Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, February 15, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

8/10/20221:19 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Lisa Green, ERP Program Manager FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Lisa Green, ERP Program Manager COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 2/15/2023 DEPAR
TMENT/DIVISION: Finance - ERP Support ORDINANCE:

EXPEND

ITURES/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
3601 0
3601 0
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

The following Capital Improvement Projects are completed and ready for closure. Existing budgets need to be removed in order to close each project. 400069 - Enterprise Resource Planning
Completed Project - $305,950 variance is due to costs coming in under budget estimates. 500093 - ERP Timekeeping Replacement
Completed Project - $570,194 variance is due to costs coming in under budget estimates.

This $876,144 Budget Adjustment is requested to eliminate the remaining budgets and return the unspent funds to the fund balance. see attached
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

Attachment to Budget Adjustment

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3110 5393 84001 400069 (305,950) reduce budget - close 400069 - Enterprise Resource Planning 3110 6801 10001 305,950 transfer out - closing project 400069 3110 5080 84001 500093 (570,194) reduce budget - close 500093 - ERP Timekeeping 3110 6801 10001 570,194 transfer out - closing project 500093 -

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 4801 10001 393,970 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 1030 4801 10001 182 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 1130 4801 10001 2,162 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2006 4801 10001 412 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2007 4801 10001 168 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2008 4801 10001 557 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2010 4801 10001 292 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2011 4801 10001 243 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2014 4801 10001 214 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2015 4801 10001 139 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2017 4801 10001 227 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2019 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2021 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2023 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2101 4801 10001 193 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2102 4801 10001 193 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2103 4801 10001 193 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2104 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2105 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2106 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2107 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2108 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2109 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2110 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2111 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2113 4801 10001 1,160 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2114 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2115 4801 10001 568 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2117 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2119 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2120 4801 10001 891 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2201 4801 10001 365 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2210 4801 10001 412 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2220 4801 10001 163 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2230 4801 10001 235 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2240 4801 10001 1,275 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2305 4801 10001 1,783 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2321 4801 10001 85 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2401 4801 10001 133 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2521 4801 10001 734 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2541 4801 10001 105 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2591 4801 10001 1,406 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2594 4801 10001 1,440 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2701 4801 10001 91 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2821 4801 10001 263 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2824 4801 10001 147 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 2841 4801 10001 569 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3002 4801 10001 702 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3006 4801 10001 301 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
3007 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3012 4801 10001 142 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3151 4801 10001 1,242 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3201 4801 10001 4,444 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3210 4801 10001 689 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3303 4801 10001 249 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3355 4801 10001 174 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3360 4801 10001 108 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3380 4801 10001 209 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 3390 4801 10001 457 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4001 4801 10001 14,905 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4005 4801 10001 6,101 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4061 4801 10001 4,830 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4065 4801 10001 216 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4101 4801 10001 13,146 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4251 4801 10001 221 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4271 4801 10001 164 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4274 4801 10001 1,243 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 4276 4801 10001 308 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6001 4801 10001 177,080 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6101 4801 10001 15,778 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6130 4801 10001 49,538 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6201 4801 10001 13,537 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6230 4801 10001 48,637 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6301 4801 10001 13,537 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6330 4801 10001 34,917 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6511 4801 10001 10,418 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6520 4801 10001 4,584 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6540 4801 10001 940 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 6591 4801 10001 12,412 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7001 4801 10001 13,334 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7411 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7414 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7415 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7416 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7417 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7418 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7419 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7420 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7421 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7422 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7423 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7424 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7425 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7426 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7427 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7428 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7429 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7430 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7431 4801 10001 580 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 7432 4801 10001 891 transfer in from 3110 - closing projects 400069 & 500093 876,144
(876,144)
TOTAL

NET ADJUSTMENT

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 3601 00000 393,970
1030 3601 00000 182 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 1130 3601 00000 2,162 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2006 3601 00000 412 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2007 3601 00000 168 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2008 3601 00000 557 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2010 3601 00000 292 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2011 3601 00000 243 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2014 3601 00000 214 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2015 3601 00000 139 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2017 3601 00000 227 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2019 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2021 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2023 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2101 3601 00000 193 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2102 3601 00000 193 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2103 3601 00000 193 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2104 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2105 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2106 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2107 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2108 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2109 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2110 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2111 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2113 3601 00000 1,160 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2114 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2115 3601 00000 568 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2117 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2119 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2120 3601 00000 891 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2201 3601 00000 365 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2210 3601 00000 412 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2220 3601 00000 163 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2230 3601 00000 235 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2240 3601 00000 1,275 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2305 3601 00000 1,783 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2321 3601 00000 85 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2401 3601 00000 133 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2521 3601 00000 734 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2541 3601 00000 105 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2591 3601 00000 1,406 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2594 3601 00000 1,440 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2701 3601 00000 91 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2821 3601 00000 263 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2824 3601 00000 147 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 2841 3601 00000 569 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3002 3601 00000 702 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3006 3601 00000 301 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3007 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3012 3601 00000 142 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3151 3601 00000 1,242 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3201 3601 00000 4,444 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3210 3601 00000 689 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3303 3601 00000 249 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3355 3601 00000 174 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3360 3601 00000 108 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3380 3601 00000 209 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 3390 3601 00000 457 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4001 3601 00000 14,905 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093
4005 3601 00000 6,101 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4061 3601 00000 4,830 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4065 3601 00000 216 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4101 3601 00000 13,146 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4251 3601 00000 221 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4271 3601 00000 164 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4274 3601 00000 1,243 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 4276 3601 00000 308 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6001 3601 00000 177,080 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6101 3601 00000 15,778 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6130 3601 00000 49,538 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6201 3601 00000 13,537 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6230 3601 00000 48,637 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6301 3601 00000 13,537 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6330 3601 00000 34,917 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6511 3601 00000 10,418 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6520 3601 00000 4,584 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6540 3601 00000 940 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 6591 3601 00000 12,412 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7001 3601 00000 13,334 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7411 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7414 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7415 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7416 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7417 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7418 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7419 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7420 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7421 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7422 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7423 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7424 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7425 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7426 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7427 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7428 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7429 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7430 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7431 3601 00000 580 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 7432 3601 00000 891 Increase Fund Balance closing projects 400069 & 500093 876,144 TOTAL

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2550
File #:
0323 & 0214 & 0201-01
Title:

Sacramento Urban Area Security Initiative - Grant Award, Budget Adjustment and Sole Source Purchase Order
Contact:

Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]
Jeff Kool 916-746-1096 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 7.17.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1) Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the City of Sacramento Subaward Agreement; and
2) Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment to appropriate $25,855 of the funds into the Fleet Replacement Fund to facilitate the trailer purchase; 3) Approve a sole source purchase order to Meridian Rapid Defense Group for 16 anti-vehicle barriers and barrier trailer kit for a total cost of $152,940.

BACKGROUND
With the rise in vehicle-borne attacks on large crowds and pedestrians, vehicle barriers have become an essential tool to protect citizens during large gatherings and community events.

Vehicle barriers can prevent large vehicles from accessing and inadvertently or purposely entering large community gatherings and striking pedestrians. The Sacramento Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) has identified vehicle-borne attacks as a critical safety concern that our region must protect against. Over the past two years Sacramento UASI has provided grant funding through the Department of Homeland Security FY 2020 Homeland Security Grant for regional agencies such as Sacramento Police Department (PD), West Sac PD, and Folsom PD to purchase vehicle barriers. These vehicle barriers are a regional asset with the ability to deploy quickly for large scale events. The Roseville Police Department has utilized vehicle barriers from Sacramento PD on several occasions for events such as the 4 th
of July parade and 4
th
of July
Fireworks show at the Grounds. These deployment opportunities confirmed the need to increase the City's vehicle barrier options for the Roseville PD to protect the residents and businesses.

