Project# 400004) – This project provides funding to construct a 12.5 acre city-wide park focused on sports, including lighted basketball, tennis, and pickle ball courts.

Harry Crabb Park (Project# 400007) - Current phase is for the planning and construction of park amenities, which includes two baseball fields, a soccer field, a splash pad water feature, a group picnic area, a basketball court, two tennis courts, two pickle ball courts, two bocce ball courts, a restroom and expansion of an off-street parking lot.

WRSP Community Center & Pistachio Regional Park (F-56) (Project# 400019) - Design and construct phase I of this Citywide park. Phase I consists of 2 softball fields, 1 baseball field, parking lot and potentially a restroom.

Sports Park Complex (Project# 400068) - Sports complex at Blue Oaks Blvd/Phillip Road/Hayden Parkway. Current phase is for the planning of amenities, which may include multiple lighted synthetic long fields, restrooms, storage facilities, children's playground area(s), shaded picnic area(s), and pedestrian pathway through landscaped area. Scope is dependent on funding availability.

Denio Family Park (Parcel F-54) (Project# 400118) – Design and construction of park.

Central Park-Phase III (Project# 500076) - Improvements to Central Park.

Maidu Fitness Pods (Project#700027) – This project provides funding to add fitness pods at Maidu Regional Park.

Rancho Cordova
23 | P a g e
Electric Backbone Impact Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
and other
revenue
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures1
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.54 Ordinance No.
6097 $7,318,551 2,057,617.78 78,387.78 - -
Sierra Vista
Substation (25,505) Complete 75%
$9,429,051
Sierra Vista Substation (Project# 400114) - Construct a new substation with an initial capacity of 46 MVA to supply power to new development in the Sierra Vista and Westbrook specific plans.

Rancho Cordova
24 | P a g e
Solid Waste Impact Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code Chapter

9.12 Solid
Waste
Services
Set Up
Ordinance
No. 6501
$5,123,070

946,090

54,862

(226,424)

$5,897,598 No
Unknown
at this time
Rancho Cordova
25 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program-Admin
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $281,109

248,252

3,790 -

(81,658) $451,493 - -
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program-Improvements
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $(4,000) 1,970,525 1,743 - - $1,968,268 - -
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program- Park Land
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $4,609 2,005,123 1,171 - (2,005,127) $5,776 - -
Watt Avenue and Vista Grande Boulevard Extension Traffic Mitigation Fee Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Creekview
and Sierra
Vista DA
Per DA N/A - - - - - - -
Note: The fee will be based on a fair share allocation. No fee will be established until there is a need to extend the road past city limits.

Rancho Cordova
26 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, Continued
Water Meter Retrofit/ Conservation Program
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

14.07 Maint.
and
Testing of
Water
Meters
and ERT
Installs
Ord. No.
4001

$1,432,669 124,691 15,022 - (3,490)

$1,568,892 No
Unknown
at this time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Traffic Signal Coordination Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
West
Roseville
Specific Plan
West
Roseville
Traffic
Signal
Interconn.

Per
individual
DA
$2,716,871

58,301

27,465

(30,814) $2,771,823
No
Unknown
at this
time
Bike Trail Fee- Creekview
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Creekview
Specific Plan
Bike Trails Per
individual
DA $ 196,118 299,192 3,223 - (7) $498,526
No
Unknown
at this
time
Rancho Cordova
27 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, Continued
Bike Trail Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
West
Roseville
Specific Plan
Misc.

Class 1
Bike Trails
Per
individual
DA $ 404,968 - 4,443 131,851 (141,769) $399,493
No
Unknown
at this
time
(1)$1,032,284 in bike trail fees were collected through various Park Development Funds, which are included with the Neighborhood and Community Park Fees.

This is reporting the Bike Trail Funds 3323 and 3380.
*Transfers in: $131,851 from various Community Facilities Districts for bike trail maintenance.

City-Wide Park In-Lieu Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Misc. Park
Projects
per DA
Per
individual
DA $23,452 - 237 - (1) $23,688
No
Unknown
at this
time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Fire Tax Equivalent Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee (1)
Project
Fee Formula Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.46 Per individual
DA’s after Dec.
2009
$6,590,858

2,450,637

69,932 -

(836,030)
Fire
Station 8

(312,863)
No 48.5%
$7,962,534
(1)Roseville Municipal code 4.46 had a sunset date of December 31, 2009. Individual DA's reference a fee 'equivalent to' this original fire service construction tax fee. *Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Rancho Cordova
28 | P a g e
Fire Tax Equivalent Fee Project Description
Fire Station 8 (Project# 500067) - This project includes the design and construction of a Fire Station to service citizens and businesses in the Woodcreek/Blue Oaks general area.

Rancho Cordova
29 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Public/Community Benefit Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
All DA’s
since 2004
Per
individual
DA

$17,814,902 2,954,158 316,938 3,727,162 (14,855)
East Radio Site
Relocation (46,599)
No
Unknown
at this
time
401 Oak
Street Site
Work (2,636,017)
Land Purchase
for Sports
Park Complex (3,000,000)
Complete 100
$19,111,676
*Transfers in: $409,041 for loan payment received from Public Facilities Fund- Loan purpose: Funding of the 316 Vernon Building Project # 400055 (Interest rate of 1.37% in FY22; matures 6/30/27). $569,440 for loan payment received from Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fees. Loan purpose: Funding of a portion of the Oaks Street Parking Garage (Interest rate 1.37% (FY22); Loan matures 6/30/28). $225,000 for loan payments received from the General Fund-Loan purpose: To cover costs related to the preparation of the Citywide Qualified Climate Action Plan, General Plan Update. The loan will be paid back by General Plan Update Fees collected and fees received in excess of the principal payment due will be made as a prepayment. (Interest rate: 1.37% from FY22; last payment will be made 6/30/23, prior to original maturity date of 6/30/29. $2,490,656 is transferred in from the Water Operations Fund and Waste Services Operations Fund for its proportional share of a land acquisition. $97,446 is a transfer in for rent repayment of loan from passport revenue in excess of expenses. Transfers out: $64,422 to Fund 2901 (RFA Debt Service) for 2015 316 Vernon Debt Service. Total transfers rounded to nearest dollar amounts.

Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Public/Community Benefit Fee Project Description
East Radio Site Relocation (Project# 400126) - The City's current east radio site has many limitations including emergency power, coverage, capacity and a risky building lease status. These limitations increase the level of risk to provide clear and reliable communications in East Roseville. This CIP is designed to relocate the site to a location that will provide for sustainable high levels of communication services.

Westpark Drive Extension (Project# 500071) - This project provides funding for the construction of Westpark Drive extension up to Blue Oaks Boulevard via reimbursement agreements with developers.

Land Purchase for Sports Park Complex (Project# 500221) – Purchase of land for Sports Park Complex site.

Rancho Cordova
30 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Air Quality Mitigation Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Mitigating
Impacts
to Air
Quality
Per DA
$262,132 $219,553 $3,344 $0

(76,235) $408,794
No Unknown
at this time
Transit Shuttle Service Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Shuttle
Service
between
WRSP and
I80/Watt
Ave Light
Rail Station
Per DA $366,341 51,206 2,833 - - $420,380 No Unknown
at this time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Downtown Benefit Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
5th Amend.

DA relative
to West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Per DA $1,720,780 2,050,000 25,159 (645,177) (52) $3,150,710 No Unknown at this time
Rancho Cordova
31 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Blue Oaks Boulevard Off-Site Road Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Blue Oaks
Blvd.

Project
Per DA $803,428 322,117 9,015 - (23) $1,134,537 No Unknown at this time
Westpark Drive off-site road fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Westpark
Drive
Extension
Per DA $26,133 97,411 544 - (3) $124,085
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements 32 | P a g e
Attachment 1:

Fee Ordinances, Resolutions and
Development Agreements
Drainage Fees:

Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed Drainage Mitigation Fee Ordinance No. 5933
Dry Creek Watershed Drainage Mitigation Fee
Ordinance No. 2617
- . ..)
ORDINANCE NO. 5933

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

4.48.020, 4.48.050, 4.48.070 AND 4.48.140 OF CHAPTER 4.48 OF TITLE 4 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PLEASANT GROVE/CURRY CREEK

WATERSHED DRAINAGE MITIGATION FEE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.48.020 of Chapter 4.48 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.48.020 Def"mitions.

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

A. "Building permit" means the permit issued or required by the city for construction of any structure pursuant to and as defined by the building code.

B. "Capital improvement program" means that list of proposed drainage facilities, improvements, or infrastructure totaling $23,576,744.69 (in 2017 dollars) included in the study.

C. "Department" means the department of development services.

D. "Director'' means the director of the department.

E. "Facilities" means those public drainage facilities or infrastructure shown and included on the capital improvement program.

F. "Fee" or "drainage mitigation fee" means the fee established by this chapter. The fee shall be collected prior to the approval of any building permit. The fee shall be used solely to finance the facilities.

G. "Improvement plan" means a site plan of property proposed for development showing all required improvements that must be approved by the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for the property.

H. "Study'' means the reports entitled "Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed Mitigation Fee Report Amended Hydrology Project Report for Fee Revisions" dated May 2017 by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc. The study is on file in the offices of the director and the city clerk.

I. "Drainage mitigation fund" means that special interest-bearing fund established pursuant to Section 4.49.030.

SECTION 2. Section 4.48.050 of Chapter 4.48 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is here amended to read as follows:
1 Public Facilities Fee
Ordinance No. 6290
ORDINANCE NO. 6290

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

4.52.050, 4.52.060, 4.52.070, 4.52.080 and 4.52.090, OF CHAPTER 4.52 OF TITLE 4 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.52.050 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.050 Public facilities fee—Residential.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for residential development shall be:

Low density residential (LDR) shall be $3,528.00 per dwelling unit; Medium density residential (MDR) shall be $3,266.00 per dwelling unit; Single-family age-restricted shall be $2,352.00 per dwelling unit.

SECTION 2. Section 4.52.060 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.060 Public facilities fee—Commercial and unspecified development.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for commercial or unspecified development shall be $0.66 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 3. Section 4.52.070 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.070 Public facilities fee—Industrial.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for light industrial development shall be $0.44 per square foot of structure and for general industrial the fee shall be $0.27 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 4. Section 4.52.080 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.080 Public facilities fee—Business/professional.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for business/professional and central business district development shall be $0.89 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 5. Section 4.52.090 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.090 Public facilities fee—Multifamily-HDR and HDR-age restricted.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for multifamily development shall be $2,352.00 per dwelling unit. Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for multifamily age restricted development shall be $1,959.00 per dwelling unit.

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this 4th day of November, 2020, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS: Bernasconi, Alvord, Roccucci, Houdesheldt, Allard NOES COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: None
MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
2 Local Sewer Connection Fees
Water Connection Fees
Ordinance No. 6100

Traffic Mitigation Fee
Ordinance 2856
City/County Traffic Mitigation Fee
Ordinance No. 5203

Downtown Specific Plan In-Lieu Parking Fee
Resolution No. 09-124
Ordinance No. 5428
Downtown Code 3.0-Regulatory Incentives

Park Fees:

Neighborhood and Community Park Fees
Ordinances No. 2178, 2969 and 3033
Citywide Park Fee
Ordinance No. 2424

Annual Development Impact Fee Report
(JPA and SPWA Funds)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
City of Rancho Cordova
Table of Contents
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees .........................................................................................................................................1 Description of Development Impact Fees...............................................................................................................................................................2 Fund Balance and Project Descriptions
Sewer Connection Fees ..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 Traffic Mitigation Fees...........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Attachment 1 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................7 City of Rancho Cordova
1 | P a g e
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees (“DIFs”).

This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC §) 66000 through 66008 (“Mitigation Fee Act”). This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.

GC § 66006(b) states the following requirements as pertains to DIFs:

For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(G) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. (H) The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

GC § 65865(e) also requires that any development agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2004, the City shall comply with GC § 66006 with respect to any fee it receives or cost it recovers.

City of Rancho Cordova
2 | P a g e
Description of Development Impact Fees
Sewer Connection Fees
Sewer connection fees are established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. Two sewer connection fees are collected when development occurs – a regional sewer connection fee and a local sewer connection fee. The local sewer connection fee is reported in the City of Roseville’s Annual Development Impact Fee Report. Additional fees may be applicable to properties within sewer special benefit assessment areas.
• Regional Sewer Connection Fees - The regional sewer connection fee is charged for each sewer unit required within the Regional Treatment Plan Service Area connected to the city-owned public sewer. The service area includes the City of Roseville and portions of Placer County and South Placer Municipal Utility District.

Traffic Mitigation Fees
In 1988, the City of Roseville adopted a citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, requiring new development within the City to pay traffic impact fees. The fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allows the City to construct transportation improvements identified in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The fee program assesses fair-share costs to other jurisdictions based on their impact on the individual roadways from new development.

This fee applies to all new development in the City. The developers in Specific Plan Areas have built, or will construct, more than the minimum amount of improvements from their funds and will receive a credit for those improvements. Additional fees collected by the City on behalf of regional fee programs:
• Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program – The cities of Roseville and Rocklin, along with Placer County, formed a joint powers authority for the purpose of funding four interchanges on Highway 65. The interchanges include Stanford Ranch Road/Galleria Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Blue Oaks Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard. The fee program assesses fair-share costs to each jurisdiction based on their impact on the individual improvements from new development. City of Roseville serves as staff to the JPA and administers the fee program.

City of Rancho Cordova
3 | P a g e
Fund Balance Summary
Sewer Connection Fees
Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapters

14.16 Ord. 6100
$90,528,954 58,982,689 1,180,616 - (9,125,343)
Pleasant
Grove UV

(202,872)
YesStarted
2021
100
PGWWTPEnergy Rec.
(3,637,976)
YesStarted
2019
90 PGWWTPExpansion
2020

(24,056,782)
YesStarted
2019
100
Dry Creek &
Pleasant
Grove WWTP
Capacity
Evaluation

(281,198)
YesStarted
2021
100
Regional
Pump Station
26 and Force
Main
Capacity
Improvement

(165,791)
YesStarted
2021
100
$113,222,296
City of Rancho Cordova
4 | P a g e
Regional Sewer Connection Project Fee Project Descriptions Pleasant Grove UV (Project# 500165) - Due to changes in water quality and regulations, the current Pleasant Grove UV disinfection system is undersized for the projected rated capacity needed after the completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project. This project expands the UV system capacity.

PGWWTP-Energy Recovery (Project# 500166) - Upon completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project, the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant will produce bio-methane from the newly constructed digesters. Absent the Energy Recovery Project, the bio-methane would be burned in a flare, which is not environmentally sound. Once complete, bio-methane produced from the wastewater treatment plant will be conditioned for use in clean air refuse vehicles.

PGWWTP - Expansion 2020 (Project# 500167) - Expand wastewater treatment plant capacity. This project will add primary clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, and solids thickening equipment to the existing PGWWTP treatment process. This will increase the plant's treatment capacity from 9.5 to 12 million gallons per day and is expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth within the South Placer Wastewater Authority service area through 2035.

Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTP Capacity Evaluation (Project# 500199) - This project is a field study to confirm the computer model capacity predictions contained in the WW System Evaluation project.

Regional Pump Station 26 and Force Main Capacity Improvement (Project# 500200) - This project will Increase available capacity in the Old Auburn Boulevard trunk sewer and associated lift stations.

City of Rancho Cordova
5 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2022
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Resolution
No. 90-312
Highway
65-
Galleria/
Stanford
Joint Powers
Agreement
Oct, 15,
1990;
Amended
Aug. 18,
1992 $480,169 1,273,929 1,947 - (1,239,069) $516,976 No 100 The Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Board approved a plan for funding the construction of various Highway 65 Interchange Projects that included the commitment of funds from the Authority along with funds from the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin and the County of Placer. The participants remitted funds to the Authority in advance of the construction. In addition, the City of Roseville constructed projects using City of Roseville funds. The projects were dedicated to the Authority through a reimbursement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the cities and the County will be reimbursed through future traffic mitigation fees collected by the Authority.

City of Rancho Cordova
6 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fee Project Descriptions
Highway 65-Galleria/Stanford (Project# 400060) –The proposed project would modify the SR 65 NB ramps at the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange as well as reconfigure the lanes along Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road. The project would construct the following:
• Dual left turn lanes onto the NB SR 65 slip on-ramp.
• Protected median left turn pockets at the NB and SB ramp intersections, eliminating the inside trap lanes. • Right turn pocket for the SB approach along Stanford Ranch Road to the NB slip on-ramp. • Widened NB SR 65 to NB Stanford Ranch Road slip off-ramp from one to two lanes at the ramp terminus. Off-ramp will include a signalized intersection at Stanford Ranch Road.
• Widened NB slip on-ramp to two metered general purpose lanes plus an HOV preferential lane. • Modified terminus of the NB loop off-ramp to reduce speeds and enhance safety for all modes utilizing the facility. 7| P a g e
Attachment 1:

Fee Ordinances, Resolutions and
Agreements
Sewer Connection Fees:

Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Ordinance No. 6100

Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Joint Powers Agreement
October 15, 1990
As Amended August 18, 1992

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2483
File #: 0201 & 0201-01
Title: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Year-End Report and FY2022-23 Budget Adjustment Contact: Scott Pettingell 916-774-1306 [email protected] Meeting Date: 1/18/2023
Item #: 9.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council receive a report and presentation regarding the year-end results for fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 and adopt an ordinance to approve the attached FY2022-23 budget adjustment.

BACKGROUND
FY2021-22 Year-End Results
This communication includes a year-end version of the quarterly report (attached) with information regarding the City’s operational financial performance from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 (FY2021-22) for (1) the General Fund, (2) the enterprise operating funds, and (3) revenues in select other funds. It also includes an explanation of significant variances. A summary of the information is provided as follows:

General Fund
The City ended FY2021-22 with a $31.5 million surplus consisting of approximately $28.7 million in operating revenues received over budget, $2.9 million in expenditure savings primarily due to salary savings from vacant positions. An overview of the FY2021-22 General Fund year-end results is summarized below, including the recommended appropriations.

FY2021-22 Year-End General Fund
Results
Variance ($)
Sales Tax - Bradley-Burns $ 11,251,000
Sales Tax - Measure B 7,201,000
Property Taxes 2,908,000
Other Revenues 7,320,000
Operating Revenues 28,680,000
Operating Expenditures 2,858,000
Total General Fund Year-End Results $ 31,538,000
Recommended Appropriations Budget ($)
Roseville Sports Complex Project $ 15,000,000
Transfer to General Fund Capital Reserve Fund 4,486,500 Transfer to Pension Trust Fund 4,486,500
Blue Oaks Widening Project 4,000,000
Backfill General Fund Contingency - LMAs 750,000
Police Department Mobile Data Computers 700,000
Sports Field Fencing Project 565,000
Transfer to Development Services Stabilization
Reserve Fund
518,000
Maidu Soccer Field Parking Lot Project 450,000
General Plan Update Project 279,000
Multimodal Safety Improvement Project 180,000
Royer Park Playground Project 123,000
Total $ 31,538,000
Remaining General Fund Year-End Results $ -
The primary factors contributing to the positive results are conservative budgeting of sales and property tax revenues due to the pandemic and salary savings due to vacant positions. The positive results in the “Other Revenue” category are primarily due to stronger than anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) ($1.9 million), Property Transfer Tax ($1.2 million) and departmental revenues.

Staff recommends appropriating the $31.5 million General Fund surplus on items aligned with the City Council Strategic Plan. In addition, the recommendations align with the original intent of the Measure B Sales and Use Tax measure. Approximately $26.5 million of the funding is recommended for specific projects, and the remaining $9 million is recommended to be split between the General fund Capital Reserve Fund and the Pension Trust Fund. The recommended appropriations are detailed below:

Roseville Sports Complex Project ($15 Million) – Staff recommends appropriating an additional $15 million toward the Roseville Sports Complex Project, bringing the total budget to approximately $44 million. There is currently a total of $29 million appropriated in the project consisting of resources from the General Fund, Strategic Improvement Fund, Citywide Park Fund, and Public Facilities Fund.

This Sports Complex will be a lighted ten-field complex for soccer, rugby, lacrosse, flag football, and other sports. This facility will be a premier complex intended to accommodate local sports groups and attract regional, state-wide, and national tournaments, thus supporting the City Council’s strategic plan goal to advance sports tourism opportunities, including destination-type amenities Transfer to General Fund Capital Reserve Fund ($4.5 million) – As part of the FY2022-23 budget, the City Council established a $10 million General Fund reserve for capital requirements. Approximately $4.6 million of these funds were loaned to the Fire Station 8 project, leaving a current balance of $5.4 million for new traffic signals and other capital projects. Staff recommends transferring an additional $4.5 million to this reserve from FY2021-22 General Fund surplus for priority capital projects, bringing the total funds available to $9.8 million.

Transfer to Pension Trust Fund ($4.5 million) – The FY2022-23 budget included a transfer of $8 million from the General Fund to a new Pension Trust Fund. This trust was established to help manage future increases in required pension contributions during periods of economic downturns. Staff recommends appropriating an additional $4.5 million to this fund for a total of $12.5 million.

Blue Oaks Widening Project ($4 Million) – Staff recommends appropriating $4 million in surplus funds to complete the design and environmental phases associated with widening Blue Oaks Boulevard. The Blue Oaks widening project will widen Blue Oaks to eight continuous lanes, four in each direction, from Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard to Washington Boulevard, and includes a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge over Union Pacific Railroad and Industrial Avenue.

Backfill of General Fund Contingency ($750,000) – The General Fund cost of the labor market adjustments approved by the City Council in December was $750,000 above initial estimates. The General Fund Contingency will be used to cover this overage. Staff recommends using $750,000 of the General Fund surplus to replenish the contingency to address any unanticipated requirements during the remainder of the fiscal year.

Police Department Mobile Data Computers ($700,000) – The Police Department’s Mobile Data Computers (MDCs) are due for replacement in the Spring of 2024. MDCs are mounted in Police vehicles and are used for officer dispatching, mapping and related situational awareness information, law enforcement records searches, and writing case reports. Staff recommends appropriating $700,000 of the General Fund surplus to replace the MDCs, allowing for adequate time for procurement and installation.

Sports Field Fencing Project ($565,000) – Placer Valley Tourism granted the City $250,000 to build fencing around the Maidu Soccer Complex. Staff recommends matching this grant with $565,000 of General Fund resources to fence two ballfields at both Harry Crab and Central Parks, bringing the total project cost to $815,000.

These fences will protect the recent investment into converting turf at Maidu Soccer Complex to hybrid Bermuda, minimize misuse and allow for staff to shut down the fields when maintenance is required.

Transfer to Development Services Stabilization Reserve (DSSR) Fund ($518,000) – The City maintains a DSSR to bridge gaps between budgeted and actual development revenues during periods of significant decline. The target goal for this reserve fund is six months of estimated building, planning, and engineering revenues ($2.56 million). The current balance in the fund is approximately $2.05 million. Staff recommends transferring $518,000 of development services revenues in excess of budget to the reserve to achieve the six-month funding goal.

Maidu Soccer Field Parking Lot Project ($450,000) – Staff recommends appropriating $450,000 to convert an existing gravel parking lot at the Maidu Soccer Complex to paved asphalt. The Maidu fields were recently renovated to hybrid Bermuda, making this tournament-level playing surface highly desirable, attracting additional tournaments from out-of-town participants. The renovation of the gravel parking lot will be an enhanced feature to support the use of the soccer fields.

Multimodal Safety Improvement Project ($180,000) – Staff recommends the City Council appropriate $180,000 of General Fund surplus to the Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project to establish funding to complete the design and environmental phases of the project. The Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project will construct a raised median along Vernon/Atlantic Streets between Jefferson Street and Branstetter Street through the S-curve. The landscaped median will reduce travel lanes, eliminate left turn movements, and more safely direct traffic into and out of the Downtown area. Additional improvements include the installation of a high visibility crosswalk with a rectangular rapid flashing beacon at Jefferson Street; auxiliary signage, striping, and roadway resurfacing; and relocation of the Vernon Street monument sign to increase pedestrian visibility. The project's estimated total cost is $1.5 million and is anticipated to be funded by Local Transportation Funds, safety grant funds, Highway User Tax Funds, and the General Fund.

This project will be constructed instead of the previously approved Vernon Roundabout Project. Staff evaluated the costs and benefits of both projects and determined that both meet the City's safety goals but construction of a roundabout is significantly costlier than the alternative project (greater than $5 million). The concepts for the Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project were developed with the assistance of a consultant and in conjunction with input from the nearby neighborhoods and the Downtown Merchants Association. The cost savings (while providing the same safety benefits) makes the alternative project more grantcompetitive, potentially further lessening the impact on City funds. A recommendation to cancel the Vernon Roundabout Project and return the remaining project funds (Highway Users Tax) to the fund balance will come before the Council at a later date.

General Plan Update Project ($279,000) – In FY2016-17, the City Council approved a $1 million loan from the Contributions from Developers Fund to the General Fund to pay for a General Plan update. In conjunction, the City implemented a General Plan Update Fee to repay this loan and save funds for future updates. The final loan payment is scheduled for this fiscal year. Following the intent of this fee, all revenues received in excess of the original loan will fund a new multi-year operating project for the next General Plan Update. The total amount of revenues received in excess of loan payments made to date is $279,000, and staff recommends that the City Council authorize appropriation of these funds to the new project.

Royer Park Playground Project ($123,000) – The City Council appropriated $300,000 to replace the aging play structure at Royer Park, creating a destination playground that complements the new improvements connecting the City’s downtown with the park. Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate an additional $123,000 to the project for additional shade structures and Americans with Disabilities Act paths within the play area. This adjustment will bring the total project cost to $423,000.

Enterprise Operating Funds
The Electric, Environmental Utilities, Transit, and Transportation Funds all exceeded their revenue estimates and ended the year under budget. The Youth Development Fund ended the year $1.3 million below revenue estimates but offset the shortfall with $1.6 million in expenditure savings.

Other Funds
Revenues in the Fire Facilities, Public Facilities, and the Strategic Improvement Funds exceeded estimates by $978,000, $3.1 million, and $679,000 million, respectively. This is due to the sustained increase in development activity throughout the City during FY2021-22.

FISCAL IMPACT
The year-end financial report attached to this Council Communication is for informational purposes only. This Council Communication also includes a recommendation to (1) approve a budget adjustment to appropriate the $31.5 General Fund year-end surplus on items aligned with the City Council Strategic Plan and the Measure B Sales and Use Tax measure and (2) appropriate $250,000 in grant funds from Placer Valley Tourism for the Sports Field Fencing Project. The General Fund has adequate available resources to fund the recommended budget adjustment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The 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 A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
FY2021-22 Fourth Quarter Report
Ordinance 6595
Budget Adjustment
Fourth Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22
1 Overview
This financial report provides an overview of the City’s financial position through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 (July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022) for:
(1) the General Fund,
(2) the major enterprise operating funds, and
(3) revenues in other selected funds.

Overview
Throughout FY2021-22, the City continued to feel the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and its ensuing economic disruptions, including increasing costs of equipment/fuel/supplies/materials, supply chain issues causing delays in receiving equipment/supplies/materials, challenges in filling vacant positions because of increased attrition and reduced number of applicants, and reduced attendance to City programs/services.

As detailed in this report, the City’s major tax revenues, including sales tax and hotel tax, have recovered from the impacts of the pandemic; however, the pandemic continued to affect the revenue and expenses of some City programs, including Adventure Club, transit, and recreation programs.

An overview of the FY2021-22 General Fund year-end results is summarized below (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), including the recommended appropriations.

FY2021‐22 Year‐End General Fund Results Variance ($)
Sales Tax ‐ Bradley‐Burns  $         11,251,000
Sales Tax ‐ Measure B 7,201,000
Property Taxes 2,908,000
Other Revenues                 7,320,000
Operating Revenues 28,680,000

Operating Expenditures 2,858,000

Total General Fund Year‐End Results $         31,538,000 Fourth Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22
2 Recommended Appropriations Budget ($)
Roseville Sports Complex Project  $         15,000,000
Transfer to General Fund Capital Reserve Fund 4,486,500 Transfer to Pension  Trust Fund 4,486,500
Blue Oaks Widening Project 4,000,000
Backfill General Fund Contingency ‐ LMAs 750,000
Police Department Mobile Data Computers 700,000
Sports Field Fencing Project 565,000
Transfer to Development Services Stabilization Reserve Fund   518,000 Maidu Soccer Field  Parking Lot Project 450,000
General Plan Update Project 279,000
Multimodal Safety Improvement Project   180,000
Royer Park Playground Project 123,000
Total $         31,538,000

Remaining General Fund Year‐End Results $                             ‐ The General Fund ended FY2021-22 with a $31.5 million surplus consisting of approximately $28.7 million in operating revenues received over budget, $2.9 million in expenditure savings primarily associated with materials/services/supply and salary savings from vacant positions. The primary factors contributing to the positive results are stronger than anticipated sales and property tax revenues and salary savings due to vacant positions. Savings in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PR&L) Department offset a $377,000 revenue shortfall in PR&L program revenues caused by the pandemic impacting programming in the first two quarters of the fiscal year. The positive results in the other revenue category are primarily due to stronger than anticipated Hotel Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) ($1.9 million), Building Permit ($1.2 million), First Responder Fee ($1.3 million), and Property Transfer Tax ($1.2 million) revenues.

Staff recommends appropriating the $31.5 million General Fund surplus on initiatives aligned with the City Council Strategic Plan. In addition, the proposed initiatives align with the original intent of the Measure B Sales and Use Tax measure. Approximately $26.5 million of the funding is recommended for specific initiatives, and the remaining $9 million is recommended to be split between the General Fund Capital Reserve Fund and the Pension Trust Fund.

General Fund: Operating Revenues
The following table includes cumulative General Fund operating revenue through the fourth quarter and a revenue budget to actual comparison for FY2021-22.
3 Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
Revenue Type
Amended
Budget Cumulative Revenues Variance % of Budget
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 59,371,253 $ 70,621,977 $ 11,250,724 119% Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 21,127,000 28,328,053 7,201,053 134% Sales and Use Tax - State Aid for Public Safety 1,327,300 1,622,075 294,775 122% Property Tax 57,867,840 60,776,155 2,908,315 105%
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 2,600,000 4,475,343 1,875,343 172% Parks, Recreation & Libraries Programs 3,765,768 3,301,223 (464,545) 88% Building Permits 2,920,836 4,123,020 1,202,184 141%
Plan Check Fees 2,606,322 2,653,857 47,535 102%
Engineering Inspection Fees 558,000 483,621 (74,379) 87% Grants 239,535 226,749 (12,786) 95%
Other Revenues 13,118,564 17,622,850 4,504,286 134%
Transfers 14,454,364 13,858,339 (596,025) 96%
Total $ 179,956,782 $ 208,093,262 $ 28,136,480 116%
General Fund operating revenues ended the year 16 percent or $28.1 million above estimates in FY2021-

22. The following is an explanation of the notable variances:
119%
134%
122%
105%
172%
88%
141%
102%
87%
95%
134%
96%
116%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns
Sales and Use Tax - Measure B
Sales and Use Tax - Public Safety
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Parks, Recreation & Libraries
Building Permits
Plan Check Fees
Engineering Inspection Fees
Grants
Other Revenues
Transfers
Total
General Fund Operating Revenues
Cumulative Percentage of Revenue Collected
(July 1 – June 30)
Amended
Budget
(Millions)
% of Revenue Collected
4  Sales Tax - Bradley Burns and Measure B - The City's Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax revenues ended the year at $70.6 and $28.3 million, respectively. Bradley Burns Sales Tax revenues exceeded budget estimates by 19 percent ($11.2 million), and Measure B Sales Tax revenues exceeded estimates by 34 percent ($7.2 million). Similar to FY2020-21, these positive results were primarily due to two factors. First, the FY2021-22 budget was developed in the spring of 2021 when there was still a lot of uncertainty related to the pandemic and its impact on the economy. Second, sales tax revenue growth was stronger than anticipated, locally and across the state, primarily driven by inflation and strong economic activity in the general retail, food products, transportation, construction sectors, and internet sales (reported in the County Pool category below). The graphs below show Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales and Use Tax revenues over the last three fiscal years and by business category.
$0
$10
$20
General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction Business To Business
Millions
Miscellaneous County Pool
Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax by Category
FY2019‐20 FY2020‐21 FY2021‐22
$0
$5
$10
General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction Business To Business
Millions
Miscellaneous
Measure B Sales & Use Tax by Category
FY2019‐20 FY2020‐21 FY2021‐22
$52.7
$63.7
$71.1
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Total
Millions
Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax
FY2019‐20 FY2020‐21 FY2021‐22
$19.7
$24.5
$28.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
Total
Millions
Measure B Sales & Use Tax
FY2019‐20 FY2020‐21 FY2021‐22
5 The City's sales tax consultant has prepared a summarized sales tax report of business activity through the June 2022 quarter (or second quarter of calendar year 2022). The report provides a list of the top 25 sales tax remitters, a summary of cash receipts, and sales tax data by economic category. A copy of the report is attached.
 Property Tax - Secured, Unsecured and Supplemental
The City's property tax revenues (included in the
Property Tax category in the charts above) exceeded
estimates by $2.9 million ($60.8 million received
compared to the budget of $57.9 million), and
continued not to be significantly impacted by the
pandemic. Based on a property's assessed value as
of January 1 of each year, property tax revenues
continued to increase based on ongoing development
activity and rising assessed property values. The
graph shows property tax revenues over the last
three years.
 Hotel Tax - The City's Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues, also known as the hotel tax, exceeded estimates by approximately $1.9 million ($4.5 million received compared to the $2.6 million budget). Staff budgeted a conservative amount of TOT in FY2021-22 due to the economic uncertainty of the pandemic at the time. TOT revenues have fully recovered from the impacts of the pandemic.
 Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PR&L) Programs – PR&L program revenues ended the year at 88 percent of budget or approximately $460,000 below estimates. FY2021-22 was a rebuilding year, with COVID-19 pandemic impacts affecting the first and second quarters. Revenue trended below estimates throughout the year but PRL continued to see improvements in program participation - programs and events are back, sports teams are on the fields, and parks and trails are busy. The PR&L Department offset this revenue shortfall with expenditure savings from materials, services, supplies and vacant positions.
 Building Permits, Plan Check Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees - Building permit revenues ended the fiscal year higher than budget by 41 percent due to sustained increases in the City's development activity. Engineering inspection fees ended the fourth quarter lower than budget at 87 percent but are offset by a corresponding increment in secondary labor cost recovery due to workload shifting toward more full-cost recovery projects. $53.4 $56.3 $60.8
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Total
Millions
Property Tax
FY2019‐20 FY2020‐21 FY2021‐22
6  Other Revenues - Other revenues include reimbursements from the State, development reimbursement activity, property transfer tax, business license tax, rental payments, animal licensing, passport processing, permit, franchise, and other fees. As of the end of the fourth quarter, revenues in this category exceeded estimates by $4.5 million. The positive results in the other revenue category are primarily due to stronger than anticipated First Responder Fee ($1.3 million), Property Transfer Tax ($1.2 million), and Workers Compensation Refund ($1.2 million) revenues.  Transfers - Transfers ended the year approximately $600,000 under budget. This variance is due to a planned transfer in from the Contributions from Developers Fund to cover an anticipated deficit in the Golf Fund. Golf Fund revenues were much stronger than anticipated in FY2021-22; therefore, this transfer was unnecessary.

General Fund: Operating Expenditures
The following table includes cumulative fourth quarter expenditure comparisons for General Fund departments for FY2021-22.

Budget to Cumulative Expenditure Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
Department Amended
Budget Cumulative Expenditures Variance % of Budget
Police $ 51,228,045 $ 51,075,901 $ 152,144 100%
Fire 43,007,167 42,857,070 150,097 100%
Parks, Recreation & Libraries 28,446,896 27,199,344 1,247,552 96% General Government* 11,126,206 10,032,845 1,091,361 90% Development Services 10,352,617 9,294,583 1,058,034 90% Public Works 8,430,215 8,268,203 162,012 98%
Economic Development & Housing 854,472 824,469 30,003 96% Annexation Payments 8,850,000 9,257,913 (407,913) 105%
Other 13,328,156 13,162,556 165,600 99%
Transfers Out 14,615,844 14,414,895 200,949 99%
Total $ 190,239,618 $186,387,779 $ 3,849,839 98%
Encumbrance Reserve* (993,753) - (993,753)
Total $ 189,245,865 $186,387,779 $ 2,856,086
(1) General Government includes the following departments: City Council, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk, Finance, Public Affairs and Communications, and Human Resources. 7 General Fund expenditures ended the year at 98 percent of the estimated budget, totaling $2.8 million in cost savings after considering unspent encumbrances re-appropriated into the FY2022-23 budget. The cost savings in General Fund departments is primarily due to vacant positions in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries, Development Services, Public Works, and other General Fund departments and lower than expected materials, services and supplies expenses..

Both Police and Fire departments ended the year on budget. Parks, Recreation & Libraries expenditures ended the year at 96 percent of the budget due to cost controls in materials, services, supplies, and temporary and full-time position vacancies. As mentioned earlier in this report, these savings offset the $460,000 revenue shortage in parks and recreation programming. General Government departments ended the year approximately 10 percent under budget, primarily due to vacancy savings. Development Services expenditures ended the year at 90 percent of the budget, primarily due to higher than anticipated reimbursements from full cost recovery development projects and reduced training and travel costs because many events were canceled in the last year due to the pandemic. Salary savings in the Public Works Department account for the 2 percent variance from the budget through the end of the fiscal year. The Economic Development Department ended the year $30,000 under budget (96 percent of the budget).

Annexation payments were higher than budgeted, resulting in a $0.4 million overage, due to the timing associated with receiving and making these payments. Savings in the other operating departments covered this overage.
100%
100%
96%
90%
90%
98%
96%
105%
99%
99%
98%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
Police
Fire
PR&L
General Government
Development Services
Public Works
Economic Development &…
Annexation Payments
Other
Transfers Out
Total
General Fund Department Operating Expenditures
Percentage of Budget Expended
(July 1 – June 30)
% of Budget Expended
Amended
Budget
(Millions)
8 Enterprise Funds: Operating Revenues and Expenditures Revenues
Electric operating
revenues ended the year
$18.4 million higher than
budget primarily due to
increased retail sales
totaling $9.6 million, of
which $2.7 million is
associated with warmer
than average
temperatures, $5.1 million for hydroelectric surcharges, and $1.8 million from rate increases. Electric also collected $1.5 million in unbudgeted wholesale revenue and a $0.5 million reimbursement from California Arrearage Payment Program (CAPP) not included in the budget.

The remaining $6.8 million in electric operating revenues include $4.4 million from unplanned flat fee charges and reimbursement from the California Department Generation of Water Resources (CDWR) and $800,000 provided from SMUD for mutual aid support, $1.2 million in customer and permit fees and $600,000 in other revenues. These increases in operating revenues were offset by $0.2 million less in Low Carbon Allowance and Credit Proceeds revenue.

Due to new development and increased usage, Water and Waste Services Operations revenues ended the year higher than anticipated by four and 16 percent. Wastewater operating revenues ended the year on budget. Net positive results in all three Environmental Utilities will be set aside in FY2022-23 to fund rehabilitation projects, fleet electrification, and a future utility operations center.