The Roseville Police Department submitted a request to the Sacramento UASI to obtain grant funding for the purchase of 16 vehicle barriers and a deployment trailer. The Sacramento UASI approved the request and will be providing funding for 100% of the purchase for the vehicle barrier system which includes a customized hydraulic lift vehicle trailer. Once purchased and delivered, the vehicle barriers will be an essential tool to protecting the community during the numerous events that are scheduled throughout the city every year. The vehicle barriers will also become a regional asset available to our Placer County law enforcement partners for large events within their jurisdictional boundaries. The Roseville Police Department has been granted the sub award agreement for grant in the amount of $152,940 for the purchase of vehicle barriers and a trailer from Meridian Vehicle Barriers.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will appropriate the grant and move $25,855 of the funds into the Fleet Replacement Fund to facilitate the trailer purchase. The City will be reimbursed for the purchases by Federal Homeland Security Funds administered by the City of Sacramento.

There will be no net fiscal impact on the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a subaward grant agreement and budget adjustment, and purchase of anti-vehicle barriers and trailer meets the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA.

No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 23-070
UASI Sub-Award
Ordinance 6618
Budget Adjustment
Meridian Rapid Defense Group - Quote
RESOLUTION NO. 23-070

ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM THE SACRAMENTO URBAN AREA SECURITY

INITIATIVE (UASI), APPROVING THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO SUBAWARD

AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, over the past two years, Sacramento Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) has provided grant funding through the United States Department of Homeland Security for regional agencies to purchase vehicle barriers; and

WHEREAS, the Roseville Police Department submitted a request to Sacramento UASI for grant funding for the purchase of 16 anti-vehicle barriers and a barrier deployment trailer kit; and

WHEREAS, the Roseville Police Department received $152,940 in subaward grant funds from the Sacramento UASI through the United States Department of Homeland Security FY2020 Homeland Security Grant Program for the purchase of anti-vehicle barriers and barrier deployment trailer kit.

WHEREAS, the City of Sacramento Subaward Agreement, has been reviewed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the City of Roseville accepts the grant subaward from the Sacramento UASI, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any required documents.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as the grant recipient, the City of Roseville agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements related to the subaward; and

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
ORDINANCE NO. 6618

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 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 as listed on the attached budget adjustment for grant funds to purchase anti-vehicle barriers and a barrier trailer.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

177 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
+1 8186414431
[email protected]
Quote

ADDRESS
Lt Jeff Kool
Roseville Police Department
1051 Junction Blvd
Roseville, CA 95678

SHIP TO
Lt Jeff Kool
Roseville Police Department
1051 Junction Blvd
Roseville, CA 95678
QUOTE # DATE EXPIRATION DATE
05172022-RPD 01/13/2023 03/31/2023

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT
8 Barrier Trailer Kit 8 Barrier Trailer Kit 1 81,180.00 81,180.00 Archer 1200 Barrier Archer 1200 Anti-Vehicle Barrier 8 6,750.00 Archer Hauler Archer Hauler™ 1 1,995.00
Archer Field Tow Bar Archer Field Tow Bar 2 595.00
Archer 8-Barrier Drop
Deck Trailer
Archer 8-Barrier Drop Deck Trailer 1 23,995.00
Archer 1200 Barrier Archer 1200 Anti-Vehicle Barrier 8 6,750.00 54,000.00T In-Field Installation & Certified
Training
In-Field Installation & Certified Training 1 1,495.00 1,495.00T Freight/Shipping Freight/Shipping to customers location 1 5,265.00 5,265.00T PAYMENT TERMS:

Due to high demand levels, your delivery date will be
guaranteed with your 50% deposit so that your protection starts when you need it.

SUBTOTAL 141,940.00
TAX 11,000.35
TOTAL USD 152,940.35
Accepted By Accepted Date

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2536
File #:
0324 & 0214 & 0201-01
Title:

United States Department of Homeland Security - Grant Award and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Ryan Harrigan 916-774-5820 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 7.18.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution for the acceptance of two grant awards from the United States Department of Homeland Security through the Placer County Office of Emergency Services in the amount of $40,000 (FY2019-20) and $41,000 (FY2020-21) for a total of $81,000. Staff additionally recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve the associated budget adjustment for the purchase of a hazardous materials instrument.

BACKGROUND
The Roseville Fire Department maintains a Type I Hazardous Materials Response Team that is required by the California Office of Emergency Services to be equipped with specialty instrumentation. The hazardous materials instrument meets these requirements and has the ability to assist with positive identification of narcotics, explosives, and arson accelerants. The department was awarded two grants totaling $81,000 by the Placer County Office of Emergency Services, as a sub-grantee of the 2020 and 2021 Homeland Security Grants, for the purchase of this specialized hazardous materials equipment. These funds add to the $450,000 already granted to the Fire Department Hazardous Materials Program by the California Office of Emergency Services. Remaining funds have been reallocated within the existing Fire Department budget for this purchase.

FISCAL IMPACT
On May 18, 2022 City Council approved a $76,000 and $21,000 appropriation for the replacement of two separate chemical detectors currently used by the Fire Department that are no longer supported by the manufacturer. These funds will be reallocated to the purchase of this instrument which meets and exceeds the capability of the two instruments being replaced.

The remainder of the $187,395 total purchase cost will be paid through a combination of $81,000 in grants awarded by Placer County Office of Emergency Services and $9,395 in existing allocated funds within the Fire Department budget, with no net impact to the General Fund.

All maintenance costs for the equipment are covered for the first six years with the service agreement, and will budgeted within the Fire Department budget in the General Fund in future years. The department will continue to seek grants as a means to replace this type of equipment as technology improves and the equipment reaches its end of service life.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a Safe & Healthy Community

Respectfully Submitted,
Ryan Harrigan, Fire Division Chief
Rick Bartee, Fire Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 23-057
Grant information
Ordinance 6614
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 23-057

ACCEPTING GRANT AWARDS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY

WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Fire Department received $81,000 in grant funds from the United States Department of homeland Security, through the Placer County Office of Emergency Services, for the purchase of specialized hazardous materials equipment; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the City of Roseville accepts the grant awards from the United State Department of Homeland Security, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any required documents.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as the grant recipient, the City of Roseville agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements related to the award; and

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

ORDINANCE NO. 6614

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 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 as listed on the attached budget adjustment for grant funds from the United States Department of Homeland Security, through the Placer County Office of Emergency Services.

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.

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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2531
File #:
0800-02 & 0201-01
Title:

Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory and Technical Assistance Project - Professional Services Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Jason Marks 916-342-9573 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 7.19.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1) Approve a professional services agreement to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for the Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory and Technical Assistance project in the amount of $100,646 and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City; and 2) Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment of $120,646 from available resources in the Water Operations Fund to fully fund this project.

BACKGROUND
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published its Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) in January 2021. The LCRR became effective in December 2021, initiating the compliance schedule. To assess the LCRR compliance requirements, the City of Roseville is developing a gap analysis and implementation plan to meet established deadlines.

The gap analysis is a planning-level investigation that will provide a deliverable summarizing current City lead and copper rule practices, the major requirements of the anticipated final rule, and the capital and operational needs to become compliant.

On October 6, 2022, seven (7) consultants submitted proposals in accordance with the Request for Proposals (RFP). The proposals were evaluated by Environmental Utilities staff and ranked based on the criteria specified in the RFP. Staff determined HDR’s proposal provided the best value based on the evaluation criteria. HDR and their subcontractors will provide the labor, equipment, and materials required to complete the gap analysis and implementation plan as detailed in the professional services agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will fund the Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory and Technical Assistance project (#500329) with $120,646 ($100,646 for contract expenses and $20,000 for City staff labor) from the available resources in the Water Operations Fund (6101).

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 C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Marks, Process Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 23-054
Professional Services Agreement
Ordinance 6613
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 23-054

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for technical assistance for the Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory project, by and between the City of Roseville and HDR Engineering, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO. 6613

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 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 as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory and Technical Assistance.

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.

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
1/23/20234:05 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Jason Marks, Process Engineer FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Lisa Saunders, EU Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 2/15/2023 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: EU/Water ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6101 5301 84001 500329 100,646
6101 5080 84001 500329 20,000
120,646

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
120,646

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6101 (120,646)
(120,646)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:
1/23/23
BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This new project, #500329 Lead and Copper Rule Regulatory and Technical Assistance, will provide funding to complete a gap analysis to determine next steps in compliance with the state's Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. These revisions include a number of stringent requirements including an inventory of consumer side pipe material, which has not been required in the past. This project will help sort through the regulations and recommend a next step to compliance. This $120,646 budget ($100,646 for professional services and $20,000 for staff secondary labor) will be funded by the Water Operations Fund (6101). This project is expected to be completed by the end of FY2023-24.