The demand for commuter services has slowly increased over the past year, with almost $400,000 collected in passenger fares, which is about 40 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Transit operating revenues continued to experience the effects of reduced services and losses in passenger fares due to low ridership resulting from COVID-19 through the fourth quarter of FY2021-22 compared to pre-pandemic levels. Overall, Transit revenues ended the year at approximately $600,000 under estimates. This shortfall is primarily due to state and federal reimbursements, which reflect lower-than-anticipated contract and fuel expenditures associated with transit ridership reductions.

Similar to Transit, Transportation revenues ended the year $200,000 below estimates, primarily related to Local Transportation Fund reimbursements. These reimbursements were lower than anticipated due to vacancies and materials, services, and supply savings.

Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Revenues Variance % ofBudget
Electric Operations $ 176,222,391 157,844,817 $ 18,377,574 $ 112% Water Operations 40,420,986 38,914,237 1,506,749 104%
Wastewater Operations 48,848,782 48,668,113 180,669 100% Waste Services Operations 39,740,899 34,252,968 5,487,931 116% Transit 6,451,716 7,037,973 (586,257) 92%
Transportation 1,749,769 1,925,389 (175,620) 91%
Youth Development 9,309,326 10,580,654 (1,271,328) 88%
Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
9 Revenues in the Youth Development Fund ended the fiscal year at 88 percent of budget. Budgeted revenues included $3.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to mitigate COVID impacts. The revenue shortfall was offset by $1.6 million in expenditure savings. While enrollment slowly rebounded, the primary factor affecting the department’s ability to fully meet the budget revenue target is related to part-time staffing challenges. Participant/staff ratios are a requirement of childcare licensing, which means fewer staff results in fewer participants allowed in the program. The department is implementing ongoing efforts to recruit and retain part-time employees.

Expenditures
Electric’s Operating
expenses ended the
year $2.8 million lower
than budget. As costs of
goods sold increased
during the fiscal year
due to stronger than
expected customer
energy demand
(primarily due to
unexpected hot weather) and the significant climb in power and gas prices, the Electric Department requested a $5.2 million budget increase to cover overages of which only $4.2 were consumed ending with a positive variance of $1.1 million. Savings from maintenance costs, contract services, small equipment and supplies, and training expenses resulted in a positive variance of $2.9 million. These savings were offset by an unbudgeted $0.5 expenditure related to the California Arreage Payment Program (CAPP). Project related delays resulted in a $2.4 million shortfall in planned labor reimbursements. Vacancy savings in Electric Operations totaled $1.5 million. Lastly, an additional $0.2 million in rebate program savings were realized due to fewer commercial efficiency projects and residential energy program participation.

Spending in the Environmental Utilities came in lower than budgeted due to delayed mandates related to the disposal of organic materials (SB1383), vacant positions and COVID-related limitations on operational plans, including travel and training and unused emergency contingency funds.

Transit expenditures ended the year $0.6 million under budget due to operational adjustments related to transit ridership reductions reflected in lower contracts and fuel costs, as well as the costs for a light-duty vehicle not received before year-end and a bus shelter replacement that was not completed. Cost savings of $0.4 million in the Transportation Fund are related to vacancies and lower than estimated material, services and supplies expenses.

Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Expenditures Variance % of
Budget
Electric Operations $ 134,058,176 136,872,260 $ 2,814,084 $ 98% Water Operations 29,758,674 34,886,586 5,127,912 85%
Wastewater Operations 42,707,478 48,370,406 5,662,928 88% Waste Services Operations 30,479,712 34,440,350 3,960,638 89% Transit 6,462,009 7,086,554 624,545 91%
Transportation 1,524,159 1,945,843 421,684 78%
Youth Development 6,535,174 8,104,298 1,569,124 81%
Budget to Cumulative Expenditure Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
10 Youth Development Fund expenditures ended the fiscal year at 81 percent of budget due to the measures taken to reduce operational costs to mitigate the impact of decreased enrollment. These savings offset a portion of the shortfall in operating revenues.

Other Revenue
The table presented
shows revenues in
the Fire Facilities,
Public Facilities, and
Strategic
Improvement Funds
(SIF) through the fourth quarter of FY2020-21 and FY2021-22. The revenue estimates for these three funds are generally based on a multi-year trend analysis of forecasted single-family, multi-family, and commercial development, as well as prior-year revenue collections. The sustained increase in development activity throughout the City during FY2021-22 has caused revenues in these funds to exceed budget estimates (Fire Facilities – 63 percent, Public Facilities – 86 percent, and SIF – 15%). The SIF revenue is significantly lower than than the prior year because the prior year also included proceeds from sales of surplus property.

FY2020-21
Actual
Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Revenues Variance % of
Budget
Fire Facilities $ 1,549,601 2,563,366 $ 2,527,505 $ 977,904 $ 163% Public Facilities 3,583,637 6,651,517 6,678,121 3,094,484 186% Strategic Improvement 4,602,041 9,574,821 5,281,317 679,276 115% Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
Top 25 Sales Tax Remitters California sales tax cash receipts increased by 4.9% from the same quarter last year. In this jurisdiction sales tax cash ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS receipts decreased by 0.6% from the same quarter last year AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE due to a decrease of $8,690,000 in Taxable Sales.

AUTONATION HONDA
BEST BUY STORES Cash Receipts Quarter Annual
BMW OF ROSEVILLE Roseville -0.6% 10.9%
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES Placer Countywide Pool 27.7% 9.0% CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS Placer Countywide 3.2% 12.3%
COSTCO WHOLESALE Sacramento Valley Region 1.9% 13.7%
FUTURE FORD Statewide 4.9% 16.2%

FUTURE NISSAN
GMC RELIABLE Annualized Percent Change in Sales Tax Cash Receipts

HOME DEPOT

JOHN L SULLIVAN CHEVROLET

LEXUS OF ROSEVILLE

MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE

MCKESSON MEDICAL -SURGICAL

NIELLO ACURA

NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORE

ROSEVILLE HYUNDAI

ROSEVILLE TOYOTA & SCION

SAFEWAY SERVICE STATIONS

SAM'S CLUB

TARGET STORES

VANDERBEEK MOTORS

WAL MART STORES
Business Activity Quarter Annual Quarter Annual
General Retail 10.6% 19.2% -5.1% 10.9%
Food Products 9.6% 20.4% 2.4% 18.3%
Transportation 12.0% 11.5% 2.9% 11.1%
Construction 1.9% 9.4% -5.5% -0.6%
Business To Business 3.0% -1.0% 0.0% 3.5%
TOTAL LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY 9.6% 13.3% -0.8% 9.7%
COUNTYWIDE POOL ACTIVITY 23.0% 7.6% 3.5% 5.2%
City of Roseville
Roseville California
Quarterly Report on Sales Tax and Business Activity
2nd Quarter 2022 in Review
-12.0%
-6.0%

0.0%

6.0%

12.0%

18.0%

24.0%

30.0%
Roseville Placer Countywide Statewide
Placer Countywide Pool 27.7% 9.0%
(e.g., dept. stores, misc. retail)
(e.g., markets and restaurants)
(e.g., new & used autos, gas stations)
(e.g., retail & wholesale construction
(e.g., IT, industrial equip. etc.)
Roseville
Annual Per Capita Sales Tax
Adjusted for Inflation
(Constant 2018 $)
City of Roseville
News
Economic Activity: Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased at an annual rate of 0.9% in the second quarter of 2022. U.S. inflation accelerated to 9.1% in June of 2022, while California's headline inflation was

8.3% year over year as of June of 2022. (DIR, BEA, BLS, July Finance Bulletin) Employment: The U.S. unemployment rate remained unchanged at 3.6% in June of 2022, 0.1 percentage point higher than the February of 2020 pre-pandemic low of 3.5%. California's unemployment rate fell to a new record-low of 3.9% in July of 2022, now 0.2 percentage point lower than the February of 2020 pre-pandemic rate of 4.1%. (July, August Finance Bulletin)
Personal Income: U.S. personal income increased by 4.6% for the second quarter of 2022, compared to same quarter previous year. Personal consumption and expenditures increased by 8.4% , resulting in a 50.9% decrease in US personal savings for the second quarter of 2022, compared to same quarter previous year. (BEA)
Annual Per Capita Sales Tax
2018Q2 $384 2019Q2 $379 2020Q2 $344 2021Q2 $389 2022Q2 $398 $41 $47 $53 $71 $70 $2 $2 $2
$2 $2 $37 $43 $37
$22 $36 $33
$19 $20
$22 $21
$123 $118 $104
$125 $126
$45 $43
$39
$40 $44
$115 $107
$89
$94 $102
General Retail
Food Products
Transportation
Construction
Business To Business
Miscellaneous
County Pool
(Cash Basis)
ORDINANCE NO. 6595

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCALYEAR 2022-23

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 2022-23, is hereby amended by transferring an additional appropriation to and from the activities indicated on the Year-End Budget Adjustments, as listed on the attached list.

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 , 2023, 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, Assistant Finance Director FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Natalya Lakhno, Budget Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 1/18/23 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Finance ORDINANCE:

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

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

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019

DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

TOTAL
The recommended budget adjustment includes an appropriation of $31.5 million in General Funds for the Roseville Sports Complex ($15 million), Capital Reserve ($4.5 million), Pension Reserve Trust ($4.5 million), Blue Oaks Widening ($4 million), General Fund contingency replenishment ($750,000), Police Department Mobile Data Computers ($700,000), Sports Field Fencing ($565,000), Development Services Stabilization Reserve (DSSR) ($518,000), Maidu Soccer Field Parking Lot ($450,000), General Plan Update ($279,000), Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project ($180,000), Royer Park Playground ($123,000). There are adequate resources available in the General Fund to fund the recommended appropriations. This budget adjustment also includes an appropriation of $250,000 from Placer Valley Tourism Grant for the Sports Field Fencing Project.

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
See attached.

See attached.

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

ACCOUNT STRING
TOTAL
See attached.

TOTAL

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Natalya Lakhno, Budget Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 1/18/23 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Finance ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 6587 84001 400068 14,500,000
1001 5080 84001 400068 500,000
1001 5080 84001 500322 300,000
1001 5301 84001 500322 3,700,000
1001 5670 10001 750,000
1001 5540 44040 700,000
1001 5301 84001 700049 20,797
1001 6587 84001 700049 544,203
1001 6801 10001 518,392
1001 5301 84001 500323 50,000
1001 5080 84001 500323 50,000
1001 6587 84001 500323 350,000
1001 5080 84001 500325 279,103
1001 6587 84001 500324 100,000
1001 5080 84001 500324 80,000
1001 6801 10001 123,000
1001 6801 10001 4,486,252
1001 6801 10001 4,486,253
31,538,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
31,538,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 3601 00000 000000 (31,538,000)
TOTAL (31,538,000)

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Decrease in General Fund available resources
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT
Transfer of funds from General Fund to GF Capital
Reserve
Transfer of funds from General Fund to Pension Reserve
Trust
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Establish Capital Outlay-CIP budget for Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project
Establish Internal Project Labor budget for Vernon Atlantic Multimodal Safety Improvement Project
Transfer of funds from General Fund to PRL Capital
Projects Fund for Royer Park Play Structure
Transfer from General Fund to Development Services
Stabilization Reserve
Establish Professional Services budget for Parking Lot at Maidu Soccer Fields Project
Establish Internal Project Labor budget for Parking Lot at Maidu Soccer Fields Project
Establish Capital Outlay-CIP budget for Parking Lot at
Maidu Soccer Fields Project
Appropriation of General Funds (1001) for General Plan
Project
Replenish General Fund Contingency
Appropriation of General Funds (1001) for Mobile Data
Computer Replacement
Establish Professional Services budget for Sports Field Fencing Project
Establish Capital Outlay-CIP budget for Sports Field
Fencing Project

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase Capital Outlay-CIP budget for Roseville Sports Complex Project
Increase Internal Project Labor budget for Roseville
Sports Complex Project
Establish Internal Project Labor budget for Blue Oaks
Widening Project
Establish Professional Services budget for Blue Oaks
Widening Project

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Natalya Lakhno, Budget Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 1/18/23 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Finance ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
4105 6587 84001 500326 700,000
2270 5301 84001 700049 9,203
2270 6587 84001 700049 240,797
3130 6587 84001 500109 123,000
1,073,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
4105 4251 10001 700,000
2270 4435 84001 700049 250,000
1013 4801 10001 518,392
3130 4801 10001 123,000
1012 4801 10001 4,486,252
7011 4801 10001 4,486,253
10,563,897
(9,490,897)

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1012 3601 00000 000000 4,486,252
1013 3601 00000 000000 518,392
7011 3601 00000 000000 4,486,253
TOTAL 9,490,897

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase in GF Capital Reserve available resources
Increase in Development Services Stabilization Reserve
available resources
Increase in Pension Reserve Trust available resources
Transfer of funds from General Fund to Pension Reserve
Trust
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT
Transfer of funds from General Fund to GF Capital
Reserve
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Establish revenue budget to move General Funds (1001)
to the IT Replacement Fund (4105) for Mobile Data
Computer Replacement
Establish Placer Valley Tourism grant budget for Sports Field Fencing Project
Transfer of funds from General Fund to Development
Services Stabilization Reserve
Transfer of funds from General Fund to PRL Capital
Projects Fund for Royer Park Play Structure

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase Capital Outlay-CIP budget for Royer Park Play
Structure
Establish Placer Valley Tourism grant budget for Sports Field Fencing Project
Establish budget for Mobile Data Computer Replacement
Establish Placer Valley Tourism grant budget for Sports Field Fencing Project

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2485
File #: 0800-03
Title:

Advanced Metering Infrastructure - Roseville Municipal Code Amendment and User and Regulatory Fee Amendment
Contact: Joanna Cucchi 916-746-1609 [email protected] Meeting Date: 1/18/2023
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution approving the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) advanced meter optout fee and amending the 2022-2023 Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees to include the AMI advanced meter opt-out fee; and

2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 14.24 of the Roseville Municipal Code to incorporate Section 14.24.053 adopting a monthly rate for opt-out customers.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville will begin to modernize our electric metering system which will provide a new industry standard meter to utility customers. These new meters wirelessly send readings and information and will become the standard meter for Roseville Electric Utility. Single-family residential customers, with the exception of net-energy metered customers, can chose to opt out of the new meter.

This action would amend the Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees to include a one-time fee of $119 for customers choosing to opt out of the new meters. This fee covers the purchase cost and installation of a non-communicating meter. In addition, the proposal will amend the Municipal Code to include a monthly rate of $15 that will be charged on the customer’s utility bill.

The $15 monthly rate will be used to recover the additional costs of meter reading and bill processing for opt-out customers. This is a voluntary opt-out program and the proposed fee and rate are calculated to recover the utility’s cost to provide these additional services to opt-out customers.

In order to provide relief for our income qualified customers who wish to participate in the opt-out program, the one-time fee and monthly rate will be reduced by fifty-percent (50%). For customers who participate in the low income rate reduction, senior citizen rate reduction, or medical support rate reduction programs, the one-time fee will be $59.50 and monthly rate will be $7.50. The Electric Department’s public benefits program will cover the remainder of the costs to low income customers.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed opt-out program is estimated to collect approximately $70,000 annually and will recover the costs associated with implementing the program. The discounted opt-out for low income rate participants will be funded through the utility's public benefits program, which includes funding required to be set aside for these types of programs, in the Electric 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,
Joanna Cucchi, Interim Electric Finance Administrator
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 23-015
Master Fee Schedule Electric fees
Opt-out ordinance-Municipal CodeAmendment
RESOLUTION NO. 23-015

ADOPTING AN AMENDED SCHEDULE OF USER AND REGULATORY FEES WHEREAS, user and regulatory fees are established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, the City Council adopted an updated schedule of fees for use in Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville will begin to modernize our electric metering system which will provide a new industry standard meter to utility customers; and WHEREAS, these new meters wirelessly send readings and information and will become the standard meter for Roseville Electric Utility; and
WHEREAS, this will require an amendment to the Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees to include a one-time fee of $119 for customers choosing to opt-out of the new meters to cover the purchase cost and installation of a non-communicating meter; and WHEREAS, the proposal will also amend the Municipal Code to include a monthly rate of $15 that will be charged on the customer’s utility bill to recover the additional costs of meter reading and bill processing for opt-out customers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that the amended Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees is hereby adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these fees are incorporated into the City’s current master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2023, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
26 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Electric Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Solar Energy Program - Meter Upgrade Charges
1 Residential PV Net-Meter $856.54 N
2 Business PV Net-Meter (<10kW system size) $2,028.76 N 3 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
up to 200amp PBI panel)
$2,756.27 [a] N
4 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
>200amp PBI panel)
$4,535.68 [a] N
5 Variance Review Request $211.40 per hour N
6 Plan Reviews or Field Meets Exceeding the Initial and Subsequent Submittal Limit
$211.40 per hour [b] N
Other Service Fees
7 Pedestal Meter Fee $584.35 N
8 Temporary Power Meter Set
a) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Residential $584.35 N
b) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Commercial Actual Cost N
9 Extension of Facilities Actual Cost N
10 Svc Connections and Facilities on Customer's Premises Actual Cost N 11 Meter Test
a) Test - More than six-months since prior test $0.00 N b) Test - Within six-months of meter install or prior test Actual Cost N 12 Overhead-to-Underground Conversion of Overhead Utilities Actual Cost N 13 Small Cell Plan Check Fee $782.12 N
14 Technology Fee 3% N
15 Meter Opt-Out $119.00 N
16 Low-Income Meter Opt-Out $59.50 N
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost or items billed at average labor and material rates, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. * All meter upgrade costs must be paid prior to receiving interconnection approval to operate the PV system. [a] Customer is required to supply a dedicated working phone line and monitoring for the duration of the PBI payment term. See the construction standards for phone line requirements. [b] The initial and first resubmittal plan review and the initial and first resubmittal field inspections are included in the basic Meter Upgrade Charge.
\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P005\00072840.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ADDING SECTION 14.24.053 TO CHAPTER 14.24 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE

MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ELECTRICAL ENERGY
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 14.24.053 of Chapter 14.24 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

14.24.053 Residential smart meter opt out.

A. Purpose: The residential smart meter opt out rate is intended to provide an alternative metering option for single family residential customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their premise. Roseville Electric will install a non-communicating meter for opt-out customers that will be manually read monthly.

B. Customers choosing to opt out of the smart meter program will be charged a one-time fee as adopted in the City of Roseville fee book and a monthly charge established below to recover the costs of manual meter reading and processing of their electric usage. \\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P005\00072840.DOCX 2 C. Effective with the smart meter program implementation, customers choosing to opt out of the program will be charged $15 per meter per month. For customers who participate in the senior citizen rate reduction, low-income rate reduction, and medical support rate reduction programs, the monthly opt-out rate will be $7.50 per meter.

D. Eligibility: in order to qualify to opt out of the smart meter program, the following conditions apply:

1. Single family residences, which may include townhomes and condominiums that are individually metered, as well as duplexes and half-plexes, are eligible.

2. Customers with a net metering rate (NM-1) are not eligible.

3. Customers who have a history of meter tampering or unauthorized use of energy are not eligible.

4. Customer opt out does not transfer to new service addresses. The customer will be required to opt-out and pay the one-time fee for each premise.