Establish secondary labor expenditure budget
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Establish professional services expenditure budget
Reduce Water Operations Fund Balance

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2528
File #:
0900-02 & 0201-01
Title:
30-Inch Recycled Water Main Repair and Relocation Project - Budget Adjustment Contact:

Jason Marks 916-342-9573 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 7.20.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment initiating the 30-inch Recycled Water Main Relocation Project with a total budget of $500,000 using available resources in the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund.

BACKGROUND
A 30-inch recycled water pipeline requires repair in a currently inaccessible portion of the pipeline along Woodcreek Oaks near the Pleasant Grove Creek (north of Blue Oaks Blvd.). This project will repair the pipeline and relocate the alignment to allow appropriate operation and maintenance in the future. Funding has been identified in the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund for this project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment requests the establishment of a new project, the 30-inch Recycled Water Pipeline Repair and Relocation Project (#500330), and funding for the project’s $500,000 budget ($400,000 for capital outlay and $100,000 for City staff labor) is available in the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund (6230).

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Marks, Process Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6612
Budget Adjustment
ORDINANCE NO. 6612

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 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 as listed on the attached budget adjustment for 30 Inch Recycled Water Main Repair and Relocation Project.

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

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
1/23/20234:04 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Jason Marks, Process Engineer FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Lisa Saunders, EU Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 2/15/2023 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: EU/Wastewater ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6230 6587 84001 500330 400,000
6230 5080 84001 500330 100,000
500,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
500,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6230 (500,000)
(500,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Establish secondary labor expenditure budget
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Establish capital outlay expenditure budget
Reduce Wastewater Rehabiliation Fund Balance

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:
1/23/23
BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This new project, #500330 30 Inch Recycled Water Main Repair and Relocation, will provide funding to remove and reroute a stretch of damaged recycled water main on an existing bridge to allow better access for operations and maintenance. The $500,000 budget ($400,000 for capital outlay and $100,000 for staff secondary labor) will be funded by the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund (6230). This project is expected to be completed by the end of FY2023-24.

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:

File #:

Title:

Consent Calendar
Contact:

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #:

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2544
File #:
0900-04-01 & 0201-01
Title:

Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan for South Placer and South Sutter Region - Memorandum of Understanding Amendment, Funding Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Lainie Anderson 916-774-5331 [email protected]
Daniel Leonardich 916-774-5341 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council a
dopt a resolution a
uthorizing the City Manager to execute
an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the development of a Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan and an Implementation Plan for Riego/Baseline Road and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the Funding Letter of Agreement with Placer
County Transportation Planning Agency (PCPTA) associated with the MOU amendment.

Additionally, staff requests that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment of $166,182 from the City County Mitigation Fee Fund to fund the City's cost share for the MOU.

BACKGROUND
In January of 2020, staff from Placer County, Sutter County, the City of Roseville, and PCTPA formed a Project Development Team (PDT) to initiate a Project Study Report (PSR) to scope Riego Road/Baseline Road improvements from SR 99 to Foothills Boulevard. In conjunction with the PDT, a Strategy Team was formed, consisting of corridor development interests. The PSR, approved in October of 2020, indicated that Riego Road/Baseline Road needs to be widened and improved to support future planned and approved development and provide a reliable and safe east-west connection to meet anticipated traffic demands in the South Placer and South Sutter region. The PSR process also established a high-level project cost estimate and timeline for the project’s environmental review process, the subsequent engineering and design phase, and a construction start date. Completing the PSR allows the Participating Agencies and PCTPA to pursue local, state, and federal funding for environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction of the Riego Road/Baseline Road improvements.

At the conclusion of the PSR, the PDT recognized that it would be in their best interest to continue to work cooperatively to design, fund, finance, and determine the timing of construction of Riego Road/Baseline Road improvements located in their respective jurisdictions. The PDT also recognized that it would be in their best interest to work cooperatively to obtain state and federal transportation funding and develop a fair and equitable method to fund and finance costs of certain regional transportation improvements necessary to address cumulative traffic impacts within the South Placer and South Sutter region. These regional transportation improvements could include Riego Road/Baseline Road, State Route 99/70, Watt Avenue, and Placer/Sutter Parkway.

The purpose of the attached MOU amendment is to facilitate the second task of a proactive multi- jurisdictional approach amongst the Participating Agencies and PCTPA to address cumulative transportation impacts from pending and approved land development within the South Placer and Sutter region. Three tasks are required to advance a regional transportation funding and financing plan and construct future improvements on Riego Road/Baseline Road. These tasks are:

Task 1: To meet and confer to develop options and a mutually agreed upon scope and structure of a regional transportation funding and financing plan. - COMPLETED Task 2: To mutually develop the analysis and related reports necessary to adopt a regional transportation funding and financing plan. - TODAY'S REQUESTED ACTION Task 3: To develop an implementation plan for the Riego Road/Baseline Road project, including the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) development phase. - FUTURE TASK
To complete these tasks, the Participating Agencies and PCTPA agreed to form a Project Development Team (PDT). The PDT will continue to meet as necessary to administer and implement this MOU amendment and take such action(s) as it deems appropriate to advance a regional transportation funding and financing plan and construct improvements on Riego Road/Baseline Road. A majority of the members of the PDT will constitute a quorum, and a consensus of all Participating Agency representatives will be required for decisions of the PDT. If a consensus cannot be reached, a meeting will be held among the representatives to resolve the disagreement.

Further, the Participating Agencies authorize PCTPA to perform the following work in support of Task 2:

Coordinate the efforts amongst the Participating Agencies to develop a fair share funding analysis that ensures future development within the South Placer and South Sutter region contributes their fair share towards the cost of additional infrastructure needed to mitigate cumulative regional transportation impacts attributable to new development. PCTPA will schedule and facilitate PDT meetings and synthesize data to facilitate a mutually agreed upon scope and structure for a fair share transportation funding program for the South Placer and South Sutter region. PCTPA will work to develop a consensus (as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the four agencies in October OF 2021) and reach agreements within the PDT on various fair share analysis components to permit consideration and adoption of the South Placer and South Sutter region fair share transportation funding program by the Participating Agencies’ elected bodies.

PCTPA’s cost for this work is estimated not to exceed $498,546, including consultant services, PCTPA staff administration, and project contingency, which shall be shared equally by the Participating Agencies subject to the unanimous approval of PCTPA’s proposed budget by the PDT and each agencies' governing body.

A subsequent MOU amendment will be required to initiate Task 3 above. As such, this MOU amendment does not bind the Participating Agencies to take any future action beyond Task 2.

FISCAL IMPACT
A $166,182 budget adjustment request from the City/County Mitigation Fee Fund is included with this item and will cover the City's share of the cost outlined in the MOU. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Lainie Anderson, Administrative Assistant
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Updated PCTPA Funding Analysis Proposal
Resolution 23-064
MOU Amendment #1 RTFFP Task 2 Final clean
Roseville Task 2 Funding Letter of Agreement 23-01
Ordinance 6617
Budget Adjustment

SOUTH PLACER

AND SOUTH
SUTTER

FAIR SHARE

TRANSPORTATION

FUNDING

ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 18, 2022

SHAPING A SMARTER

TRANSPORTATION
EXPERIENCE™

N O VEMBER 18, 20 22

D A VID MELK O
2 99 Nevad a S treet
A ubur n , C A 9560 3-4617
SUBJECT : PROPO S AL FOR S OUTH PLA CER AND SO UTH SUTTER F AIR SHARE TRANSPOR TATION FUND ING

ANAL Y SIS
D e a r Mr . Mel k o and members o f the sel ecti on committee , DKS As s o ciat e s , In c. (DKS) is p leased to submit thi s proposal for the South Placer and S outh Sutter Fair Sh are T ran spo rtat ion Funding An aly sis . This c o ver letter introduces our team and presents our u nderstan ding of the project. e n gine e r i n g st u d i e s throu ghout C alifor n ia – incl udi ng regi onal mu l t ijuri sdi cti onal AB1600 s tud ies. Erin Vaca, TE, AICP DKS Senior Transportation Planner w ill man age the stud y an d serve as t h e pr i nci p al poi nt of conta ct. Erin is joined b y K iml ey-Ho r n who bri ngs their e x p erti se in develop m ent servi ces work and modeling e xperi ence in the SA COG regi on.