5. Customers can opt-in at any time after opt-out. However, opt-out will no longer be available for that customer at their current residence. There are no costs associated with opt-in.
\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P005\00072840.DOCX 3 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2499
File #: 0400-04-18 & 0400-08
Title:

North Industrial Plan Area Parcel 56 (2200 Freedom Way) Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 Appeal
Contact: Escarlet Mar 916-774-5247 [email protected] Meeting Date: 1/18/2023
Item #: 10.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Based on the September 22, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of entitlements related to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project and take the following actions:

1. Consider the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the September 22, 2022 approval by the Planning Commission; adopting the two (2) findings of fact and approving the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification subject to ten (10) conditions of approval; and adopting the two (2) findings of fact and approving the Major Project Permit Stage 2 subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary of the project, the Planning Commission hearing and the appeal. A detailed project background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 1. This project was originally listed on the Council’s December 7, 2022 agenda and after additional correspondence was received from the appellant on December 6 and 7, the applicant requested a continuance of the project to address this correspondence. The Council voted to continue the project to January 18, 2023.

The project site is located at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way, at the southwest corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fidelity Way. The project has a zoning designation of General Industrial (M2) and a land use designation of General Industrial (IND) and is located on Parcel 56 of the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA). The project site is bordered by Blue Oaks Boulevard to the north, a developed office building and an undeveloped parcel to the east, developed industrial uses to the south and Industrial Avenue and a railroad corridor to the west.

Project Description
The applicant requests approval of an MPP Stage 1 Modification to change the approved site plan by increasing the square footage of the industrial buildings on the site by approximately 50,000 square feet. The modification will also reorient the layout of the project site and reduce the overall number of industrial buildings. Furthermore, the project includes an MPP Stage 2 to evaluate the architecture and landscape plans of the four (4) new industrial buildings and associated site improvements. The future tenants of the buildings are unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that uses will include warehousing, light manufacturing, and/or distribution with office space. A detailed description and evaluation of the project is included in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1). The project site plan is included as Exhibit B.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2022. The Commission asked questions relating to the high volume of traffic along Blue Oaks Boulevard and whether any future CIP improvements are proposed on Blue Oaks, near the project site. Staff responded that the traffic associated with the proposed project is consistent with the citywide traffic model and that the widening of the Blue Oaks bridge is identified as a future CIP project. No public comments were provided during the hearing.

The Planning Commission considered the item and voted to approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification subject to ten (10) conditions of approval and the Major Project Permit Stage 2 subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent.

Appeal
On September 30, 2022, the City received a notice of appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision from the Lozeau Drury law firm, representing the Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union No. 185 (see Attachment 2). The appeal letter alleged the project should have completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of an Addendum because mitigation measures are necessary to address the project’s significant cumulative air quality impacts and air pollution emissions and energy usage.

On October 20, 2022, the City received a letter from Buchalter Law Group (see Attachment 3), representing Schnitzer Properties (the applicant), concurring with the City’s CEQA determination that an Addendum was the appropriate environmental document for CEQA compliance, and requesting the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The following provides a summary of the issues raised in the original appeal letter along with the staff response.

Response I, Air Quality
The appeal asserts the Project may have potentially significant cumulative air quality impacts that were not previously analyzed in the 2010 NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND) and new mitigation measures would substantially reduce one or more significant cumulative air quality impacts.

The appellant asserts that since the adoption of the NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND there are new standard mitigation measures related to distribution centers and warehouses that would reduce the cumulative air quality impacts of the Project. However, the appellant fails to provide Project-specific impacts associated with air quality that would warrant new mitigation measures. According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15162, an Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. As described in the Addendum, the increase of approximately 50,000 square-feet does not result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact which would warrant an IS/MND or EIR. The Project air quality impacts associated with the increase in square footage of the Project are consistent with the development scenarios previously analyzed in the NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND. Furthermore, current Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) regulations, which are designed to ensure compliance with air quality standards, apply to the Project. Based on this information and the applicable mitigation measures previously outlined in the NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND, the Project would not require any new mitigation measures.

Response II, Air Pollution & Energy
The appeal asserts the Project did not appropriately analyze the increase in energy usage associated with the increase in the building square footage.

The appellant provided no analysis or evidence that would prove their assertion, but rather the appellant makes a speculative and general statement that the increase in the Project building square footage would generate an increase in energy usage because of an increase in trucks. The Addendum acknowledges that Energy was not previously analyzed in the 2010 NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND because Energy is a new issue area that is now required to be examined. However, based on the Project’s land use designation, the assumed development was evaluated as part of the citywide analysis prepared for the General Plan Update EIR, which assessed the energy demand and determined that the Project would not result in substantial unplanned demands, nor would it result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project is within the scope of development assumed within the General Plan analysis. Thus, emissions from the project are not a new, project-specific impact requiring analysis, and per the tiering provisions of CEQA additional environmental analysis is not required.

It is explicitly stated in the General Plan Update EIR that the EIR will be used by future projects for this tiering.

On December 6 and 7, 2022 the City received additional correspondence from the appellant (see Attachments 4 and 5). In both letters, the appellant expanded on the allegations regarding air quality, air pollution and energy that were raised in the September 30, 2022 appeal letter and introduced a new concern related to biological resources. These letters did not introduce any new evidence that warrants additional responses to the September 30, 2022 appeal letter, regarding air quality, air pollution, or energy usage. The new issue raised relates to speculation that the increased square footage of the project could result in additional truck traffic, which would then result in 669 vertebrate related vehicle deaths per year. Staff worked with the applicant to have a biologist visit the project site and provide an analysis of wildlife occurrences and habitat on or nearby. The biologist visited the site on December 15, 2022 and concluded (see Attachment 6) that there is no evidence to support the appellant’s assertion that the project will result in 669 wildlife fatalities per year.

On December 21, 2022, the City received a second letter from Buchalter Law Group, representing Schnitzer Properties (see Attachment 6). This letter provides a detailed response to the appellant’s most recent allegations and concludes with concurrence of the City’s determination that the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for CEQA compliance.

Public Outreach
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Notice of both the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune and on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) website, and mailed to all property owners and residents within a 300 foot radius of the project site. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comment regarding the project.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, North Roseville Area Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the prior Blue Oaks Commerce Center project approvals. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of entitlements and approve the Major Permit Project Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2.

FISCAL IMPACT
The development of the site with four (4) new industrial buildings and associated site improvements will not result in negative impacts to the City’s General Fund as it will develop two (2) vacant parcels with four (4) new industrial buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared an Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted on May 27, 2010) for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project (File #PL22-0101) consistent with CEQA Section 15164. This Addendum (see Exhibit A) evaluated the impact of development of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center, which includes the project site. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the Project previously evaluated in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted on May 27, 2010) and no new significant effects are expected to occur. In the September 30, 2022 appeal, Lozeau Drury challenges the determination that an Addendum was the appropriate environmental document for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project and that the City should prepare a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in lieu of the Addendum.

However, the appeal letter does not offer any substantial evidence to support the claim for a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. As mentioned above, in the analysis of the appeal, staff is confident that the Addendum adequately evaluated the Project and concluded that it would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Based on the analysis contained in the Addendum, the Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this project.

The background section of this report provides a description of the appellant's concerns regarding the Addendum as well as a staff response and the response from the Applicant.

Therefore, staff recommends the City Council consider the proposed Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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

Description
Attachment 1 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 2Appeal
Attachment 3 Buchalter Response to September 22, 2022 letter Attachment 4 Lozeau Drury December 5, 2022 letter
Attachment 5 Lozeau Drury December 7, 2022 letter
Attachment 6 Buchalter Response to December letters
Exhibit A - Addendum
Attachment 7 Vicinity Map
Resolution 23-023
Exhibit B Site Plan
Exhibit C Preliminary Grading Plan
Exhibit D Preliminary Utility Plan
Exhibit E Topographic & Boundary Survey
Exhibit F Landscape Plan
Exhibit G Floor Plan
Exhibit H Elevations
Exhibit I Site Lighting Plan & Photometric
Exhibit J Materials and Color Board

PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 22, 2022
Prepared by: Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.2: Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 – 2200 Freedom Way – NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center – File #PL22-0101

REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 to allow construction of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size, which will be located on two (2) parcels totaling 23.94-acres in size.

Applicant – Jennifer Kimura, VLMK Engineering + Design
Property Owner – Harsch Investment Properties II, LLC

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

1. Consider the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification subject to ten (10) conditions of approval; and

3. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 2 subject to ninetythree (93) conditions of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The project site is located at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way, at the southwest corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fidelity Way (see Figure 1). On June 1, 2022, planning staff approved a Voluntary Merger (File# PL22-0059) to merge Parcel 4 (017-123-083) and Parcel 5 (017-123-084) of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Subdivision Parcel Map into one (1) parcel. As of this writing, the lot merger has been recorded. The project has a zoning designation of General Industrial (M2) and a land use designation of General Industrial (IND) and is located on Parcel 56 of the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA). The North Roseville Area Design Guidelines were adopted in order to influence the general character of development within the NIPA. The project site is bordered by Blue Oaks Boulevard to the north, a developed office building and an undeveloped parcel to the east, developed industrial uses to the south and Industrial Avenue and a railroad corridor to the west.

On May 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 and a Tentative Subdivision Map for development of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project with a 575,505 square feet office, industrial and retail complex (File# 2007PL-039) (see Figure 2 below). An Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared as part of the MPP Stage 1 and Tentative Subdivision Map for the project to evaluate the environmental impacts of developing NIPA PCL 56, which was adopted by the Planning Commission.

CC ATTACHMENT 1
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 2 of 20 Figure 2: Approved Blue Oaks Commerce Center Site Plan (File# 2007PL-039) Figure 1: Project Location
Project Site
Industrial Avenue
Blue Oaks Boulevard
Washington Boulevard
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 3 of 20 On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the MPP Stage 1 site plan to allow the elimination of the retail portion of the project and replace 80,724 square feet of industrial uses with an approximately 122,385 square foot three story office building for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (see Figure 3). A MPP Stage 2 was also approved for the FBI Office building, which approved the building architecture, site grading, and on-site landscaping. The MPP Stage 1 entitlement approved in 2010 included conceptual landscape plans for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center. The landscape plans were deemed to be consistent with the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines (NRADG). The NRADG was adopted in 1992 and does not address current water efficient landscape requirements. On May 24, 2016, the Planning Manager approved an Administrative Permit to modify the master landscape plan for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center to include more drought tolerant species and meet current water efficiency standards.

Figure 3: Blue Oaks Commerce Center Modified Site Plan (red) Proposed Project
The proposed project is located on Parcel 1, 4, and 5 as illustrated in Figure 4. The total area of the project site is approximately 23.94 acres. The revised project will allow the development of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping (see Figure 5). The eastern corner parcel of the previously approved Blue Oaks Commerce Center will remain unchanged with this application.

The request for an MPP Stage 1 Modification would change the approved site plan by increasing the square footage of the industrial buildings on the site by approximately 50,000 square feet. The modification will also reorient the layout of the project site and reduce the overall number of industrial buildings. Lastly, the project includes an MPP Stage 2 to evaluate the architecture and landscape plans of the four (4) new industrial buildings and associated site improvements. The future tenants of the buildings are unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that uses will include warehousing, light manufacturing, and/or distribution with office space.

NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 4 of 20 Figure 4: Blue Oaks Commerce Center Parcel Maps Figure 5: Overall Conceptual Site Plan
Previously Approved
Not part of this Project
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 5 of 20 EVALUATION The proposed project is being evaluated through the Major Project Permit entitlement process. The intent of the MPP process is to streamline the review of large and diverse projects that could be constructed over a period of several years. The MPP process allows for the resolution of site issues prior to the review of more detailed architectural and landscape plans that may not be finalized at the time the site plan is ready. In accordance with the City’s MPP Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the MPP review process is segregated into three separate stages. The evaluation section of this report includes an analysis of the requested MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2. Each entitlement is analyzed for its consistency with the goals and policies of the applicable regulations, including the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Community Design Guidelines, the North Industrial Planning Area, and the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines.

Section 19.82.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance describes the procedures for an amendment to a Major Project Permit. According to Section 19.82.040(C), all amendments that are not considered minor shall be reviewed in the same manner as the initial approval. The proposed request includes modifying the site plan and constructing four (4) new industrial buildings. This modification does not meet the minor modification criteria and; therefore, requires final action by the Planning Commission subject to the findings for a Major Project Permit Stage 1. The required findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation.

The findings for a MPP Stage 1 (or modification of same) are as follows:

1. The Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines; and

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

The findings for the MPP Stage 2 are as follows:

1. The architecture and landscaping is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines; and Phase 1 approval; and

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

These findings are essentially the same, with the MPP Stage 1 Modification findings referring to the preliminary development plan, and the MPP Stage 2 findings referring to the architecture and landscaping, as well as consistency with the Stage 1 project. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation, both stages are examined together.

Site Plan and Building Siting: The project will modify the approved site plan by reorienting the industrial buildings on parcels 1, 4, and 5, and increasing the total square footage by approximately 50,000 square feet. Parcel 1 is situated at the southwest corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fidelity Way, and Parcels 4 and 5 are located south of Parcel 1 and bounded by Industrial Avenue to the west and Freedom Way to the north.

As previously mentioned, on June 1, 2022, City staff approved a Voluntary Merger (File# PL22-0059) to merge Parcel 4 (017-123-083) and Parcel 5 (017-123-084) of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Subdivision Parcel Map into one (1) parcel (resultant Parcel A). As of this writing, the Lot Merger has been recorded. Therefore, the project will encompass two (2) legal parcels.

NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 6 of 20 Figure 6: Parcel 1 Proposed Site Plan Figure 7: Parcel A Proposed Site Plan
Parcel 1 is proposed with two (2) standalone industrial buildings measuring 85 feet in width and 700 feet in length, totaling 119,500 square feet of building area (see Figure 6). Building D is setback approximately NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 7 of 20 120 feet from Blue Oaks Boulevard and has a front average setback of 105 feet. Similar to Parcel 1, Parcel A is proposed with two (2) standalone industrial buildings (see Figure 7). Building A is proposed to measure approximately 150 feet in depth and 730 feet in width. Building B is proposed to measure 110 feet in depth and 730 feet in width. The total square footage of Buildings A and B is approximately 189,300 square feet in size.

The NRADG requires minimum landscape setbacks for both Primary Arterial Corridors and Secondary Arterial Corridors. According to the NRADG, Blue Oaks Boulevard is designated as a Primary Landscape Corridor and Industrial Avenue as a Secondary Landscape Corridor, therefore, a 50 foot landscape corridor is proposed along Blue Oaks Boulevard and a 35 foot landscape corridor is proposed along Industrial Avenue. At the northeast corner of Parcel 1 the parking stalls encroach 2 feet within the landscape corridor. As a result of this encroachment the landscape corridor is decreased by two (2) feet, to allow for a minimum drive aisle width of 24 feet which will allow adequate emergency access and backup distance for vehicles exiting these spaces. This minor reduction in setback is supported by staff and is the only area of the project site where the landscape corridor is less than 50 feet.

Pursuant to the NRADG, a building pad landscape area of 10 feet is also required around the buildings.

Buildings A-D all propose this landscape zone around the buildings where permissible.

Vehicle Access and Circulation: The changes to the site plan will result in modifications to the access and circulation pattern of the parcels. The project will provide driveways along Industrial Avenue to the west, along Freedom Way to the south and north, and along Fidelity Way to the east, consistent with the original MPP approval. However, a vehicle access evaluation of the project site was prepared by Fehr & Peers (Attachment 2) and found that the second driveway along Industrial Avenue would permit full turning movements. The same study also found that the driveway north of Freedom Way and South of the Blue Oaks Bridge would only permit right-turns in and out of the site.

Therefore, the Engineering Division has added Condition #7, which will require the driveway along Industrial Avenue on Parcel 1 to restrict inbound and outbound movements to right-turns only by constructing a narrow raised curb on the east edge of the median within Industrial Ave. City Engineering and Fire Department staff have reviewed the project and found it to conform to City design standards and emergency vehicle response standards. The project has adequate vehicle site access, meets design standards, and will not be detrimental to public health and safety.

Parking: The Blue Oaks Commerce Center project was approved and designed so that adequate parking for all uses was provided on each parcel independent of other projects and will meet the City’s parking standards.,
Based on the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement for general industrial uses, the project is required a minimum of 400 parking spaces. Between the Parcels 1 and A, the project proposes 822 parking spaces, 4 bike parking, and 99 Clean Air/EV parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement.

Architecture: The Blue Oaks Commerce Center MPP Stage 1 included the review and approval of the conceptual architecture and landscaping for the site. The purpose of the conceptual plans is to show a consistent architecture and landscape theme, in compliance with the applicable design guidelines, that provides a guide for development of the site. The Community Design Guidelines suggest that projects with multiple buildings develop an architectural theme throughout the project. The Blue Oaks Commerce Center MPP Stage 1 conceptual plans show a concrete tilt-up construction, score lines and wall, and roof line variation to provide visual interest, consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (see Figure 8).

NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 8 of 20 Figure 8: Blue Oaks Commerce Center MPP Stage 1 Approved Building Elevations The Blue Oaks Commerce
Center Buildings A, B, C, & D
will be of similar design to the
approved MPP Stage 1 plans.

The project buildings are
designed as a concrete tilt-up
industrial buildings with
architecture features like
reveals, stepped facades and
parapets, metal cornices, steel
beam accents over the
windows and canopies at the
entries. The buildings are
rectangular in shape with
variation in height to break up
the structure and provide visual
interest. The heights of the
buildings vary between 35 feet
and 43 feet tall, consistent with
the NRADG. The project
incorporates a similar paint
palette found in other
warehouse buildings within the vicinity, the buildings are proposed a variation of grey and white colors (see Figure 9).

The buildings are designed with a main entrance door defined by the forward presentation and aluminum storefront windows. The back elevations of each building will consist of a metal roll-up door for the loading dock area. The proposed evergreen trees at the corners of each building will minimize the views of the loading docks from public view. As proposed, the design of the buildings is similar to the approved Blue Oaks Commerce Center MPP Stage 1, and is consistent with the NRADG and the CDG.

Figure 9: Proposed Color Palette
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 9 of 20 Landscaping: The Blue Oaks Commerce Center conceptual landscape plans included a master landscape palette to be applied throughout the project. The proposed planting plan includes street trees suggested in the NRADG, shade trees, accent trees, and drought tolerant plants. Trees include a mix of London Planes and Chinese Pistache along the roadways and within the parking area, and Red Maples, Birch, Deodar Cedar, Loquat, Hawthorne, and Crape Myrtles around the building. Curvilinear lawns, areas of mow-free fescue, and shrub plantings are to be used along roadway frontages. The water quality swales should also be planted with trees and suitable vegetation that will allow the water treatment system to function properly. Consistent with the NRADG, 10 feet of planting area will be provided around the base of all buildings. The final landscaping will be required to adhere to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO).

Landscaping within the parking area will consist of a mix of Cherokee crape myrtle and drake lacebark elm. The CDG requires that 50-percent of the paved parking areas be shaded by trees at 15-year maturity. The landscaping plan indicates that the project site will provide 54-percent parking lot shading, meeting the requirement. Lastly, along the north side of Freedom Way a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas main exists that precludes any trees or shrubs to be located within five feet of the gas line. The proposed site plan shows the majority of the street trees would be located a minimum of five (5) feet from this line. To ensure this requirement, Condition #10 has been added to the project. Overall, the landscape design is consistent with the landscaping palate used throughout the NRADG and is consistent with the CDG.

Lighting: The parking lot lighting will consist of LED pole-mounted lights with an overall height of twentyfive (25) feet. This height complies with CDG Policy OI-82, which requires pole mounted lighting to be no taller than 35 feet for industrial projects. Consistent with CDG Policy OI-78, the lighting sources will have cut off lenses and be located to avoid light spillage and glare on adjacent properties and in private spaces.