Kimley -Hor n will ass i st DKS in d e vel o pin g the b a seline and future land use inputs in Sutter County and ver ifyin g resi dent s i n t he Placer County portion of the model. D K S is a l s o joi n e d b y R o bert Sp e n cer of Urb a n Econom i c s , who bri ngs h i s e c o n omic and ﬁnanc ial con sul t i ng e xpe rti s e , incl udi ng over 100 AB1600 n e xus studi es.

L ed by th e Plac e r C o unty T r a nsp ortat i o n Planni ng A gency ( P CTP A ) , the rol e of D K S in this project is to develop a f air an d e q uitab le me thod to f u nd and ﬁn ance a set of regi onal improvem ents. Several scena r i os will be an alyzed in cludi ng speciﬁc f e e schedule s for imp r ovements inc l udi ng the R i ego R o a d /Baseline R o a d and Placer P a r kway . DKS will au gment the S P R T A mode l to p r o vide g r e ater detail to ens ure Sutter County’ s c i rculat i on cha r a cteri sti cs are accurately r eﬂected . Based o n the r e s u ltin g trave l forecas t s , a fee sche dul e w ill be devel oped tha t reﬂects the relat i ve fee burden b etween S utter Coun ty an d Plac er C ounty an d esta b lishes mu t u al e x c l usi v i ty of the fees bei ng applied by the C i ty o f R oseville.

All work tas k s d e s c r ibed in thi s pro posal w ill be perform ed by the D K S team, in c l ose coord inat ion w ith PCT P A and it s e xist re lative t o th e servic e s to be provi ded under the A greem ent for consul t a nt servi ces to be awarded p ursua nt t o t his n e g o tiat e an d co n t rac t u ally b i nd the co mpan y .

W e are v e r y e x c i t e d ab o ut thi s project an d tha nk you for your consi dera t i on.

Sinc ere l y ,

Carl Springer , PE
P r i n cip al, D KS Associates
C e ll: 503 . 7 5 3.89 9 1
email: c arl.spr inger@dk s a sso c iat e s . com
043 ETIUS ,TEERTS J 824
SA C RAMENT O C A 95814
916.368.2000

1 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DKS is a transportation planning and traffic engineering firm with specialized skills in travel demand modeling, development of AB 1600 compliant traffic impact fee programs, and SB 743 implementation in California. DKS has a long history of providing AB1600 compliant traffic impact mitigation fee services to public agencies throughout California. This includes both local agency fee programs (single jurisdiction) and regional fee programs (multiple jurisdictions). The operative analysis tool for developing the fee schedule will be the recently updated South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) travel demand model. The SPRTA model is based upon SACOG’s SACSIM-19
platform. Although DKS has not yet had the opportunity to apply the new SPRTA model, DKS does bring extensive experience developing and applying its source foundation: SACSIM-19. DKS has developed and applied SACSIM-19 for traffic impact studies, fair share AB1600 studies, corridor studies, and air quality studies. Examples of our SACSIM-19 applications include:
• Our role as the Prime On-Call Modeling consultant for Caltrans D-3 including the SR-51 (Business 80) and I-5 PA-ED traffic analyses.
• Traffic modeling for large specific plans for Sacramento County including the Jackson Township and West Jackson
Specific Plans.
• Currently under contract with SACOG to beta-test the soon to be released SACSIM-23. Given the similarities between SACSIM and the recently updated SPRTA model, our SACSIM application experience and particularly our understanding and experience using its Population Synthesizer will assure accuracy and efficiency for this analysis. The importance of this technical component of the work program cannot be
overstated.

DKS will perform a AB1600 compliant fair share analyses for the regional transportation system improvements and separate facility-specific fee structures for Riego Road/Baseline Road improvements from SR 99 to Foothills Boulevard. In close coordination with Sutter County, DKS will augment the SPRTA model to provide greater network and land use detail to ensure Sutter County’s circulation characteristics are accurately reflected. Identification of future operational deficiencies to support the AB1600 nexus requirements will be based on
established General Plan ADT Thresholds for Sutter and Placer County. Key regional roadway facilities to be examined are listed in the RFP, but others will be examined in coordination with the Project Development Team (PDT).

Based on the resulting travel forecasts and ADT threshold determinations identifying future deficiencies and capacity needs, a fee schedule will be developed that properly reflects the relative fee burden between Sutter County and Placer County for funding the regional roadway and interchange set of improvement projects. Fee structures for two build scenarios of the Riego Road/Baseline Road improvements from SR 99 to Foothills Boulevard will also quantified.

Applying the Sutter County augmented SPRTA travel model, DKS will develop the following requisite inputs for developing a fee schedule:

1. Isolating and excluding the proportion of trips for each regional roadway improvement that are not associated with local growth.

This includes Riego Road/Baseline Road (SR 99 to Foothills Boulevard) that are interregional, non-local or from existing development trips; and,

2. The fair share (percentage) contributions required to develop the impact fee schedule;

3. Determine any overlap with existing fee programs (i.e., City of Roseville) to ensure that the development community is not paying redundant fees for the same improvement.

Given that DKS had performed a similar South Placer and South Sutter Fair Share Transportation Funding Analysis that was not ultimately supported by all participating agencies, greater emphasis on interagency consultation is proposed for this effort. Previously, the level of participation varied amongst agencies. This resulted in future land use growth assumption modifications in one jurisdiction without the other jurisdictions fully realizing what the fair share implications would be. This resulted in “sticker shock” at the end of the process. To avoid this, DKS proposes a more thorough sensitivity and vetting process of alternative fee schedule scenarios identified in the RFP. This will be done so that the participating agencies and all stakeholders including the BIA understand the fee implications across all scenarios. Unlike the prior study, DKS now
provides a strategic planning and interagency consultation service line out of our Sacramento Office. Led by Kendall Flint (formerly of PMC, Flint Strategies and Regional
Government Services).
2 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS DKS now specializes in stakeholder engagement for
transportation planning studies including the development of fee programs, sales tax referendum bids and expenditure plans.

Kendall’s experience includes providing community engagement and stakeholder consultation for potentially contentious traffic fee updates including for El Dorado County and San Joaquin County; supporting the November 2016 transportation sales tax referendum successes in Stanislaus and Merced Counties including working with all of StanCOG and MCAG member agencies to develop their respective expenditure plans; facilitating the dissolution of the 14 member Fort Ord Reuse Authority including negotiations of individual contracts and successor agreements for transportation infrastructure improvements and environmental remediation; and, performing the public engagement process for the El Dorado County
TIM Fee comprehensive in 2016. Through this DKS service line, much greater attention will be placed on ensuring all participating agencies and stakeholders are kept abreast of the study and its findings as they generated (interim deliverables) rather than at the end of the process.

Kendall Flint, with Erin Vaca (DKS Project Manager) and other key member of the DKS team will lead a stakeholder engagement process with the development community, the
North State Building Industry Association (BIA), and other stakeholder groups as needed. DKS will work with the PDT on the development of the stakeholder engagement process, which shall complement any outreach efforts currently
undertaken City of Roseville, Placer, and Sutter counties, and PCTPA.

The DKS team will provide options for how to administer the regional fee. To best ensure regional oversight and timely use of funds to implement projects – financial reviews (i.e., annual auditing) can be conducted by the administering agency responsible for implementing the fee program (i.e., PCTPA).

These audits would track the fee revenue collected by local agencies (used to fund the program), fund balances, and better ensure the timely use of funds to implement the regional roadway improvements identified in the fee schedule. This regional oversight would facilitate compliance with AB1600 and allow greater flexibility to implement pieces or phases of a larger project that provide independent utility. As an example, by continuing to collect and hold funds for large projects over an extended amount of time (10+ years), agencies can put themselves at risk in case of challenge – including the funds themselves (i.e., reimbursement of funds back to the development community may be required). Project phasing accounts can be established for larger projects (e.g., Placer County Parkway and the Riego Road/Baseline Road Widening) that would allow phases that provide independent utility to be implemented more quickly.