The lighting is conditioned to comply with the City’s minimum lighting level requirements (0.5 foot-candles in pedestrian areas and 1.0 foot-candles in vehicle areas). As such, staff finds the photometric plan is consistent with the CDG.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, North Roseville Area Design Guidelines, CDG, and the prior Blue Oaks Commerce Center project approvals. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on September 10, 2022 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. No comments have been received as of publication of the staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted on May 27, 2010) was prepared for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project (File #PL22-0101) consistent with CEQA Section 15164. This Addendum evaluated the impact of development of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center, which includes the project site. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the previously evaluated project, and no new effects are expected to occur.

NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 10 of 20 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Consider the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION – 2200 FREEDOM WAY – NIPA PCL 56 – BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BLDS. A, B, C, & D) – FILE #PL22-0101 subject to ten (10) conditions of approval; and

3. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 2 – 2200 FREEDOM WAY – NIPA PCL 56 – BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BLDS. A, B, C, & D) – FILE #PL22-0101 subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MPP STAGE 1 MODIFICATION – FILE #PL22-0101

1. This Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 modification approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from September 22, 2022 and if not effectuated shall expire on September 22, 2024.

Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond September 22, 2025. (Planning)

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

3. The project is subject to the previously approved conditions of approval for the NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center MPP Stage 1 – File 2007PL-039 (MPP-000013 & SUB-000143), except as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

4. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (File# 2007PL-039) and subsequent Addendum prepared for the project, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

5. Bike parking and clean air vehicle spaces shall be provided per the California Green Building Standards. Bike rack/locker design and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation. (Alternative Transportation, Building).

6. The applicant shall provide a bus shelter easement at the location of the bus shelter pad along northbound Industrial Avenue, north of Freedom Way, adjacent to the site. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

7. The applicant shall install a raised curb at the northern driveway along Industrial Avenue, per the recommendations identified in the Technical Memorandum (Focused Access Evaluation for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center) prepared by Fehr & Peers dated July 26th, 2022. The raised curb shall begin 100 feet north of the driveway centerline and end 75 feet to the south of the driveway centerline. A One Way Only sign shall be placed within the raised curb visible to vehicles exiting the driveway. A NO U-Turn sign shall be installed at the north end of the raised curb or in the adjacent median. This will limit this driveway to right in/out only. (Engineering)

8. The applicant shall stripe a 175 foot southbound left-turn lane within the paved median to serve the southern driveway located along Industrial Avenue. All turning movements are approved on this driveway. (Engineering)

9. The address for this project shall be 2200 Freedom Wy. The address for proposed Building A shall be 2251 Freedom Wy. The address for proposed Building B shall be 2151 Freedom Wy. The address for proposed Building C shall be 2150 Freedom Wy. The address for proposed Building D shall be NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 11 of 20 2250 Freedom Wy. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s) and suite numbers to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for review and approval. (Business Services).

10. All trees and shrub plantings along Freedom Way shall be at least 5-feet away from the existing Pacific Gas & Electric gas line. (Planning)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MPP STAGE 2 – FILE #PL22-0101

1. This Major Project Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from September 22, 2022 and if not effectuated shall expire on September 22, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond September 22, 2025. (Planning)

2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits A – B and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

3. Lighting shall be reviewed with Stage Two and shall comply with Community Design Guidelines lighting standards (1 footcandle for roadways and parking lots and 0.5 footcandles for walkways). (Planning)

4. Tree plantings on the project site shall cumulatively provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage for parking areas and drive aisles, consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. (Planning)

5. Fencing and retaining walls shall be reviewed with the MPP Stage 2 application and shall be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines and North Roseville Design Guidelines, and improvement standards. (Planning)

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

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

8. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements until such time as grading and/or improvement plans are approved and grading and/or encroachment permits are issued by the Development Services - Engineering. (Engineering)

9. The approval of this project does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. (Engineering) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

10. All buildings shall be occupied with uses permitted in the General Industrial (M2) zone district, per the Roseville Municipal Code. Conditionally permitted uses may be permitted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to building occupancy. Uses not permitted under the current zoning shall only be permitted upon approval of a Rezone. All future development must comply with the Roseville Zoning Ordinance. (Planning)

11. Parking lot design shall conform to the City’s design standards, including the following minimum standards for parking stalls:
a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6-inch raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 12 of 20 b. Standard – 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact – 9 feet x 16 feet; Accessible – 14 feet x 18 feet (a 9-foot-wide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be Accessible van accessible – 17 feet x 18 feet (9-foot-wide parking area plus an 8-foot-wide loading area). (Planning)
c. An 'exterior routes of travel' site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross-slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signage, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B-208.2 of the CBC.
ii. Accessible Parking spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Chapter 11 of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Sections 11B-206 and 11B-208. (Building)

12. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Department to control onsite traffic movements. (Planning)

13. The plans submitted to the Building Department for permits shall indicate all approved revisions/alterations as approved by the Commission including all conditions of approval. (Planning)

14. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:
a. The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines; backflow preventers; fire department connections; and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Public Works)
b. The tree plantings in the parking lot shall be designed to provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage after 15 years. (Planning)
c. At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning) d. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for North Roseville Area Design Guidelines and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)
e. Landscaping adjacent to preserve areas shall consist of California native, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. (Open Space, Planning) f. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the Electric Department's Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments "Specification for Commercial Construction." (Electric) g. Slopes within landscape planters shall be no more than 3:1. A two-foot flat bench located at back-of-walk shall be included in the landscape area to slow or allow absorption of nuisance run-off from the planters. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries) NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 13 of 20 h. All landscaping shall conform to the standards of crime prevention through environmental design with the intent to create natural surveillance, controlling access, and territorial reinforcement to property boundaries. (Police)At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (2") bark (no shredded bark) or (2") mulch covering. (Planning)

15. Any roof-mounted equipment and satellite dishes proposed shall be shown on the building plans. The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning)

16. At the time of building permit application and plan submittal, the project applicant shall submit a proposed plan which shows the proposed addressing for the building and dwelling unit numbers.

The Building Official, or the designee, shall approve said plan prior to building permit approval. Refer to the City of Roseville Addressing Guidelines. (Building)

17. At the time of building permit application and plan submittal, the project applicant shall submit a proposed plan which shows the proposed suite addressing for individual tenant spaces within the building. The Building Official, or the designee, shall approve said plan prior to building permit approval. Refer to the City of Roseville Addressing Guidelines. (Building)

18. A separate Architectural Site Accessibility Plan which details the project's site accessibility information as required by California Title 24, Part 2 shall be submitted as part of the project Building Permit Plans. (Building)

19. For Multiple Building Complexes: As part of the required Architectural Site Accessibility Plan, the developer shall delineate the extent of the site accessibility improvements being installed as part of the initial improvements for the project, and those that are planned to be developed as part of subsequent phases (i.e. around future pad buildings). (Building)

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

21. For restaurants, other food services, or commercial swimming pools: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department. (Building)

22. For restaurants, other food services, or commercial swimming pools: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department and the City of Roseville Industrial Waste Division. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

23. Maintenance of copy of building plans: Health and Safety Code section 19850 requires the building department of every city or county to maintain an official copy of the building plans for the life of the building. As such, each individual building shall be submitted as a separate submittal package.

Building plan review, permit issuance and archiving is based on each individual building address. (Building)

24. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to Public Works prior to approval of any plans. (Public Works) NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 14 of 20 25. Improvements on Industrial Avenue shall be constructed to obtain 12-foot north bound and south bound travel lanes, a 10-foot north bound auxiliary lane across the entire frontage, a 12 –foot twoway left turn lane, and a 4-foot north bound bike lane. The property frontage on Industrial Avenue shall be improved to include standard curb, gutter, and an 8-foot detached pedestrian path. The site shall be accessed, with full turn movements, through Road A and the A-7 driveways located north and south of Road A. Driveways shall be 35-feet in width and shall have 30-foot curb returns for truck access. (Engineering)

26. The Improvement Plans shall include a complete set of Landscape Plans. The Landscape Plans shall be approved with the Improvement Plans. (Planning, Public Works, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

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

28. The developer shall place bus shelters and pads on northbound Industrial Avenue north of Road A (Shelter #10-249), southbound Washington Boulevard south of Road A (Shelter #10-250), westbound Road A west of Washington Boulevard (Shelter #10-251), eastbound Road “A” before the entrance to Parcel 7 (Shelter #10-252), and southbound on Road B south of Blue Oaks Boulevard (Shelter #10- 253). (Engineering/Transportation)

29. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the city's current standards on the shelter pads as conditioned above. The Developer and City may enter into a deferred improvement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 per shelter. (Engineering, Transit)

30. All driveways located on Road A and Road B shall be designed and constructed as 35-foot wide Type A-7 driveways. (Engineering)

31. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way or Public Utility Easement for the widening of any streets or transfer of public utilities across and over any portion of the property as required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Public Works)

32. Bike parking and clean air vehicle spaces shall be provided per the California Green Building Standards. Bike rack/locker design and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation. (Alternative Transportation, Building).

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

34. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. The storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 15 of 20 owner. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Public Works)

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

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

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

38. Roseville Electric will be requiring a 25’ Public Utilities Easement (PUE) that runs contiguously along the east side of Road “B” and the north side of Road “A”, and a 12’-6” PUE that runs contiguously along the west side of Road “B” and the south side of Road “A”. (Electric, Engineering)

39. Roseville Electric will be requiring the proposed 50’ landscape easement along Blue Oaks Blvd. be changed to a 50’ Landscape/ Public Utility Easement. (Electric, Engineering)

40. Roseville Electric will be requiring the proposed 50’ landscape easement along Washington Blvd. be changed to a 50’ Landscape/ Public Utility Easement. (Electric, Engineering)

41. Roseville Electric will be requiring the proposed 35’ landscape easement along Industrial Ave. to be changed to a 35’ Landscape/ Public Utility Easement. (Electric, Engineering)

42. Roseville Electric will be requiring a 35’ Public Utility Easement centered on all existing overhead electric lines throughout the entire site. (Electric, Engineering)

43. All street lighting along road A and B shall be installed, at the developer’s expense, per the approved City of Roseville Electric Site Utility Design generated by Roseville Electric. (Electric)

44. Roseville Electric shall require additional easements to cover all high voltage electric equipment. This can be accomplished by a common area Public Utilites Easements over the each parcel or by an easement by separate document over all high voltage equipment, as shown on the approved Electric Site Utility Design, generated by Roseville Electric. (Electric, Engineering)

45. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During plan check of the improvement plans and/or during inspection, Public Works will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. Any existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the property owner and at the property owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Public Works)

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

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

Citywide Drainage Fee, Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF), Highway 65 Joint Partners Association (JPA), South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA), and City/County Fee. (Public Works) NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 16 of 20 48. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

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

50. No trees are to be planted within 10’ of the 30” water main along the southern boundary of the property except with the approval of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

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

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

53. Based on the adopted fire protection codes adopted by this department, it appears that several of the buildings shall have installed a full fire alarm system subject to approval by this department. (Fire)

54. Trash enclosures, recycling areas, and enclosure approaches shall be designed to current Refuse Division specifications, the materials and colors shall match the building, and the location of such facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Refuse Division, Planning and the Fire Department.

The enclosure must have inside dimensions of 12 feet wide and 9 feet deep and be built to the specifications of the Solid Waste Department’s Enclosure Description. (Refuse, Planning, Fire)

55. Access to trash enclosures shall have an inside turning radius of 25 feet and an outside turning radius of 45 feet must be maintained to allow the refuse truck access to and from the enclosure. Enclosures must have a clear approach of 65 feet in front of the enclosure to allow servicing bins. (Refuse)

56. A trash enclosure and recycling enclosure is required for each building and each tenant, otherwise, the building owner is responsible for the trash service. (Refuse)

57. A covered seating or reception area at the main entrance at buildings N and M visible from the driveways, shall be provided for dial-a-ride passengers, and the drop-off/pick-up shall be signed. (Planning, Transportation)

58. The applicant/developer shall prepare a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan for Blue Oaks Commerce Center to be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission. (Transportation)

59. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. Lighting within the parking areas shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot candle of light. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant. (Planning & Police)
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 17 of 20 60. The parking lot shall have properly posted signs that state the use of the parking area is for the exclusive use of employees and customers of this project. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 22507.8, 22511.5, 22511.8, 22658(a), and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 11.20.110). The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning & Police)

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

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

63. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a. one (1) set of improvement plans
b. load calculations
c. electrical panel one-line drawings
DURING CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:

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

65. The following easements shall be provided by separate instrument and shown on the site plan, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. Water and sewer easements. (Electric, Public Works, Environmental Utilities)

66. Easement widths shall comply with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards.

Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville". All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. All existing public utility, electric, water, sewer and reclaimed water easements shall be maintained unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Public Works, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

67. Inspection of the potable water supply system on new commercial/industrial/office projects shall be as follows:
a. The Environmental Utilities Inspector will inspect all potable water supply up to the downstream side of the backflow preventer.

NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 18 of 20 b. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible for that portion of the water supply system from the backflow preventer to the building. The builder/contractor shall engage a qualified inspector to approve the installation of this portion of the water supply. The Building Division will require from the builder/contractor, a written document certifying that this portion of the potable water supply has been installed per improvement plans and in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. This certificate of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Division before a temporary occupancy or a building final is approved.
c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

68. All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Public Works)

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

70. Water, sewer and reclaimed water shall be constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. (Environmental Utilities)

71. All water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department. (Environmental Utilities)

72. Restaurants or other Food Service Establishment (FSE). The applicant shall design for installation and/or install an exterior grease interceptor if the proposed business could potentially discharge substances containing fats, oils and grease (FOG) into the sewer system. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in the wastewater from FSE’s prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)

73. In the event an exterior grease interceptor cannot be installed due to space limitation, the developer shall install a grease trap, per City Standards, that will mechanically separate the FOG contained in the wastewater from the FSE prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)

74. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a FOG waste discharge permit (FOG WDP) from the Environmental Utilities Industrial Waste Division prior to occupancy or prior to discharging waste to the public sewer. The applicant shall submit information required by the Environmental Utilities Department for evaluation, including but not limited to: site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, FOG control device, grease interceptor or other pretreatment equipment and appurtenances by size, location and elevation.

Additional information related to the applicant’s business operations and potential discharge may be requested to properly evaluate the FOG WDP application. (Environmental Utilities)

75. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the "City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction." (Electric)

76. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer and which are explained in the City of Roseville "Specification for Commercial Construction." These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)

77. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change of existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer's expense. (Electric)
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 19 of 20 78. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)

79. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. This can be accomplished in any of the following ways:
a. Locate the metered service panel on the outside of the building. b. Locate the metered service panel in a service room with a door that opens directly to the outside. The developer will be required to provide a key to the door for placement in a lock box to be installed on the outside of the door. Any doors leading from the service room to other areas of the building shall be secured to prohibit unauthorized entry. (Electric)

80. One ¾-inch conduit with a 2-pair phone line shall be installed from the building’s telephone service panel to the meter section of the customer's electrical switchgear or panel. (Electric)

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

82. Signs shown on the elevations are not approved as part of the Major Project Permit Stage 2. A Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

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

84. The City reserves the right to restrict vehicle turning movements within the public right-of-way in the future if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. (Public Works)

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

86. Temporary aboveground storage tanks may be used at construction sites for diesel fuel only and shall not exceed 1,000 gallon capacity. Tanks shall comply with all provisions found within the Fire Code. A Fire Department Permit shall be obtained prior to tank installation. The permit shall expire after 90 days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

87. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor or person responsible for the building permit must notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable of not and if site remediation is required. (Fire)

88. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of the gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)
NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101 Planning Commission – September 22, 2022 – Page 20 of 20

89. All commercial air conditioning units 5 tons or less (<65,000 btu/ h) shall meet the current Consortium for Energy Efficiency ("CEE") Tier I specifications. The SEER/EER ratings will be specified on building plans and Title 24 compliance certificates at the time building permits are requested. The SEER and EER ratings will be verified with appropriate documentation. These requirements shall be utilized in the overall energy compliance calculations required for issuance of any building permit for any commercial building in the Plan Area. Any variances, with the exception of Tier 2 compliance, must be approved by the Electric Department's Retail Energy Services Department. (Electric)

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

91. The developer (or designated consultant) shall certify that the building foundation location has been placed according to all approved setback requirements shown on the approved site plan. The developer shall prepare a written statement confirming building placement and provide an original copy to the City Building Division Field Inspector at the time of or prior to the foundation inspection. (Building)

92. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant may apply for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of the building. If a TCO is desired, the applicant must submit a written request to the Building Division a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expected temporary occupancy date and shall include a schedule for occupancy and a description of the purpose for the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. (Building)

93. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include 10 copies of the following:
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and
c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Fehr & Peers Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center

EXHIBIT
A. Plans
B. Color Board
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTE: The exhibits and attachments to the PC Staff
report are not included as part of this attachment,
because they are included as exhibits and attachments
to the Council Communication.

APPEAL FORM
Name: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Address: ___________________________ City: _________________ Zip Code: ________ Phone Numbers: (work/day) _________________ (home/evening) ___________________ (cell ) _____________________ (email) __________________________________________ Please describe below the action for which this appeal is being filed. (You may attach a separate letter if enough space is not provided.)
Signed: ___________________________________________ Date: ____9/30/2022_____

PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. (Date Stamp Below)
Received by: ____________________________________
Project Being Appealed: ________________________________________________ File Number: __________________
Approving Body: _____________________________ Approval Date: _____________ This appeal is being filed by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185, to appeal the Planning Commission's September 22, 2022 decision to approve a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 to allow construction and operation of four industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size and an Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for NIPA PCL 56 - Blue Oaks Commerce Center, 2200 Freedom Wy, File # PL22-010. The specific grounds for this appeal are (1) mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2010 MND would substantially reduce one or more significant cumulative air quality impacts. As the 2004 West Roseville Specific Plan determined, the Project will contribute to significant cumulative air quality impacts. In the last several years, numerous mitigation measures for distribution centers and warehouses have been identified to address air quality impacts which have not been adopted for the Project. A subsequent MND must be prepared to address those more recent mitigation measures. (2) The proposed increase in size of the Project by 17%, and the resulting increase in truck and other air pollution emissions and energy usage, is a substantial change to the Project which requires major revisions of the prior MND. As a result, a subsequent MND for the Project must be prepared.

Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185 September 30, 2022 1939 Harrison St. Ste 150 Oakland 94612
510-836-4200
510-607-8234 [email protected] and [email protected] CC ATTACHMENT 2
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BN 73239887v1
415.227.3508 Direct October 20, 2022 [email protected] Joseph Speaker
Assistant City Attorney
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678
Re: File Number PL 22-010; Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Dear Joe:

I am writing on behalf of my client, Schnitzer Properties, project applicant (“Applicant”) for Blue Oaks Commerce Center, File Number 22-0101. Blue Oaks Commerce Center consists of the development of four industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet (“Project”), located on two parcels totaling 23.94 acres at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way (“Property” or “Project Site”) in the City of Roseville (“City”). On September 22, 2022, the Roseville Planning Commission adopted an addendum (“Addendum”) to a previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and approved a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 Modification for the Project.

Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185 (“LIUNA” or “Appellant”), filed an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project (“Appeal”). LIUNA never submitted any comments on the IS/MND in 2011, nor did it submit any comments before or at the Planning Commission meeting on the Project. LIUNA first questioned the City’s adoption of the Addendum and the approval of the Project for the first time in its generic Appeal contending that there were different unspecified mitigation measures compared to those identified in the IS/MND that would reduce significant cumulative air quality impacts. LIUNA also suggested the Project’s increased size required major revisions to the IS/MND under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) without any evidence.