For the Riego Road/Baseline Road Widening project this could take the form of intersection improvements to address “node” capacity needs first – prior to widening. In fact, by improvement nodal capacity first the ultimate need for widening can be delayed allowing more time and therefore more fees to be collected to implement this final phase. DKS will provide options for the PDT to consider that could form the basis for a standard operating agreement to fee implementation.

DKS TEAM
All tasks described in this proposal will be performed
by DKS primarily out of our Sacramento Office with
additional support as needed from our Oakland Office.

Given the importance of land use to developing accurate travel forecasts, DKS is joined by Kimley-Horn, who bring a long history development services work and modeling experience in the SACOG region. Kimley-Horn will assist DKS in ensuring the baseline and future land use inputs in Sutter County and those resident in the Placer County portion of the model are accurate.

Given that Kimley-Horn is also familiar with the SACSIM platform, they will provide another “set of eyes” for all modeling output developed by DKS. As a full-service transportation engineering and planning firm, Kimley-Horn will also update as needed all planning level cost estimates of the regional improvements included in the fee schedule. DKS and Kimley-Horn planning staff have teamed together on many projects including: SR 49 American River Confluence Corridor Study (EDCTC) and the North County Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. They also provide an second set of eyes on all modeling inputs and results. Lastly, for economic and financial analysis support, DKS is joined by Mr. Robert Spencer of Urban Economics. Mr.

Spencer has over 30 years of experience providing economic and financial consulting services to public agencies including over 100 AB1600 nexus studies.

3 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS C. SCOPE OF WORK
I. METHODOLOGY
Key steps and interim deliverables for all tasks are listed in Section III on the following page.

II. SCOPE OF WORK (BY TASK)
TASK 1: DATA COLLECTION
The two primary data collection items for this study entail traffic counts and existing/future land use information. Traffic counts will provide an adequate foundation for the existing operating conditions of the regional system of roadways and post-processing the traffic forecasts. Sources of traffic counts include Caltrans published state highway volumes, PeMS data, existing traffic count data bases from the participating agencies and the SPRTA baseline model validation counts. Historical count data will be checked to gauge whether there are lingering traffic suppressing effects of the pandemic. For roadways that indicate a significant decrease in growth, DKS will apply the historical growth rate to establish reasonable growth factors to “correct” the non-representative traffic counts. DKS applied a similar pandemic factoring process to traffic counts used as part of the San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee update (approval scheduled in December 2022). Traffic count gaps may be issue in Sutter County. However, if there are gaps in the existing traffic count data base, “Big Data” can help provide traffic volume estimates. DKS and Kimley-Horn can provide access to Streetlight data by purchasing on the clients behalf with Streetlight Data and Replica respectively.

Developing land use data to establish both baseline and future year conditions will primarily focus on Sutter County given that this area is currently not well represented in the SPRTA travel demand model. As a starting point, baseline land use within the SACSIM-19 model will be reviewed and updated for translation into the SPRTA model. Future land use in both Sutter and Placer County will entail reflecting specific plans, and the General Plans for the City of Roseville, Placer, and Sutter counties. The DKS team will review the SPRTA’s baseline and projected land use assumptions resident in the updated SPRTA travel demand model and in coordination with the PDT make modifications as appropriate. Existing and projected land use will be summarized by land use type and jurisdiction with sub-stratifications of specific plans. These data will be reviewed and vetted by participating agencies. If modifications are suggested by a given jurisdiction – all participating agencies will be informed of the request. Translation and importation of the land use projections into the SPRTA travel demand model will not occur until all agencies are in agreement with the land use assumptions.

TASK 2: MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The DKS team will augment the existing SPRTA travel model domain to accurately reflect Sutter County. The DKS team will develop the TAZ structure and roadway network for Sutter County. The starting point for model structure will be SACSIM-19.

Refinements to the TAZ and network structure and detail will be considered relative to future growth areas. Kimley-Horn will focus on inventorying existing and future planned development in Sutter County. Once inventoried, DKS will translate the land use information into the SPRTA travel model. Given our extensive use and application of SACOG’s SACSIM-19 model and specifically its Population Synthesizer for Sacramento County, DKS has developed automated tools and scripts to perform model land use coding and translation into the land use types and socio-economic stratifications resident in the SPRTA travel demand model. As such, the DKS team can complete this task efficiently and accurately commensurate with the process applied for Sacramento County’s Super Cumulative model developed for the SACOG region. Once developed, the DKS team will revalidate the model with particular emphasis in the Sutter County sub-area based on state/federal validation guidelines including performing dynamic validation to ensure the model “behaves” intuitively and displays the appropriate sensitivity to both network and land input changes.

TASK 3: MODEL RUN ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
All CIP improvement scenarios identified in the RFP will be modeled independently to provide the PDT a comprehensive understanding the fair share implications of each alternative.

With the combined computer resources of DKS and Kimley- Horn, the DKS team can double up on model runs to allow quicker turnaround times of alternatives. With model execution times taking longer, this is an important consideration.

TASK 4: FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT
A key aspect of the fair share analysis will be to accurately track the jurisdiction of trip origin and destination. DKS brings extensive experience with developing fee structures that include multiple fee benefit zones (El Dorado County, San Joaquin County, etc.). For this application, fee benefits zones will be developed to isolate the trip origin-destination of each county and if desired, each incorporated city. Select link scripts will be applied that will provide a complete breakdown of the relative usage of each regional CIP improvement and zone of origin-destination. This will provide greater transparency of the relative fee burden to be expected for each fee alternative. 4 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS TASK 5: FEE SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT AND NEXUS STUDY
The DKS team includes Bob Spencer of Urban Economics who specializes in developer-based AB1600 compliant impact fee programs. Various DUE calculation options will be discussed with the PDT including but not limited to: 1) Trip Based DUEs; 2) VMT-Base DUEs; or, Hybrid Trip/VMT weighting. Depending on the preference – including VMT will invariably shift some of the fee burden from retail/commercial land use to the other land uses given that average trip lengths are typically much shorter for retail/commercial trips. Pursuant to AB 602, residential land use DUEs will be calculated on a per unit basis (for comparative purposes) and by square foot (for fee structure purposes).

Urban Economics (UE) will develop fee structures for each CIP alternative scenario. This will allow the PDT to clearly understand the fee implications by jurisdiction of each CIP scenario. This will facilitate the interagency engagement process the ultimate selection of a preferred fee structure.

TASK 6: AGENCIES ENGAGEMENT
As described in the Understanding section of this proposal, DKS proposes a thorough sensitivity and vetting process of alternative fee schedule scenarios to all the participating agencies. This process will be led by Kendall Flint of DKS who specializes in interagency coordination and engagement specifically for reaching consensus on CIP lists, expenditure plans, and other strategic planning efforts.

TASK 7: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Similar to Task 6, DKS will engage all interested stakeholders including but not limited to the BIA. DKS project management is familiar with the BIA members and routinely coordinates with them as part of other successfully completed fee studies completed in the region (Sacramento County, City of Rancho Cordova, San Joaquin County etc.). Four stakeholder meetings are proposed a key steps in the fee development process.

For stakeholders, emphasis will be placed on demonstrating the technical veracity of the analyses performed and the key Mitigation Fee Act requirements that are addressed as part of the analysis.

III. LIST OF DELIVERABLES BY TASK
• 1.1 Traffic Counts (Excel Table: Traffic Count Locations, Counts, Year of County, Adjustment Factor)
• 1.2 Land Use (Excel Table: Existing and Future Land use by:

Jurisdiction, Specific Plan, LU Category)
• 2.1 Land Use Inputs (Model Land Use translation – Export to Excel Data Base)
• 2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation (Technical Memo (WORD/PDF) – Validation Analysis)
• 2.3 Future Baseline Model Run (Executed Model – Loaded Network)
• 2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255) – Excel Table of Adjustment Process
• 3.1 Deficiency Assessment (Existing and Future
Deficiencies) Technical Memo - Deficiency Analysis
• 3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits) – Excel Table of Project Limits and Improvement Costs
• 4.1 Fee Benefit Zone Development (Maps of Fee Zones and Model TAZ Correspondence Excel Table)
• 4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list (Excel Table – Fair Share Results by CIP Improvement)
• 5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair
Share) – Technical Memo (WORD/PDF)
• 5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analysis (Excel Table – Fees by Scenario)
• 5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule (PDT Decision – Consultation Process)
• 5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report (Draft and Final Report (WORD/PDF)
• 6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings (Short-Term Action Lists (WORD/ PDF) - Reflects agenda and minutes)
• 6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA (PPT, Agenda, Short- Term Action List)
• 7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Memorandum (WORD/
PDF including Excel Table – Stakeholder List)
• 7.2 Stakeholder Meetings (4) (PPT and Agenda). For Council and Board Meeting Presentations (PPT)
As requested in the RFP, a full scope of work can be
found on-line at: https://tinyurl.com/PCTPA-DKS-Full-
Scope-of-Work
5 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS D. MANAGEMENT APPROACH
I. MANAGEMENT PLAN

PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
We will work closely with PCTPA to establish a schedule and set milestones that will ensure the project is completed on time. Our project managers are trained in producing timely and cost-effective transportation projects. DKS uses both technical and administrative tools to effectively manage projects by minimizing administrative time and maximizing our time to serve clients.

DKS’ approach is made successful by incorporating:
; Project Management Planning to establish roles,
communication expectations, confirm key project
objectives, and align resources with schedule needs
; Weekly review of all project activity through DKS’
Management Information System, which summarizes all
labor and expense charges
; Monthly project management review by independent staff to monitor contract performance
; Consistent communication with clients through email,
BaseCamp/Google Docs (cloud-based project management
tools), memos, meetings, and/or work sessions
; Incremental project report development through memos (or other means) throughout the project
; Implementation of our Quality Management Plan to assure technical accuracy, completeness, and product quality
Our approach is key to meeting schedules and delivering a quality product within budget. The important elements of our approach that keep our projects on time include:
• Providing an experienced and effective project manager who fully understands the technical process; Using an
internal online management tool to provide a constant view of the project’s status and schedule
• Maintaining a constant view of upcoming deliverables in a shared internal online calendar
• Conducting bi-weekly project management calls to address issues early and maintain accountability to schedule
• Bi-weekly check-in meetings with the Project Management Team to report progress on short-term action items and
upcoming deliverables
• Frequently communicating with the client project manager to understand needs and coordinate approach
Regular meetings with the client project manager and project team mean that budget or scheduling issues can be identified early and addressed so the overall project is not impacted.

ABILITY TO MEET SCHEDULE
At DKS, our project managers work closely with our clients to establish a schedule and set milestones that will ensure the project is completed on-time. Erin Vaca, our project manager for this project, has been trained in producing timely and cost-effective transportation projects. She uses both technical and administrative tools to effectively manage projects by minimizing administrative time which will maximize her time to serve the PCTPA.

DKS’ approach to meeting schedule deadlines is made
successful by incorporating:
• Weekly review of all project activity through DKS’
Management Information System, which summarizes all
labor and expense charges
• Monthly project management review by independent staff to monitor contract performance
• Consistent communication with clients through email,
BaseCamp/Google Docs (cloud-based project management
tools), memos, meetings, and/or work sessions
• Incremental project report development through memos (or other means) over the course of the project
We are committed to meeting the PCTPA’s final deliverable date of December 2023. We have thoroughly reviewed the
staff backlog and have identified that the proposed staff are available throughout the life of the project.

6 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS

TASK DESCRIPTION
2023
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 DATA COLLECTION

1.1 Traﬃ c Counts

1.2 Land Use
2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Land Use Inputs

2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation

2.3 Future Baseline Model Run

2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255)
3 MODEL RUN ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Deﬁ ciency Assessment (Existing and Future Deﬁ ciencies)

3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits)
4 FAIR SHARE ANAL YSIS DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Fee Beneﬁ t Zone Development

4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list
5 FEE SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT AND NEXUS STUDY

5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair Share)

5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analyis

5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule

5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report
6 AGENCY ENGAGEMENT

6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings

6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA
7 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan

7.2 Stakeholder Meetings
DKS Labor Task Time
DKS Labor Sub-Task Time
PDT Check-in Meetings
Deliverable Milestone
Kick-Oﬀ Meeting
Presentations x3
PCTPA Bi-Monthly Meetings
Stakeholder Meetings
II. PROJECT DELIVERY SCHEDULE
7 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS

QUALITY ASSESSMENT & QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
DKS uses our internal procedures for quality control. As project manager, Erin Vaca will be responsible for proactively planning and directing the work processes, services and deliverables throughout the project. Carl Springer, in his role as Principal In Charge, will lead overall quality and control and client satisfaction. He will check in with PCTPA to make sure expectations are being met or exceeded.

Our QC plan uses three primary components:
• Independent reviews – Senior engineers, independent from the project, will perform a peer review for their appropriate technical discipline to check that all project deliverables are accurate and complete using prescribed checklists,
standards, policies, and procedures. One week prior to each submittal, the QC manager will perform a high-level review of all project deliverables to check that design elements have been coordinated between disciplines and follow all prior direction from the client.
• Review checklists – Use checklists to review products internally for conformance to partner agency standards
when applicable.
• On-line issue tracking – As required, our team uses shared files in the cloud for design issue, decision tracking, and responding to clients, which saves time and encourages
collaboration.
• Clear & Concise Communication – Erin has experience
working effectively with multi-jurisdictional agencies and she understands each agency’s values and needs. She is
an effective communicator and understands the importance of frequent and clear communication to be responsive on a project. Erin will review the scope and budget with the PCTPA project manager and continue the collaborative
approach that has been the reason clients continue to turn to Erin.
• Meet with client to fully
understand goals, potential
risks, & issues
• Identify critical success factors
• Set up Quality Management
Plan
Thorough
Understanding of
Project
• Weekly internal team meetings
for review of schedule &
budget
• Regular meetings with core
management team
• Pre-meeting check-ins with key
stakeholders
• Use communication tools such
as GoTo Meeting & Basecamp
to share project status, action
items, deadlines, review &
comment logs, and deliverable
progress
• Respond to all requests within
24 hours.

Consistent
Communication
• Comment logs used to track all
client & QC manager comments
& will include responses stating
solutions
• Technical discipline peer review
to verify project deliverables
are accurate & complete
• QC manager will perform a
high-level review of project
deliverables to verify design
elements are met, verify
coordination between
disciplines, & confirm all prior
directions from client have
been completed
• A quality assurance audit will
also be performed
Documentation
Review
• Internal review of project
performance to reinforce
successful practices & apply
the lessons learned to future
projects
• Conduct client surveys annually
to assess project performance
Project Completion
& Insights
8 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
DKS has assembled a team of professionals for PCTPA who have extensive multifaceted experience in traffic engineering analysis and transportation planning. These project engineers and transportation planners have proven their capabilities working for public agencies on traffic engineering projects throughout California and nationally.

Our project team members have been chosen based on two
primary factors:

1. Experience and expertise, and

2. Their availability to work on your project throughout its duration.

Brief introductions to each team member follow, as
requested in the RFP, resumes can be found on-line at:
https://tinyurl.com/PCTPA-DKS-Resumes

PROJECT MANAGER
Erin Vaca. Erin has over 15 years of transportation planning experience and has focused on travel demand model
applications to support countywide transportation plans, multimodal planning studies, corridor studies, land use plans, and traffic impact analyses. Erin has worked on or managed a number of transportation impact fees for jurisdictions in the Bay Area. She is currently managing a fee update for the Town of Los Gatos.

Jim Damkowitch Sr. Technical Advisor. Jim has over 30
years of experience in regional multimodal transportation planning, congestion management, traffic impact fee programs, multidisciplinary corridor studies, safety studies, transit studies, active transportation studies, operational analyses, transportation and air quality modeling, and performance measure applications.