The purpose of this letter is to address LIUNA’s unsubstantiated assertions, and explain that contrary to LIUNA’s assertions, substantial evidence supports the City’s reliance on the CC ATTACHMENT 3
Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
IS/MND and Addendum. For the reasons discussed further below, we respectfully request that the City Council find that the LIUNA appeal is without merit and should be rejected, based on the finding that the Project approval and adoption of the Addendum are supported by substantial evidence and comply with CEQA.

The Appeal Does Not Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project May Result in Significant Impact(s) on the Environment
Legal Standards for Addendum and Substantial Evidence
When an IS/MND has been prepared and adopted, no further environmental analysis is required unless there are substantial changes to the project and/or the circumstances in which it is being undertaken which require major revisions to the earlier analysis, or new information becomes available at the time of the next discretionary action which was not or could not have been known at the time of the earlier analysis. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21166.) The CEQA Guidelines further define substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances as changes that result in “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) To trigger an MND, CEQA requires that new information be of substantial importance, and show: A) one or more significant effects not previously examined in the IS/MND, B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe, C) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would be feasible, or D) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and those mitigation measures were declined by the project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) The City shall prepare an addendum to the IS/MND if none of the conditions described above have occurred. (14 CCR § 15164(b).)
To demonstrate that the City erred in preparing the Addendum and should have instead prepared a subsequent MND, the Appellant must provide substantial evidence demonstrating substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances or new information, as defined above by 14 CCR § 15162. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (14 CCR § 15384(a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion” is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (14 CCR § 15384(b).) LIUNA’s Appeal contends that the City should require a subsequent MND for the Project because: 1) new unspecified air quality mitigation measures for distribution centers and warehouses exist which are more robust than those identified in the IS/MND, and 2) because the Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
project is larger, it results in greater emissions and energy usage that would require further environmental review. LIUNA does not provide any substantial evidence to support either of these arguments, while the analysis provided in the Addendum and the entirety of the record provide substantial evidence that a subsequent MND is not required.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
As noted above, new information of substantial importance includes mitigation measures which are considerably different from those previously analyzed which would substantially reduce significant effect(s) on the environment but are declined by the project proponents. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(D).) The Appellant asserts that new air quality mitigation measures exist specific to distribution centers and warehouses, but does not identify these measures. Without providing any applicable mitigation measures that purportedly exist (let alone any technical documentation demonstrating that such measures would actually reduce the Project’s potential air quality impacts beyond the Project’s existing mitigation measures and regulatory compliance), LIUNA is merely speculating that other mitigation measures exist. Under CEQA, such speculation does not constitute substantial evidence.

Even if there were other measures, that alone does not trigger the requirement for subsequent environmental review. If a commenter requests that other mitigation measures be adopted, the CEQA Guidelines require the Project to “decline to adopt the [new] mitigation measure” in order to trigger the preparation of a revised and recirculated IS/MND. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) Even if the Appellant could demonstrate that a new, more effective mitigation measure has been identified, which it has not done, there is no evidence in the Addendum or elsewhere in the record that the Project has declined any new mitigation measures. The Project has accepted and agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. Thus, there is no basis to require recirculation of the IS/MND.

By contrast, the Addendum, the IS/MND and the Project technical studies prepared as part of the IS/MND provide extensive analysis demonstrating 1) potential air quality impacts were previously analyzed in the IS/MND which identified mitigation measures to address those potential impacts and mitigate them to a less than significant level; and 2) those mitigation measures are still applicable and were incorporated into the Project. (Addendum, pages 13-16.) The Addendum further incorporates information from the City’s 2035 General Plan Update (“GPU”) the GPU Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that the City certified in August 2020.1 1 Though the EIR found that impacts would be reduced through compliance with PCAPCD and GPU policies, implementation of the GPU would result in a significant unavoidable environmental impact by generating emissions in excess of PCAPCD significance thresholds. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when it adopted the GPU. (Addendum, page 13.)
Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
The Addendum states that the Project would be consistent with the GPU, and would comply with Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and GPU policies, regulations, and permitting requirements. The analysis included in the Addendum concludes that 1) the Project “remains consistent with development scenarios outlined in the MND,” 2) any changes to the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts, and 3) implementation of the air quality mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND would result in less than significant impacts. (Addendum, page 14.) Accordingly, the Addendum is based on substantial evidence and found that the Project does not constitute a substantial change from that analyzed in the IS/MND.

Moreover, the City concluded that the adopted IS/MND air quality mitigation measures continue to ensure that the Project would not result in a significant impact. There is no new significant air quality impact, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of prior identified air quality impacts warranting further environmental review. For this reason, the City Council should reject the LIUNA Appeal.

The Project Does Not Result in Changes that would result in New Significant Impacts or in a Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Prior Impact Warranting Major Revisions to the IS/MND.

The Appellant’s second argument is that because the Project is larger and may result in greater emissions and energy usage, that this alone means that the Project warrants major revisions in the prior IS/MND triggering a subsequent MND. This claim misstates CEQA’s requirements.

CEQA defines substantial changes to the Project warranting major revisions to a prior MND as changes causing the involvement of “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) In other words, just because there is a change to the Project, that change may not trigger the need for a major revision to the prior IS/MND.

The Project Addendum extensively analyzes air quality and traffic impacts in support of the conclusion that changes to the Project (even if the size of the buildings have increased) would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The Addendum also properly addresses energy usage, noting that the IS/MND was not required to analyze energy effects of the Project because the industrial use was consistent with the existing General Plan’s land use designation, and therefore development with industrial uses, and their associated energy usage, was already anticipated as future development under the existing General Plan for that location. The Addendum further explains that the Project is consistent with subsequent General Plan Update, including citywide assessments of energy demand associated with those changes. As the Project would not result in substantial unplanned demands or in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, energy impacts would be less than significant, and thus would not constitute a substantial change to the Project warranting a major revision to the adopted IS/MND. LIUNA did not provide any evidence to the contrary. For that reason, the City Council Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
should reject the LIUNA Appeal on the basis that there is no evidence that the IS/MND required further revision and recirculation. The City fully evaluated all significant impacts in the IS/MND and concluded that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe air quality, traffic (including truck traffic) and energy impacts.

Conclusion
We appreciate the City’s thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts in the Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND and Addendum. As we have demonstrated, the Project and its circumstances do not constitute substantial changes, since they do not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Accordingly, the Addendum is appropriate and there is no basis for the City to require a subsequent MND. We respectfully request that the City reject the LIUNA Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Addendum and Project approval.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our responses to LIUNA’s letter.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By Alicia Guerra
Shareholder
AG:eg
cc: Greg Bitter
Derek Ogden
Escarlet Mar
Ryan Schera
Wes Raborn
December 5, 2022
Via Email
Krista Bernasconi, Mayor
Bruce Houdesheldt, Vice Mayor
Scott Alvord, Councilmember
Pauline Roccucci, Councilmember
Tracy Mendonsa, Councilmember
City Council
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Addendum to the 2010 IS/MND for Blue Oaks Commerce Center (NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center; File #PL22-0101)
Roseville City Council Hearing; December 7, 2022, Agenda Item 8.1 Dear Mayor Bernasconi, Vice Mayor Houdesheldt, Honorable Members of the City Council, and Ms. Mar,
I am writing on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local 185, and its members living or working in and around the City of Roseville (collectively, “LIUNA”), in support of LIUNA’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 22, 2022 decisions: (1) adopting an Addendum to the 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2010 MND”) prepared for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project, (2) approving a Major Project Permit (“MPP”) Stage 1 Modification, and (3) approving a MPP Stage 2 to allow construction and operation of four industrial buildings totaling 310,000 square feet (“Project”).

LIUNA is concerned by the City of Roseville’s (“City”) improper use of an Addendum which, if approved, would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). First, the City has failed to undertake its duties as a lead agency to investigate the Project’s potential impacts and support the Addendum’s findings with substantial evidence. An addendum unsupported by evidence violates CEQA. Second, CEQA prohibits the use of an addendum when the proposed changes introduce new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Here, the Project’s increase of 50,000 square feet of industrial uses will have new and more significant impacts than those analyzed in CC ATTACHMENT 4
December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

the 2010 MND. Finally, CEQA prohibits the use of an addendum if there is new information demonstrating additional mitigation measures available to reduce project’s significant impacts.

Here, new mitigation measures have been developed since 2010 that can mitigate the Project’s potentially significant air quality impacts.

Therefore, LIUNA respectfully requests that the City Council grant its appeal, decline to approve the Project and Addendum, and send the Project back to staff to prepare an supplemental MND or an EIR.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2010, the City approved a MPP Stage 1 and a Tentative Subdivision Map for the development of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center office, industrial, and retail complex, which included the development of 17 buildings totaling 575,505 square feet for office, industrial, and retail uses (the “2010 Project”). The City also adopted an IS/MND for the 2010 Project. In 2014, the City approved a modification to the MPP Stage 1 site plan to eliminate the retail portion of the Project and to replace approximately 80,000 square feet of industrial uses with the approximately 122,385 square foot Federal Bureau of Investigation building.

Now, the Applicant seeks entitlements to develop four industrial buildings totaling 308,000 square feet, increasing the total square footage of industrial buildings by 50,000 square feet – a 17% increase.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard, which requires the lead agency to prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) (“Laurel Heights II”) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.

CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) A. CEQA Addendum
The City has prepared an Addendum to a previously adopted MND. In order to be compliant with CEQA, an Addendum must comply with the CEQA Guidelines and with the courts’ prior decisions outlining the circumstances under which an Addendum may be adopted.

The Addendum presented today fails to comply with either of these requirements and, if adopted, would directly violate CEQA.

1. CEQA Guidelines
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, “[a]n addendum to [a previously] adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15164(b).) Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a), an addendum is not appropriate where:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (emphasis added).

The significant changes presented in the Addendum cannot plausibly be described as “minor technical changes” to the 2010 IS/MND. To the contrary, the addition of 50,000 square feet of industrial uses, and the associated heavy-duty trucks that come along with the significant expansion make abundantly clear that the Project involves new significant environmental effects and new information of substantial importance that make the use of Addendum here entirely inappropriate.

2. Legal Precedent.

A CEQA addendum must adhere to the courts’ guidance informing when, and under what circumstances, its use is legally permissible. The courts have established a detailed, two-step inquiry for reviewing legal challenges to a CEQA addendum. This deliberative process is outlined in two important court decisions arising from the same case, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016). The first decision was issued by the California Supreme Court and will be referred to here as “San Mateo Gardens I.”1 A subsequent decision in the same case was issued by the Court of Appeal and will be referred to here as “San Mateo Gardens II.”2
The first step in this two-step analysis is for the reviewing court to determine whether substantial evidence supports the lead agency’s determination that the original CEQA document, in this case the 2010 IS/MND, “retains some informational value.” (San Mateo Gardens I at p. 952.) If the court finds that the original document “retains some informational value,” it must hold that CEQA’s subsequent review provisions apply (San Mateo Gardens II at 604-605.)
1 1 Cal.5th 937 (2016).
2 11 Cal.App.5th 596 (2017).

December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

But this determination is “only the first step” in the court’s analysis. (San Mateo Gardens I at 956.) “[T]he next—and critical—step is to determine whether the agency has properly determined how to comply with its obligations under those provisions.” (San Mateo Gardens I at 953.) The San Mateo Gardens II opinion helpfully outlines the analysis required during this second stage of review:
[O]nce we have determined that the [CEQA] subsequent review provisions apply to a project approved through a negative declaration, our application of the standard of review changes and is less deferential to the agency. It is less deferential because a negative declaration requires a major revision—i.e., a subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration—whenever there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that proposed changes ‘might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered in connection with the project as originally approved.’ (quoting San Mateo Gardens I at 959 [additional citations omitted].)
Proposed changes might have a significant environmental impact when there is some competent evidence to suggest such an impact, even if other evidence suggests otherwise. (See Friends of “B” Street (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002.) This means that an agency’s determination that a major revision to a negative declaration is not required will necessarily lack substantial evidence when a fair argument exists that the project might have a previously unstudied significant environmental impact. (San Mateo Gardens II at 607-608 [emph. added].)
In proposing the Addendum here, the City seeks to make revisions to the 2010 IS/MND without performing a legally sufficient environmental review or offering appropriate mitigation for the Project’s significant environmental effects. The expert evidence which LIUNA presents today constitutes substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental effects which the Addendum has not adequately addressed. Therefore, to comply with CEQA, the City should grant LIUNA’s appeal, decline to adopt the Addendum, and undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR.

III. DISCUSSION
A. The City violated its duty to investigate the environmental impact of the Project’s additional 50,000 square feet of warehouse construction and operation not analyzed in the 2010 MND.

The City violated its duty to investigate the impacts of what amounts to the construction and operation of a new 50,000 square foot warehouse when compared to the 2010 Project. “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record.” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378–79 [quotations omitted].) Indeed, “[d]eficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Id.; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 [holding that city’s failure to undertake adequate environmental analysis further supported fair argument that project would have significant impacts].) The Addendum contains only conclusions – no facts or analysis – to support its findings that the Project will not significantly increase the severity of the air quality, human health, GHG, or energy impacts associated with the 2010 Project and analyzed in the 2010 MND. For example, the conclusion that “[c]onstruction and operation of the project will increase emissions on the site, but not substantially” (Addendum, p. 14) is unsupported by any evidence and provides the public no meaningful understanding of the impact the Project will have on the environment and human health.

It is patently obvious that the City has not met its burden to investigate the Project’s environmental impacts. Moreover, the complete lack of evidence supporting any of the Addendum’s conclusions leaves the City without evidence to rely on if the Addendum were challenged in court.

The City must abide by its duty to investigate the potentially significant impacts the Project will have on the environment that have not been previously studied.

B. The Project will have substantially greater air quality, energy, GHG, and human health impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 MND.

The Project proposes to increase the size of industrial land uses by 50,000 square feet – an increase of 17% above the project analyzed in the 2010 IS/MND. A 50,000 square foot warehouse will have significant environmental impacts as a result of construction and the resulting increase in truck and other air pollution emissions, as well as energy use.

The Addendum admits that the Project’s construction-related emissions will increase by 17%. (Addendum, p. 14.) Based on the City’s failure to study this or any of the other environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of an additional 50,000 square feet of warehouse space, it can be assumed that all other impacts will similarly increase by 17%.

An increase in air quality emissions, GHG emissions, diesel truck emissions, and energy use are each a “substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects” and preclude reliance on an addendum. CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1).

C. New mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts which were not available in 2010.

The West Roseville Specific Plan EIR determined that the Project will contribute to significant cumulative air quality impacts. The dramatic increase in warehouse and distribution December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

centers and the associated heavy duty truck trips generated by those facilities has caused a plethora of air quality impacts and has impacted the health of those living near such facilities.

Since the 2010 IS/MND was adopted, numerous mitigation measures for distribution centers and warehouses have been identified to address air quality impacts stemming from these land uses, but have not been adopted for the Project.

The California Attorney General recently identified available mitigation measures to address air pollution from warehouses, including:
•Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. •Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
•Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
•Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
•Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. •Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
•Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. •Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
•Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. •Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
•Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
•Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
•Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025.

Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.

December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

•Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
•Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
•Requiring use of zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
•Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
•Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager. •Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
•Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
•Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. •Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. •Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
•Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking. •Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
•Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. •Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
•Requiring that every facility operator and tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. •Requiring facility operators and tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.

California Department of Justice, “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” (attached as Exhibit A).

To address the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the City must determine that the sparse mitigation measures adopted in the 2010 MND December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

now trigger the need to supplement the prior MND to include some or all of the now available mitigation measures for industrial and warehouse projects within the City. Each of the above recommended measures constitute “New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified….” CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).

Use of an Addendum is not appropriate where, as here, “[m]itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.” Instead, a subsequent MND must be prepared to address each of these mitigation measures now available to reduce the Project’s cumulative air quality impact.

D. The Project will have significant impacts on biological resources than were not analyzed in the 2010 MND or the Addendum, and substantially greater impacts resulting from the Project’s increase of 50,000 square feet of industrial uses.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the Addendum for the Project and the 2010 MND to assess the Project’s potential biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit B and his comments are briefly summarized here.

The Addendum contains no analysis of the adverse impact that the increased traffic on the roadways servicing the Project will have on wildlife. Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr.

Smallwood explains: “. . . the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014).” (Ex. B, p. 6.) Dr. Smallwood reviewed occurrence databases for the site and prepared a table of occurrence likelihoods for special-status bird species at or near the Project site. (Id. at 1-2, see Table 1.) Dr. Smallwood’s table shows that there are 97 special-status species with the potential to occur at or near the project site. He concluded that each of these special-status species would be vulnerable to collision mortality as a result of project-generated traffic on roads servicing the Project. (Id. at 6.) Neither the 2010 MND nor the Addendum analyze this potentially significant impact on special-status species.

While the Addendum does not include an estimate of the increased vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) that will result from the proposed Project, Dr. Smallwood estimated the Project’s potential VMT based on the mean annual VMT per square foot of floor space from 26 similar warehouse projects, which was 24.2195 annual VMT per square foot of floor space. Applying this mean to the Project’s proposed 310,000 square feet, Dr. Smallwood estimated an annual VMT of 7,570,045 for the Project as a whole. (Ex. B, p. 8.) Dr. Smallwood estimated the additional 50,000 square feet of new industrial space not included in the 2010 MND or Project would generate 1,220,975 annual VMT. (Id. at 9.)
December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

Using the Project’s VMT estimates, scientific studies on road mortality, and his years of experience studying the subject, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict the Project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife. (Ex. B at 8-9.) Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project would cause an accumulated 4,148 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. (Id. at 9.) The new 50,000 square feet of industrial space not included in the project in 2010 would result in 669 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that this is a significant and unmitigated impact on special-status species. This is a significant impact not addressed in the 2010 MND and a significant increase in an impact as a result of the increase industrial uses proposed by the Project.

An initial study must be prepared for the Project which determines whether a supplemental MND or an EIR is necessary to analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts on special-status species from the increased traffic generated by the Project.

E. New information of substantial importance is available regarding the Project’s potential biological resources impacts.

Since the 2010 IS/MND was adopted, the designations of special-status species have changed. According to Dr. Smallwood, many species that were not considered special-status in 2010 may now have that designation due to changed circumstances. (Ex. B, p. 1.) The 2010 IS/MND attached to the Addendum does not list out the potentially-occurring special-status species onsite. Nonetheless, Dr. Smallwood states that if it had, it would necessarily need to be updated with a new list. (Id.)
Dr. Smallwood reviewed occurrence databases for the site and prepared a table of occurrence likelihoods for special-status bird species at or near the Project site. (Id. at 1-2, see Table 1.) Dr. Smallwood’s table shows that there are 97 special-status species with the potential to occur at or near the project site. Many of these were either not designated as special status species in 2010 or were not likely to be present at the Project site in 2010. A supplemental MND or EIR is needed to determine what changes have occurred since 2010.

Additionally, Dr. Smallwood reviewed the mitigation measures proposed in the 2010 MND, which included a requirement to perform pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction. The Addendum states that the site has been graded in preparation for development of the Project. (Addendum, p. 4.) Dr. Smallwood notes that it is unclear whether the required preconstruction surveys were conducted prior to the grading of the site, and if they were, such surveys should be shared with the public. (Ex. B, p. 9.) However, regardless of whether the surveys were already conducted, Dr. Smallwood states that enough time has passed since the grading of the site to warrant preconstruction surveys prior to any next step in construction. (Id.) He notes that “a graded site could attract various bird species that breed on open ground, such as killdeer and California horned lark.” (Id.) This is additional new information of substantial importance which was not known at the time the 2010 MND was certified, and it demonstrates potentially significant biological impacts which were not previously analyzed. The use of an Addendum is therefore not appropriate for this Project.

December 5, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

F. CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in the comments above, a subsequent environmental document is required under CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) based on the substantial increase in the severity of previously identified air quality and biological resources impacts (§ 15162(a)(1)), the new mitigation measures available which would reduce the Project’s air quality impacts (§ 15162(a)(3)(D)), and the existence of new information of substantial importance which was not previously known and which shows potentially significant impacts (§ 15162(a)(3)(A)). As a result, the City must prepare an initial study to determine whether an MND or an EIR is appropriate for review of the proposed Project. LIUNA therefore respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from approving the Addendum and return the Project to City staff for further consideration of the Project’s environmental impacts, including the necessary preparation and public disclosure of an initial study.

Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A
1 XAVIER BECERRA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
In carrying out its duty to enforce laws across California, the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau)1regularly reviews proposed warehouse projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other laws.

When necessary, the Bureau submits comment letters to lead agencies, and in rare cases the Bureau has filed litigation to enforce CEQA.2 This document builds upon the Bureau’s comment letters, collecting knowledge gained from the Bureau’s review of hundreds of warehouse projects across the state. It is meant to help lead agencies pursue CEQA compliance and promote environmentally-just development as they confront warehouse project proposals.3 While CEQA analysis is necessarily project-specific, this document provides information on feasible best practices and mitigation measures, the overwhelming majority of which have been adapted from actual warehouse projects in California.

I. Background
In recent years, the proliferation of e-commerce and rising consumer expectations of rapid shipping have contributed to a boom in warehouse development.4 California, with its ports, population centers, and transportation network, has found itself at the center of this trend.

For example, in 2014, 40 percent of national container cargo flowed through Southern California, which was home to nearly 1.2 billion square feet of warehouse facilities.5 In the Inland Empire alone, 150 million square feet of new industrial space was built over the last decade,
6 and 21 of the largest 100 logistics leases signed in 2019 nationwide were in the Inland

1 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/justice.
2 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/letters; South Central Neighbors United et al. v.

City of Fresno et al. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, No. 18CECG00690). 3 Anyone reviewing this document to determine CEQA compliance responsibilities should consult their own attorney for legal advice.
4 As used in this document, “warehouse” or “logistics facility” is defined as a facility consisting of one or more buildings that stores cargo, goods, or products on a short or long term basis for later distribution to businesses and/or retail customers. 5 Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, Task 2. Inventory of Warehousing Facilities (April 2018), http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Task2_FacilityInventory.pdf at 1-1, 2-11.
6 Los Angeles Times, When your house is surrounded by massive warehouses, October 27, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-27/fontana-californiawarehouses-inland-empire-pollution. 2 Empire, comprising 17.5 million square feet.7 This trend has not slowed, even with the economic downturn caused by COVID-19, as e-commerce has continued to grow.8 Forecasts predict that the Central Valley is where a new wave of warehouse development will go.9 When done properly, these activities can contribute to the economy and consumer welfare. However, imprudent warehouse development can harm local communities and the environment. Among other pollutants, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide (NOx)—a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation—and diesel particulate matter (a subset of fine particular matter that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers)—a contributor to cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death. 10 Trucks and on-site loading activities
can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during 24/7 operation that can cause hearing damage after prolonged exposure.11 The hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of daily truck and passenger car trips that warehouses generate contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents. These environmental impacts also tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods already suffering from disproportionate health impacts.

7 CBRE, Dealmakers: E-Commerce & Logistics Firms Drive Demand for Large Warehouses in 2019 (January 23, 2020), https://www.cbre.us/research-and-reports/US-MarketFlashDealmakers-E-Commerce-Logistics-Firms-Drive-Demand-for-Large-Warehouses-in-2019; see also CBRE, E-Commerce and Logistics Companies Expand Share Of Largest US Warehouse Leases, CBRE Analysis Finds (Feb. 25, 2019),
https://www.cbre.us/about/media-center/inland-empire-largest-us-warehouse-leases (20 of the largest 100 warehousing leases in 2018 were in the Inland Empire, comprising nearly 20 million square feet).
8 CBRE, 2021 U.S. Real Estate Market Outlook, Industrial & Logistics, https://www.cbre.us/research-and-reports/2021-US-Real-Estate-Market-Outlook-IndustrialLogistics; Kaleigh Moore, As Online Sales Grow During COVID-19, Retailers Like Montce Swim Adapt And Find Success, FORBES (June 24, 2020), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kaleighmoore/2020/06/24/as-online-sales-grow-during-covid-19- retailers-like-montce-swim-adapt-and-find-success/.
9 New York Times, Warehouses Are Headed to the Central Valley, Too (Jul. 22, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/coronavirus-ca-warehouse-workers.html. 10 California Air Resources Board, Nitrogen Dioxide & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health (NOx); California Air Resources Board, Summary: Diesel Particular Matter Health Impacts, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust,
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf (DPM). 11 Noise Sources and Their Effects,
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm (a diesel truck moving 40 miles per hour, 50 feet away, produces 84 decibels of sound). 3 II. Proactive Planning: General Plans, Local Ordinances, and Good Neighbor Policies To systematically address warehouse development, we encourage governing bodies to proactively plan for logistics projects in their jurisdictions. Proactive planning allows jurisdictions to prevent land use conflicts before they materialize and guide sustainable development. Benefits also include providing a predictable business environment, protecting residents from environmental harm, and setting consistent expectations jurisdiction-wide.

Proactive planning can take any number of forms. Land use designation and zoning decisions should channel development into appropriate areas. For example, establishing industrial districts near major highway and rail corridors but away from sensitive receptors can help avoid conflicts between warehouse facilities and residential communities.

In addition, general plan policies, local ordinances, and good neighbor policies should set minimum standards for logistics projects. General plan policies can be incorporated into existing economic development, land use, circulation, or other related elements. Many jurisdictions alternatively choose to consolidate policies in a separate environmental justice element.

Adopting general plan policies to guide warehouse development may also help jurisdictions comply with their obligations under SB 1000, which requires local government general plans to identify objectives and policies to reduce health risks in disadvantaged communities, promote civil engagement in the public decision making process, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. 12 The Bureau is aware of four good neighbor policies in California: Riverside County, the City of Riverside, the City of Moreno Valley, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments.13 These policies provide minimum standards that all warehouses in the jurisdiction must meet. For example, the Western Riverside Council of Governments policy sets a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between warehouses and sensitive receptors, and it requires a number of design features to reduce truck impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The Riverside County policy requires vehicles entering sites during both construction and operation to meet certain California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidelines, and it requires community benefits agreements and supplemental funding contributions toward additional pollution offsets.

The Bureau encourages jurisdictions to adopt their own local ordinances and/or good neighbor policies that combine the most robust policies from those models with measures discussed in the remainder of this document.

12 For more information about SB 1000, see https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000. 13 https://www.rivcocob.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Good-Neighbor-Policy-F-3-FinalAdopted.pdf (Riverside County); https://riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/good-neighborguidelines.pdf (City of Riverside); http://qcode.us/codes/morenovalley/view.php?topic=9-9_05- 9_05_050&frames=on (City of Moreno Valley);
http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/318/Good-Neighbor-Guidelines-for-SitingWarehouse-Distribution-Facilities-PDF?bidId= (Western Riverside Council of Governments). 4 III. Community Engagement
Early and consistent community engagement is central to establishing good relationships between communities, lead agencies, and warehouse developers and tenants. Robust community engagement can give lead agencies access to community residents’ on-the-ground knowledge and information about their concerns, build community support for projects, and develop creative solutions to ensure new logistics facilities are mutually beneficial. Examples of best practices for community engagement include:
 Holding a series of community meetings at times and locations convenient to members of the affected community and incorporating suggestions into the project design.
 Posting information in hard copy in public gathering spaces and on a website about the project. The information should include a complete, accurate project description, maps and drawings of the project design, and information about how the public can provide input and be involved in the project approval process. The information should be in a format that is easy to navigate and understand for members of the affected community.
 Providing notice by mail to residents and schools within a certain radius of the project and along transportation corridors to be used by vehicles visiting the project, and by posting a prominent sign on the project site. The notice should include a brief project description and directions for accessing complete information about the project and for providing input on the project.  Providing translation or interpretation in residents’ native language, where appropriate.
 For public meetings broadcast online or otherwise held remotely, providing for access and public comment by telephone and supplying instructions for access and public comment with ample lead time prior to the meeting.  Partnering with local community-based organizations to solicit feedback, leverage local networks, co-host meetings, and build support.
 Considering adoption of a community benefits agreement, negotiated with input from affected residents and businesses, by which the developer provides benefits to the community.
 Creating a community advisory board made up of local residents to review and provide feedback on project proposals in early planning stages.  Identifying a person to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity and operations, and providing contact information for the community relations officer to the surrounding community.

IV. Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations
The most important consideration when planning a logistics facility is its location.

Warehouses located in residential neighborhoods or near other sensitive receptors expose community residents and those using or visiting sensitive receptor sites to the air pollution, noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts they generate. Therefore, placing facilities away from sensitive receptors significantly reduces their environmental and quality of life harms on local 5 communities. The suggested best practices for siting and design of warehouse facilities does not relieve lead agencies’ responsibility under CEQA to conduct a project-specific analysis of the project’s impacts and evaluation of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives; lead agencies’ incorporation of the best practices must be part of the impact, mitigation and alternatives analyses to meet the requirements of CEQA. Examples of best practices when siting and designing warehouse facilities include:
 Per CARB guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors. 14  Creating physical, structural, and/or vegetative buffers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal between warehouses and any areas where sensitive receptors are likely to be present, such as homes, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, community centers, and parks.
 Providing adequate areas for on-site parking, on-site queuing, and truck check-in that prevent trucks and other vehicles from parking or idling on public streets.  Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive receptors, e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility.  Locating warehouse dock doors and other onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise away from sensitive receptors, e.g., placing these dock doors on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility.
 Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.  Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
 Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

V. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and Mitigation Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases are often among the most substantial environmental impacts from new warehouse facilities. CEQA compliance demands a proper accounting of the full air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of logistics facilities and adoption of all feasible mitigation of significant impacts. Although efforts by CARB and other authorities to regulate the heavy-duty truck and off-road diesel fleets have made excellent progress in reducing the air quality impacts of logistics facilities, the opportunity remains for local jurisdictions to further mitigate these impacts at the project level. Lead agencies and developers

14 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), at ES-1. CARB staff has released draft updates to this siting and design guidance which suggests a greater distance may be warranted under varying scenarios; this document may be found on CARB’s website and is entitled: “California Sustainable Freight Initiative: Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook” (December 2019). 6 should also consider designing projects with their long-term viability in mind. Constructing the necessary infrastructure to prepare for the zero-emission future of goods movement not only reduces a facility’s emissions and local impact now, but it can also save money as regulations tighten and demand for zero-emission infrastructure grows. In planning new logistics facilities, the Bureau strongly encourages developers to consider the local, statewide, and global impacts of their projects’ emissions.

Examples of best practices when studying air quality and greenhouse gas impacts include:
 Fully analyzing all reasonably foreseeable project impacts, including cumulative impacts. In general, new warehouse developments are not ministerial under CEQA because they involve public officials’ personal judgment as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project, even when warehouses are permitted by a site’s applicable zoning and/or general plan land use designation. CEQA Guidelines § 15369.
 When analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance thresholds.
 Preparing a quantitative air quality study in accordance with local air district guidelines.
 Preparing a quantitative health risk assessment in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and local air district guidelines.
 Refraining from labeling compliance with CARB or air district regulations as a mitigation measure—compliance with applicable regulations is a baseline expectation.
 Fully analyzing impacts from truck trips. CEQA requires full public disclosure of a project’s anticipated truck trips, which entails calculating truck trip length based on likely truck trip destinations, rather than the distance from the facility to the edge of the air basin. Emissions beyond the air basin are not speculative, and, because air pollution is not static, may contribute to air basin pollution.

Moreover, any contributions to air pollution outside the local air basin should be quantified and their significance should be considered.  Accounting for all reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions from the project, without discounting projected emissions based on participation in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program.

Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from construction are below. To ensure mitigation measures are enforceable and effective, they should be imposed as permit conditions on the project where applicable.  Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable 7 bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.  Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
 Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
 Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
 Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.  Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
 Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes.  Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.  Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
 Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
 Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
 Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.

Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from operation include:
 Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article

4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.  Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
 Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
 Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
 Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
 Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all 8 dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.  Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
 Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
 Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
 Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.  Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
 Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.  Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.  Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
 Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.  Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
 Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.  Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
 Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
 Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARBapproved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
 Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
9  Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

VI. Noise Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
The noise associated with logistics facilities can be among their most intrusive impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Various sources, such as unloading activity, diesel truck movement, and rooftop air conditioning units, can contribute substantial noise pollution. These impacts are exacerbated by logistics facilities’ typical 24-hour, seven-days-per-week operation. Construction noise is often even greater than operational noise, so if a project site is near sensitive receptors, developers and lead agencies should adopt measures to reduce the noise generated by both construction and operation activities.

Examples of best practices when studying noise impacts include:
 Preparing a noise impact analysis that considers all reasonably foreseeable project noise impacts, including to nearby sensitive receptors. All reasonably foreseeable project noise impacts encompasses noise from both construction and operations, including stationary, on-site, and off-site noise sources.  Adopting a lower significance threshold for incremental noise increases when baseline noise already exceeds total noise significance thresholds, to account for the cumulative impact of additional noise and the fact that, as noise moves up the decibel scale, each decibel increase is a progressively greater increase in sound pressure than the last. For example, 70 dBA is ten times more sound pressure than 60 dBA.

Examples of measures to mitigate noise impacts include:
 Constructing physical, structural, or vegetative noise barriers on and/or off the project site.
 Locating or parking all stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and directing emitted noise away from sensitive receptors.  Verifying that construction equipment has properly operating and maintained mufflers.
 Requiring all combustion-powered construction equipment to be surrounded by a noise protection barrier
 Limiting operation hours to daytime hours on weekdays.  Paving roads where truck traffic is anticipated with low noise asphalt.  Orienting any public address systems onsite away from sensitive receptors and setting system volume at a level not readily audible past the property line.

VII. Traffic Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
Warehouse facilities inevitably bring truck and passenger car traffic. Truck traffic can present substantial safety issues. Collisions with heavy-duty trucks are especially dangerous for passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. These concerns can be even greater if 10 truck traffic passes through residential areas, school zones, or other places where pedestrians are common and extra caution is warranted.

Examples of measures to mitigate traffic impacts include:
 Designing, clearly marking, and enforcing truck routes that keep trucks out of residential neighborhoods and away from other sensitive receptors.  Installing signs in residential areas noting that truck and employee parking is prohibited.
 Constructing new or improved transit stops, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and crosswalks, with special attention to ensuring safe routes to schools.  Consulting with the local public transit agency and securing increased public transit service to the project area.
 Designating areas for employee pickup and drop-off.
 Implementing traffic control and safety measures, such as speed bumps, speed limits, or new traffic signs or signals.
 Placing facility entry and exit points on major streets that do not have adjacent sensitive receptors.
 Restricting the turns trucks can make entering and exiting the facility to route trucks away from sensitive receptors.
 Constructing roadway improvements to improve traffic flow.  Preparing a construction traffic control plan prior to grading, detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-truck traffic.

VIII. Other Significant Environmental Impacts Analysis and Mitigation Warehouse projects may result in significant environmental impacts to other resources, such as to aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology, or hazardous materials. All significant adverse environmental impacts must be evaluated, disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA. Examples of best practices and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts that do not fall under any of the above categories include:
 Appointing a compliance officer who is responsible for implementing all mitigation measures, and providing contact information for the compliance officer to the lead agency, to be updated annually.
 Creating a fund to mitigate impacts on affected residents, schools, places of worship, and other community institutions by retrofitting their property. For example, retaining a contractor to retrofit/install HVAC and/or air filtration systems, doors, dual-paned windows, and sound- and vibration-deadening insulation and curtains.
 Sweeping surrounding streets on a daily basis during construction to remove any construction-related debris and dirt.
 Directing all lighting at the facility into the interior of the site. 11  Using full cut-off light shields and/or anti-glare lighting.  Using cool pavement to reduce heat island effects.
 Installing climate control in the warehouse facility to promote worker well-being.  Installing air filtration in the warehouse facility to promote worker well-being.

IX. Conclusion
California’s world-class economy, ports, and transportation network position it at the center of the e-commerce and logistics industry boom. At the same time, California is a global leader in environmental protection and environmentally just development. The guidance in this document furthers these dual strengths, ensuring that all can access the benefits of economic development. The Bureau will continue to monitor proposed projects for compliance with CEQA and other laws. Lead agencies, developers, community advocates, and other interested parties should feel free to reach out to us as they consider how to guide warehouse development in their area.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Environmental Justice Bureau at [email protected] if you have any questions.

EXHIBIT B
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, California 95678 5 December 2022
RE: Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Dear Ms. Mar,
I write to comment on the Addendum to the 2010 Blue Oaks Commerce Center Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the proposed Blue Oaks Commerce Center, which I understand would add four industrial buildings totaling 310,000 square feet of floor space onto 23.94 acres.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Circumstances regarding wildlife have changed over the 12 years since the 2010 MND.

The overall decline in bird abundance across North America (Rosenberg et al. 2019) has also included declines in special-status species. These declines prompted recent changes in statutes and more designations of special-status to biological species. As examples, neither California gull nor northern harrier were US Fish and Wildlife Bird Species of Conservation Concern in 2010, but they became so since then (Table 1). I did not find a list of potentially-occurring special-status species in the 2010 MND, but if one had been constructed, it is obsolete and should be replaced by Table 1.

My review of occurrence databases reveals 97 special-status species with potential to occur at or near the project site, including 32 (33%) between 1.5 miles of the site and 24 (25%) within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 37 (38%) between 4 and 30 miles. With so many special-status species known to occur so close to the project site, a project-specific EIR is warranted to appropriately characterize the existing wildlife community. 2 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.

Common name Species name Status1
Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Yes Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Yes In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC In region
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii CE, SSC In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Nearby
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT In region
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 In region
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Yes In region Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Yes In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC In region
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region Greater sandhill crane Antigone canadensis tabida CE, FP In region Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region 3 Common name Species name Status
1 Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Yes Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Yes In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Yes Very close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP In region Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SSC2 In region
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Very close
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BCC, BOP Nearby Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Very close Long-eared owl Asio Otis SSC3 Nearby
4 Common name Species name Status
1 Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Yes Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby, recent Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Yes Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Yes Nearby
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Yes Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Yes Very close Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
5 Common name Species name Status1
Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans BWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
All of the special-status species listed in Table 1 would be vulnerable to collision mortality caused by project-generated traffic on roads servicing the project. Wildlifevehicle mortality would extend as far from the project’s building footprints as cars and trucks travel to and from the project site. Neither the Addendum nor the 2010 MND analyzed potential project impacts to wildlife resulting from the construction and operation of 310,000 square feet of warehouse buildings, 50,000 square feet of which would be newly added to the earlier project (Staff Report to Planning Commission, 22 September 2022). Below, I address potential project impacts to wildlife that need to be analyzed in a project-specific EIR.

Both the 2010 MND and the Addendum neglect to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 1-5). Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014).

Photo 1. A Gambel’s quail dashes across
a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 2. White-tailed antelope squirrel
dashes across a road, 26 May 2022.
7 Photo 3. Great-tailed grackle walks onto
a rural road in Imperial County, 4
February 2022.

Photo 4. Mourning dove killed by vehicle
on a California road. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

Photo 5. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east
of Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken
on 10 November 2018.

Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass 8 persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011). Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California redlegged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). The metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

In my own surveys for wildlife-vehicle collision morality on roads near the project site, including a short reach of Highway 65, from 1990 through February 2008, I recorded 903 fatalities of the following species: American white pelican, duck of unknown species, American coot, great blue heron, great egret, turkey vulture, American kestrel, barn owl, great horned owl, ring-necked pheasant, belted kingfisher, rock pigeon, American crow, yellow-billed magpie, California kingsnake, gopher snake, frogs, desert cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, Norway rat, muskrat, California ground squirrel, western gray squirrel, eastern gray squirrel, black-tailed deer, raccoon, mink, river otter, striped skunk, feral house cat, gray fox, coyote, and Virginia opossum. Since 2008 I have recorded many more fatalities, but I do not have them ready for summary reporting. By memory, I recall finding fatalities of red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, American badger and Monarch. Overwhelming evidence is available that cars and trucks kill many members of many species of California’s wildlife.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The Addendum fails to report a prediction for VMT, so I relied upon the mean rate of annual VMT per square foot of warehouse floorspace at 26 other proposed projects. The mean was 24.4195 annual VMT per square foot of floorspace. This mean applied to the 9 project’s proposed 310,000 square feet would predict an annual VMT of 7,570,045.

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into my prediction of 7,570,045 annual VMT due to the project predicts 4,148 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Even if the project-generated traffic would kill only half the number of wild animals as measured at Vasco Road, the annual mortality would be 2,074. But it also remains to be known to what degree vehicle tires contributed to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.

As a result of the 50,000 square feet of added warehouse floor space to the earlier project (Staff Report to Planning Commission, 22 September 2022), the mean 24.4195 annual VMT per square foot of floorspace predicts 1,220,975 annual VMT. The project’s added floor space would be predicted to result in 669 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year, and even if the additional project-generated traffic would kill only half the number of wild animals as measured at Vasco Road, the annual mortality would be 335.

California’s loss of another 335 wild animals per year would easily qualify as a significant unmitigated impact of the project’s additional 50,000 square feet of floor space.

Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to analyze this impact.

Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. My predicted loss of 2,074 to 4,148 wild vertebrate animals/year would be substantial, and therefore it is my expert opinion based on the facts and reasonable assumption that the project would result in a potentially significant impact from project-generated traffic that has not been addressed in the 2010 MND or 2022 Addendum.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to analyze the potential project impacts resulting from wildlife-vehicle collision mortality caused by project-generated traffic. The EIR’s analysis should extend in scope to the distances that project-generated traffic would travel along roads in the region.

MITIGATION
The Addendum includes the following mitigation measure, which is the same measure that appears in the 2010 MND:

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#3: “A qualified biologist shall perform preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction if construction is planned during January to July. If the survey does not identify any special-status birds or raptors species, no further mitigation is required. If nesting is found to be occurring, avoid disturbance of the nest site with a suitable buffer 10 zone. The on-site biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game to determine the size of the no-disturbance buffer (typically between 150 to 200 feet).

Additionally, if Swainson’s hawk are found to be using the site in any capacity, off-site mitigation would be required at a ratio deemed suitable by the CDFG.” The Addendum says that the site was graded in preparation of the development. I assume, therefore, that if this grading was done during the avian breeding season, preconstruction surveys would have been completed. However, it should be clarified whether preconstruction surveys were in fact completed prior to grading, Furthermore, it should be clarified whether a preconstruction survey report was prepared, and if it was prepared, then it should be shared as part of the CEQA review for the proposed project.

Regardless of whether preconstruction surveys preceded grading, sufficient time has elapsed since the site was graded to warrant preconstruction surveys prior to any next step in construction should the project go forward. A graded site could attract various bird species that breed on open ground, such as killdeer and California horned lark.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES
I suggest that an EIR be prepared for this proposed project, and that it considers the following measures.

Detection Surveys
The City of Roseville should implement the available protocols and guidelines on detection surveys for special-status species of wildlife. There are many special-status species potentially affected by the proposed project (Table 1), and each species comes with unique methods that are needed to determine presence or absence of the species.

Therefore, there are many survey protocols needed. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Wildlife will be killed and injured by collisions with traffic associated with the project.

The impacts to injured wildlife can be rectified by helping to pay the costs of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, which operate on volunteer support and inadequate budgets.

Leyvas and Smallwood (2015) surveyed 38 rehabilitation facilities to assess the cost of 11 rehabilitating raptors injured by wind turbines, and recommend $3,230/injured raptor would serve as a reasonable interim mitigation cost. However, wildlife injured by car and truck traffic to and from the project will include animals other than raptors. Most of these non-raptor animals likely cost less to rehabilitate or to care for until those who cannot be released or placed in the care of others need to be euthanized humanely. In the absence of any additional cost summaries from rehabilitation facilities, I estimate that $500 per injured animal would be reasonable.

The next challenge is estimating how many animals will require treatment during the life of the project. Live, injured animals will contribute directly to the costs incurred by rehabilitation facilities receiving the animals, but animals killed outright by cars and trucks should also be mitigated through one or more compensatory measures.

Compensating for animals that are killed can come in the form of rehabilitating animals that were injured by other projects or anthropogenic activities. As a starting point, I suggest assessing $100 per project-caused fatality. Still, there has yet to be a basis for multiplying these dollar amounts by the numbers of killed and injured wildlife caused by the project. And it should be remembered that most of the animals killed will never be documented.

There are two ways that project impacts can be assessed for deciding upon a rehabilitation fee. One way is to predict project-level impacts, but this prediction would be highly uncertain. One could use fatality and injury rates from available studies. A projected injury rate could be multiplied by $3,230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor, and a projected fatality rate could be multiplied by $100 per fatality. Thus, perhaps for every animal found injured at the project site and delivered to a rehabilitation facility, the cost for the injury is paid ($3230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor) plus $2,500 is paid for all the projected dead animals per injured animal.

The second way to assess the impact is to fund scientific monitoring. This second way would necessitate a delay in establishing the cost-basis of the mitigation fee, but learning about the impacts would make the delay worthwhile. As scientific monitoring proceeds, a mitigation fee can be paid based on the injuries and fatalities that are found.

Upon completion of the monitoring, an annual fee would be paid based on the average annual findings from the monitoring effort. I suggest splitting a fund among multiple wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the region.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
12 REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 December 7, 2022
Via Email
Krista Bernasconi, Mayor
Bruce Houdesheldt, Vice Mayor
Scott Alvord, Councilmember
Pauline Roccucci, Councilmember
Tracy Mendonsa, Councilmember
City Council
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Addendum to the 2010 IS/MND for Blue Oaks Commerce Center (NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center; File #PL22-0101)
Roseville City Council Hearing; December 7, 2022, Agenda Item 8.1 Dear Mayor Bernasconi, Vice Mayor Houdesheldt, Honorable Members of the City Council, and Ms. Mar,
I am writing on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local 185, and its members living or working in and around the City of Roseville (collectively, “LIUNA”), in support of LIUNA’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 22, 2022 decisions: (1) adopting an Addendum to the 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2010 MND”) prepared for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project, (2) approving a Major Project Permit (“MPP”) Stage 1 Modification, and (3) approving a MPP Stage 2 to allow construction and operation of four industrial buildings totaling 310,000 square feet (“Project”). This letter supplements our prior letter, dated December 5, 2022.

In our December 5, 2022 letter, we raised our concerns that the City had violated its duty to investigate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, particularly compared to the 2010 project. In particular, the Addendum states on page 14 that “[c]onstruction and operation of the project will increase emissions on the site, but not substantially.” (Addendum, p. 14) To further our understanding of the potential impacts, and how the Addendum’s conclusions were reached, my office requested the air quality data relied on by the City in its CC ATTACHMENT 5
December 7, 2022
Appeal re: Blue Oaks Commerce Center and Addendum to 2010 IS/MND City Council Hearing

determination that an addendum was appropriate, and that the Project now being approved did not have substantially greater impacts than the 2010 project. We specifically requested the CalEEMod data prepared for the Project. This is the data output generated by experts who run air quality analyses. My office was informed that “The Blue Oaks Commerce Center Addendum did not include a CalEEMod file as the project relied on the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update air quality analysis.” Without having prepared any analysis of the air quality impacts that this Project will have, the City has no evidence to support its reliance on an Addendum. The City has no evidence that the Project now being approved – with its 50,000 square feet of industrial warehouse space - will not result in substantially greater air quality impacts than the project approved and analyzed in the 2010 MND.

The Addendum also states that “the construction phase project-level ROG (lbs/day) percent difference between the original project and the propped project will have approximately a 17% difference.” There appears to be no evidentiary basis for this statement.

In addition, we recently obtained from City staff Attachment 2 to the 2010 MND, which is a 404 Permit application containing the biological resources assessment relied on in support of the 2010 MND’s conclusions. This assessment was prepared 17 years ago, in 2005. When compared to the list of species potentially occurring at the Project site prepared by Dr.

Smallwood, there are many new special status species that were not previously either likely to occur on the site or not previously listed as special status species, including, for example, the long-billed curlew, rufous hummingbird, barrow’s goldeneye, willet, California gull, sharpshinned hawk, and dozens of others. (Smallwood Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, pp. 2-5.) The fact that these species now have the potential to occur on site is a changed circumstance, and requires major revisions to the MND to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potential impact on these species, as described in Dr. Smallwood’s comments. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)(2).)
Further, many of the species identified by Dr. Smallwood were not designated as specialstatus species in 2010. These new designations constitute new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted, and Dr. Smallwood’s comments show that the Project may have significant impacts on these species. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)(3).)
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT 1
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
City of Roseville
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, California 95678 5 December 2022
RE: Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Dear Ms. Mar,
I write to comment on the Addendum to the 2010 Blue Oaks Commerce Center Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the proposed Blue Oaks Commerce Center, which I understand would add four industrial buildings totaling 310,000 square feet of floor space onto 23.94 acres.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Circumstances regarding wildlife have changed over the 12 years since the 2010 MND.

The overall decline in bird abundance across North America (Rosenberg et al. 2019) has also included declines in special-status species. These declines prompted recent changes in statutes and more designations of special-status to biological species. As examples, neither California gull nor northern harrier were US Fish and Wildlife Bird Species of Conservation Concern in 2010, but they became so since then (Table 1). I did not find a list of potentially-occurring special-status species in the 2010 MND, but if one had been constructed, it is obsolete and should be replaced by Table 1.

My review of occurrence databases reveals 97 special-status species with potential to occur at or near the project site, including 32 (33%) between 1.5 miles of the site and 24 (25%) within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 37 (38%) between 4 and 30 miles. With so many special-status species known to occur so close to the project site, a project-specific EIR is warranted to appropriately characterize the existing wildlife community. 2 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.

Common name Species name Status1
Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Yes Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Yes In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC In region
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii CE, SSC In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Nearby
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT In region
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 In region
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Yes In region Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Yes In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC In region
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region Greater sandhill crane Antigone canadensis tabida CE, FP In region Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region 3 Common name Species name Status
1 Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Yes Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Yes In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Yes Very close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP In region Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SSC2 In region
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Very close
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BCC, BOP Nearby Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Very close Long-eared owl Asio Otis SSC3 Nearby
4 Common name Species name Status
1 Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Yes Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby, recent Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Yes Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Yes Nearby
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Yes Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Yes Very close Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
5 Common name Species name Status1
Status
changed
since 2010
Data base
records, Site
visits
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans BWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
All of the special-status species listed in Table 1 would be vulnerable to collision mortality caused by project-generated traffic on roads servicing the project. Wildlifevehicle mortality would extend as far from the project’s building footprints as cars and trucks travel to and from the project site. Neither the Addendum nor the 2010 MND analyzed potential project impacts to wildlife resulting from the construction and operation of 310,000 square feet of warehouse buildings, 50,000 square feet of which would be newly added to the earlier project (Staff Report to Planning Commission, 22 September 2022). Below, I address potential project impacts to wildlife that need to be analyzed in a project-specific EIR.

Both the 2010 MND and the Addendum neglect to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 1-5). Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014).

Photo 1. A Gambel’s quail dashes across
a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 2. White-tailed antelope squirrel
dashes across a road, 26 May 2022.
7 Photo 3. Great-tailed grackle walks onto
a rural road in Imperial County, 4
February 2022.

Photo 4. Mourning dove killed by vehicle
on a California road. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

Photo 5. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east
of Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken
on 10 November 2018.

Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass 8 persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011). Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California redlegged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). The metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

In my own surveys for wildlife-vehicle collision morality on roads near the project site, including a short reach of Highway 65, from 1990 through February 2008, I recorded 903 fatalities of the following species: American white pelican, duck of unknown species, American coot, great blue heron, great egret, turkey vulture, American kestrel, barn owl, great horned owl, ring-necked pheasant, belted kingfisher, rock pigeon, American crow, yellow-billed magpie, California kingsnake, gopher snake, frogs, desert cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, Norway rat, muskrat, California ground squirrel, western gray squirrel, eastern gray squirrel, black-tailed deer, raccoon, mink, river otter, striped skunk, feral house cat, gray fox, coyote, and Virginia opossum. Since 2008 I have recorded many more fatalities, but I do not have them ready for summary reporting. By memory, I recall finding fatalities of red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, American badger and Monarch. Overwhelming evidence is available that cars and trucks kill many members of many species of California’s wildlife.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The Addendum fails to report a prediction for VMT, so I relied upon the mean rate of annual VMT per square foot of warehouse floorspace at 26 other proposed projects. The mean was 24.4195 annual VMT per square foot of floorspace. This mean applied to the 9 project’s proposed 310,000 square feet would predict an annual VMT of 7,570,045.

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into my prediction of 7,570,045 annual VMT due to the project predicts 4,148 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Even if the project-generated traffic would kill only half the number of wild animals as measured at Vasco Road, the annual mortality would be 2,074. But it also remains to be known to what degree vehicle tires contributed to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.

As a result of the 50,000 square feet of added warehouse floor space to the earlier project (Staff Report to Planning Commission, 22 September 2022), the mean 24.4195 annual VMT per square foot of floorspace predicts 1,220,975 annual VMT. The project’s added floor space would be predicted to result in 669 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year, and even if the additional project-generated traffic would kill only half the number of wild animals as measured at Vasco Road, the annual mortality would be 335.

California’s loss of another 335 wild animals per year would easily qualify as a significant unmitigated impact of the project’s additional 50,000 square feet of floor space.

Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to analyze this impact.

Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. My predicted loss of 2,074 to 4,148 wild vertebrate animals/year would be substantial, and therefore it is my expert opinion based on the facts and reasonable assumption that the project would result in a potentially significant impact from project-generated traffic that has not been addressed in the 2010 MND or 2022 Addendum.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to analyze the potential project impacts resulting from wildlife-vehicle collision mortality caused by project-generated traffic. The EIR’s analysis should extend in scope to the distances that project-generated traffic would travel along roads in the region.

MITIGATION
The Addendum includes the following mitigation measure, which is the same measure that appears in the 2010 MND:

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#3: “A qualified biologist shall perform preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction if construction is planned during January to July. If the survey does not identify any special-status birds or raptors species, no further mitigation is required. If nesting is found to be occurring, avoid disturbance of the nest site with a suitable buffer 10 zone. The on-site biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game to determine the size of the no-disturbance buffer (typically between 150 to 200 feet).

Additionally, if Swainson’s hawk are found to be using the site in any capacity, off-site mitigation would be required at a ratio deemed suitable by the CDFG.” The Addendum says that the site was graded in preparation of the development. I assume, therefore, that if this grading was done during the avian breeding season, preconstruction surveys would have been completed. However, it should be clarified whether preconstruction surveys were in fact completed prior to grading, Furthermore, it should be clarified whether a preconstruction survey report was prepared, and if it was prepared, then it should be shared as part of the CEQA review for the proposed project.

Regardless of whether preconstruction surveys preceded grading, sufficient time has elapsed since the site was graded to warrant preconstruction surveys prior to any next step in construction should the project go forward. A graded site could attract various bird species that breed on open ground, such as killdeer and California horned lark.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES
I suggest that an EIR be prepared for this proposed project, and that it considers the following measures.

Detection Surveys
The City of Roseville should implement the available protocols and guidelines on detection surveys for special-status species of wildlife. There are many special-status species potentially affected by the proposed project (Table 1), and each species comes with unique methods that are needed to determine presence or absence of the species.

Therefore, there are many survey protocols needed. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Wildlife will be killed and injured by collisions with traffic associated with the project.

The impacts to injured wildlife can be rectified by helping to pay the costs of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, which operate on volunteer support and inadequate budgets.

Leyvas and Smallwood (2015) surveyed 38 rehabilitation facilities to assess the cost of 11 rehabilitating raptors injured by wind turbines, and recommend $3,230/injured raptor would serve as a reasonable interim mitigation cost. However, wildlife injured by car and truck traffic to and from the project will include animals other than raptors. Most of these non-raptor animals likely cost less to rehabilitate or to care for until those who cannot be released or placed in the care of others need to be euthanized humanely. In the absence of any additional cost summaries from rehabilitation facilities, I estimate that $500 per injured animal would be reasonable.

The next challenge is estimating how many animals will require treatment during the life of the project. Live, injured animals will contribute directly to the costs incurred by rehabilitation facilities receiving the animals, but animals killed outright by cars and trucks should also be mitigated through one or more compensatory measures.

Compensating for animals that are killed can come in the form of rehabilitating animals that were injured by other projects or anthropogenic activities. As a starting point, I suggest assessing $100 per project-caused fatality. Still, there has yet to be a basis for multiplying these dollar amounts by the numbers of killed and injured wildlife caused by the project. And it should be remembered that most of the animals killed will never be documented.

There are two ways that project impacts can be assessed for deciding upon a rehabilitation fee. One way is to predict project-level impacts, but this prediction would be highly uncertain. One could use fatality and injury rates from available studies. A projected injury rate could be multiplied by $3,230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor, and a projected fatality rate could be multiplied by $100 per fatality. Thus, perhaps for every animal found injured at the project site and delivered to a rehabilitation facility, the cost for the injury is paid ($3230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor) plus $2,500 is paid for all the projected dead animals per injured animal.

The second way to assess the impact is to fund scientific monitoring. This second way would necessitate a delay in establishing the cost-basis of the mitigation fee, but learning about the impacts would make the delay worthwhile. As scientific monitoring proceeds, a mitigation fee can be paid based on the injuries and fatalities that are found.

Upon completion of the monitoring, an annual fee would be paid based on the average annual findings from the monitoring effort. I suggest splitting a fund among multiple wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the region.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
12 REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

CC ATTACHMENT 6
December 21, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
415.227.3508 Direct
[email protected]
Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Re: Appeal of Addendum to the 2010 IS/MND for Blue Oaks Commerce Center (NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center; File #PL22-0101) Roseville City Council Hearing; January 18, 2023, Agenda Item 10.1 Dear Mayor Bernasconi and Members of the City Council:

Buchalter represents Schnitzer Properties, the project applicant (“Applicant”) for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center, File Number 22-0101. Blue Oaks Commerce Center consists of the development of four industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet (“Project”), located on two parcels totaling 23.94 acres at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way (“Property” or “Project Site”) in the City of Roseville (“City”). On September 22, 2022, the Roseville Planning Commission adopted an addendum (“Addendum”) to a previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and approved a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 Modification for the Project.

On September 30, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185 (“LIUNA” or “Appellant”), appealed the Roseville Planning Commission’s approval of the Project (“Appeal”). Buchalter addressed LIUNA’s Appeal in our letter dated October 20, 2022 attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated by this reference.

In its Appeal, LIUNA questioned the City’s adoption of the Addendum and the approval of the Project for the first time contending that there were different unspecified mitigation measures compared to those identified in the original 2010 IS/MND that would supposedly reduce significant cumulative air quality impacts. LIUNA also suggested the Project’s increased size compared to the original 2010 Project required major revisions to the IS/MND without any evidence. LIUNA subsequently submitted two additional letters to the City Council onDecember BN 74011309v3
Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022