Jim Damkowitch has a long history of providing AB1600
compliant traffic impact mitigation fee services to public agencies throughout California. This includes both local agency fee programs and regional agency fee programs. The following traffic impact fee updates (to name just a few) have been performed/managed by Jim Damkowitch of DKS for public
agencies in California:
• San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Update (anticipated December 2022)
• El Dorado County ITS Master Plan Implementation Fee
Schedule (2022)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Addendum (2020)
• El Dorado County Western Slope CIP and Traffic Impact Fee Program Update (2020)
• City of Goleta Development Impact Fee Update (2019)
• City of Chico Facilities Fee Update (2019)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Addendum (2020)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Update (2017)
• El Dorado County Western Slope CIP and Traffic Impact Fee Program Update (2016)
• San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Update (2015)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Update (2011)
• San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Fee Mitigation Program 2008 Update (2008)
• Atwater-Merced Expressway (SR-59 Bypass) Fee Study and Phasing Analysis (2008)
• City of Rio Vista AB1600 Study (2008)
• City of Goleta CIP Fair Share Analysis (2008)
Placer County Transportation
Planning Agency
Executive Director
Mike Luken
Project Manager
Erin Vaca
Sr. Technical Advisor
Jim Damkowitch
Principal-In-Charge
Carl Springer
Project Support
Ross Ainsworth
John Gibb
Kendall Flint
Subconsultants
Bob Spencer (UE)
Mike Schmitt (KH)
Chris Gregerson (KH)
Matt Weir (KH)
Sean Houck (KH)
9 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS

PROJECT SUPPORT
Carl Springer Principal-In-Charge. Carl has led large-scale transportation planning studies for public agencies throughout the West Coast. As a planning practice leader, he understands that effective planning requires a careful balance of technical studies, building community understanding of strategies and trade-offs, and capturing plan recommendations in a reader- friendly, highly visual document. As the Principal-in-Charge (PIC) and QA/QC Lead, Carl will support Erin Vaca (PM), ensuring he has all the necessary tools, resources, and staff readily available to him to exceed the PCTPA’s technical and contractual expectations.

Ross Ainsworth Senior Advisor. Ross Ainsworth is a senior project manager and a business development lead with over 53 years of experience. He has served as the principal-in- charge and quality control officer for many projects. In this role, he is responsible for managing client coordination, project scheduling, budget control, technical analysis, corporate management, and companywide business development.

Ross’s experience in both the public and private sectors gives him the capabilities and skills needed to serve as a liaison with government agencies and a representative at public workshops, open houses, and presentations for DKS’ clients. He has also attended numerous workshops and conferences as a presentation speaker.

John Gibb Travel Demand Modeling. John’s experience focuses on developing and applying travel demand models, including calibration, troubleshooting, specialized applications, travel survey analysis, and model estimation. He played a key role in developing and implementing the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) activity-based travel demand model SacSim in 2005-2007 and subsequent updates. Previously, John played a major role in developing the SACOG’s SACMET model in 1992 and its updates in 1995 and 2001, including estimation of its trip generation, trip distribution, and mode choice submodels from survey data. Applied models to develop and evaluate general plans, master plans, and circulation plans for Sacramento County, Placer County, Fresno County, and the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, Redding, and Carson City.

Kendall Flint Interagency Coordination. Kendall Flint is an industry professional with more than 30 years of agency coordination and public engagement experience, related to transportation planning efforts throughout California. She has created and implemented a broad range of communication, economic development, and outreach campaigns for both
public and private agencies.

SUBCONSULTANTS
Bob Spencer (Urban Economics) Nexus & Fee Schedule. Bob Spencer is one of California’s leading experts on nexus studies for fees, rates, and assessments to fund infrastructure and services. These studies include impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, CEQA mitigation fees, regulatory fees, benefit assessments, and user fees. Mr. Spencer has developed a wide range of transportation funding programs for local agencies.

Projects have included multimodal programs for transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities as well as road maintenance revenue programs. As part of this work he has developed cutting edge strategies that streamline the environmental review process for development projects.

Mike Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1 (Kimley-Horn) Kimley- Horn Lead. Mike has nearly 30 years of experience and is one of only a handful of transportation professionals in the United States who is recognized by both the American Planning Association (APA) and Transportation Professional Certification Board (TPCB) as being a specialist in transportation planning and safety. With more than two decades of experience, Mike has worked on a wide variety of multimodal transportation projects, including those with a significant focus related to impact fees, VMT, and travel demand modeling.

Chris Gregerson, PE, TE, PTOE, PTP (Kimley-Horn) Impact Fee. Chris is a professional civil and traffic engineer with 10 years of experience in developing traffic impact analyses for both new developments and the expansion of existing developments. Chris has direct experience in developing and updating impact fee programs for both the technical and public involvement components of the project. Chris also has experience running travel demand models in both the standard and activity-based approaches as well as calibrating mode choice models for metropolitan regions.

Matt Weir, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP1 (Kimley-Horn) Development Services. Matt is a civil/traffic engineer with nearly 25 years of focused traffic engineering experience, including intersection and roadway design, safety studies, traffic signal design, signal timing development and implementation, and ITS planning and design. Matt has a deep resume of traffic and civil engineering experience throughout the Sacramento Region and Northern California.

Sean Houck, PE (Kimley-Horn) Transportation Solutions.

Sean is a principal engineer with 26 years of success in the development and delivery of transportation projects for state and local agencies throughout California. His experience includes the preparation of feasibility studies, intersection control evaluations, project initiation documents, project assessment and environmental documents, construction
documents, and construction administration and support. 10 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS E. EXPERIENCE OF FIRM AND PERSONNEL

PROJECT TITLE &

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT
COSTS
(TOTAL;

DKS/PRIME
FEE)
DATES
(START-
COMP.)

KEY TEAM MEMBERS SUB/PRIME

CONSULTANTS CLIENT REFERENCE
San Joaquin County TIMF $241,333;
$202,473 4/21-12/22
» Jim Damkowitch
» Dave Tokarski
» John Gibb
» Sean Carney
» Kendall Flint
» Bob Spencer
» Urban
Economics
Jeff Levers
[email protected]
(209) 953-7631
Los Gatos $148,784;
$105,152 2/22-1/23
» Erin Vaca
» Jim Damkowitch
» Yu Hong Hwang
» Bob Spencer
» Urban
Economics
Nicolle Burnham
[email protected]
(408) 399-5774
Rancho Cordova $178,390;
$144,390
9/2020
-2/2022
» Jim Damkowitch
» Dave Tokarski
» John Gibb
» Sean Carney
» John Long
» Bob Spencer
» John Long
» Urban
Economics
Mark Thomas
mthomas@
cityofranchocordova.org
(916) 851-8876
Roth Road Corridor Study &
Fee Schedule
$299,997;
$244,997 9/17-12/22
» Jim Damkowitch
» Dave Tokarski
» John Gibb
» Sean Carney
» Kendall Flint
» Bob Spencer
» Urban
Economics
» Mark Thomas
Ryan Niblock
[email protected]
(209) 235-0588
El Dorado County ITS Master
Plan Implementation Fee
Schedule
$32,702;
$32,702 3/21-1/22
» Jim Damkowitch
» Josh Pilachowski
» Erin Vaca
N/A
Zach Oates
[email protected]
(530) 621-7580
El Dorado County TIF** $254,000;
$157,000 10/19–10/20
» Jim Damkowitch
» Dave Tokarski
» John Gibb
» Sean Carney
» Michael Schmitt
» Chris Gregerson
» Bob Spencer
» Kimley-Horn
» Quincy
Engineering
» Urban
Economics
Zach Oates
[email protected]
(530) 621-7580
City of Goleta DIF* $85,000;
$65,000 6/18-2/19 » Jim Damkowitch
» Bob Spencer
» Urban
Economics
Charlie Ebeling
[email protected]
(805) 961-7569
SJCOG RTIF*
2020 Addendum
2018 Addendum*
$113,833;
$97,233
2020: $18,000
2018: $18,000
6/16-6/20 » Jim Damkowitch
» Bob Spencer
» Urban
Economics
Travis Yokoyama
[email protected]
(209) 235-0451
* Managed by Jim Damkowitch prior to joining DKS in March 2020 ** DKS and Kimley Horn were concurrently hired under separate contracts to perform update 11 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS

COST PROPOSAL

TOTAL PROPOSED COST
Task 1 Data Collection

1.1 Traffic Counts 31 4,412$ - -$ - -$ 31 4,412$

1.2 Land Use 35 5,469$ 6 1,541$ - -$ 41 7,011$ Task 2 Model Development

2.1 Land Use Inputs 17 2,986$ 94 8,370$ - -$ 111 11,356$

2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation 79 12,854$ 8 2,179$ - -$ 87 15,034$

2.3 Future Baseline Model Run 17 2,986$ 7 1,867$ - -$ 24 4,853$

2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255) 27 4,113$ 2 545$ - -$ 29 4,658$ Task 3 Model Run Alternatives Development

3.1 Deficiency Assessment (Existing and Future Deficiencies) 37 5,491$ - -$ - -$ 37 5,491$

3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits) 29 4,982$ 76 8,450$ - -$ 105 13,433$ Task 4 Fair Share Analysis Development

4.1 Fee Benefit Zone Development 23 5,296$ - -$ - -$ 23 5,296$

4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list 37 8,919$ - -$ - -$ 37 8,919$ Task 5 Fee Schedule Development and Nexus Study

5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair Share) 12 2,838$ - -$ 20 4,403$ 32 7,242$

5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analyis 122 23,180$ 3 964$ 60 13,210$ 185 37,354$

5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule 11 2,661$ - -$ 8 1,761$ 19 4,422$

5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report 144 24,835$ 32 3,402$ 16 3,523$ 192 31,761$ Task 6 Agency Engagement

6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings 36 8,174$ 14 3,898$ 20 4,403$ 70 16,476$

6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA 36 8,174$ 14 3,898$ 20 4,403$ 70 16,476$ Task 7 Stakeholder Engagement

7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan 11 2,633$ - -$ - -$ 11 2,633$

7.2 Stakeholder Meetings (4) 52 11,215$ 22 6,385$ 12 2,642$ 86 20,243$ Total Hours 756 281 156 1,190
Total Direct Expenses 1,340$ 400$ 800$ 2,540$ Total Cost
$ 142,560
$ 42,292
$ 35,147
$ 219,998
Task Description
Total Hours
Total Cost
DKS Kimley-Horn
Total Project Hours
Total Project Cost
Total Hours
T Total Cost
Urban Economics
Total Hours
T Total Cost
12 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS SUPPLEMENTAL COST BREAKDOWN: LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT BY TASK 3-YEAR ON-CALL SERVICES
DKS is accustomed to providing on-call services for regional fee programs. As an example, for the San Joaquin Council of Governments RTIF program (5- Year: 2016-2021) and currently (3-Year: 2022-2025). Using the same staff listed in our detailed budget sheets, the DKS team can provide technical on-call services to PCPTA on a time and materials basis for up to 3 years at a total not-to-exceed budget amount of $40,000.

Staff Hours DKS KHA Urban
Eonomics DKS
Task 1 Data Collection 72 66 6 - 92% Task 2 Model Development 251 140 111 - 56% Task 3 Model Run Alternatives Development 142 66 76 - 46% Task 4 Fair Share Analysis Development 60 60 - - 100% Task 5 Fee Schedule Development and Nexus Study 428 289 35 104 68% Task 6 Agency Engagement 140 72 28 40 51% Task 7 Stakeholder Engagement 97 63 22 12 65% Total Hours 1,190 756 278 156 64% Level of Effort by DKS Team
Task # Task Description
13 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS Carl Springer
Jim Damkowitch
Erin Vaca
Dave Tokarski
Kendall Flint
John Gibb
Sean Carney
Yu Hong Hwang
Zoey Li
Elizabeth Aguilar
Principal In Charge
Technical Advisor
Project Manager
Senior
Transportation
Planner
Outreach Task
Lead
Operations Task
Lead
Planner/Engineer
Planner/Engineer
Planner/Engineer
Project Coordinator
Current Direct Pay Rate 80.80$ 92.30$ 67.20$ 62.00$ 83.00$ 74.83$ 53.81$ $36.50 $36.50 $31.73 Fringe Benefit Rate 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% 80.84% Indirect OH Rate 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% 100.92% General and Admin Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Escalation (5%/year) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Profit Fee 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% Fully Loaded Billing Rate 267.73$ 305.84$ 222.67$ 205.44$ 275.02$ 247.95$ 178.30$ 120.94$ 120.94$ 105.14$ Task 1 Data Collection

1.1 Traffic Counts 1 2 4 20 4 31 4,412$

1.2 Land Use 1 4 8 20 2 35 5,469$
Task 2 Model Development

2.1 Land Use Inputs 1 4 4 8 17 2,986$

2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation 1 4 8 16 50 79 12,854$

2.3 Future Baseline Model Run 1 4 4 8 17 2,986$

2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255) 1 2 8 16 27 4,113$ Task 3 Model Run Alternatives Development

3.1 Deficiency Assessment (Existing and Future Deficiencies) 1 2 2 8 8 16 37 5,491$

3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits) 1 2 2 16 8 29 4,982$ Task 4 Fair Share Analysis Development

4.1 Fee Benefit Zone Development 1 2 8 8 4 23 5,296$

4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list 1 2 2 8 24 37 8,919$ Task 5 Fee Schedule Development and Nexus Study

5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair Share) 2 10 12 2,838$

5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analyis 2 16 40 24 40 122 23,180$

5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule 1 2 8 11 2,661$

5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report 4 4 40 8 16 40 24 8 144 24,835$ Task 6 Agency Engagement

6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings 20 12 4 36 8,174$

6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA 20 12 4 36 8,174$ Task 7 Stakeholder Engagement

7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan 1 8 2 11 2,633$

7.2 Stakeholder Meetings (4) 20 20 12 52 11,215$ Total Hours 7 22 169 88 60 68 48 48 210 36 756
Direct Expenses (Social Pinpoint; Travel, Lodging; Food) 1,340$ Total Cost
$ 1,874
$ 6,728
$ 37,631
$ 18,078
$ 16,501
$ 16,861
$ 8,558
$ 5,805
$ 25,398
$ 3,785
$ 1,340
-
$ 142,560
Direct Expenses
DKS
DKS Total Hours
DKS Total Cost
SUPPLEMENTAL COST BREAKDOWN: DKS
14 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS SUPPLEMENTAL COST BREAKDOWN: KIMLEY-HORN
Matt Weir
Michael Schmitt
Sean Houck
Chris Gregerson
Professional
Analyst
Administration
PIC
Project Manager
Senior Engineer
Traffic
Planner/Engieer
Traffic
Planner/Engieer
Traffic
Planner/Engieer
Role
Current Direct Pay Rate 94.00$ 92.02$ 89.68$ 65.16$ 52.42$ 46.12$ 30.00$ Fringe Benefit Rate 0.31% 0.31% 0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Indirect OH Rate 194.46% 194.46% 194.46% 194.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% General and Admin Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Escalation (3.5%/year, scaled to 3-yr schedule) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Profit Fee 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% Fully Loaded Billing Rate 325.85$ 318.99$ 310.88$ 225.88$ 61.65$ 54.24$ 35.28$ Task 1 Data Collection

1.1 Traffic Counts - -$

1.2 Land Use 2 4 6 1,541$
Task 2 Model Development

2.1 Land Use Inputs 2 4 8 40 40 94 8,370$

2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation 4 4 8 2,179$

2.3 Future Baseline Model Run 1 2 4 7 1,867$

2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255) 1 1 2 545$ Task 3 Model Run Alternatives Development

3.1 Deficiency Assessment (Existing and Future Deficiencies) - -$

3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits) 16 30 30 76 8,450$ Task 4 Fair Share Analysis Development

4.1 Fee Benefit Zone Development - -$

4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list - -$
Task 5 Fee Schedule Development and Nexus Study

5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair Share) - -$

5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analyis 1 2 3 964$

5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule - -$

5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report 2 2 4 8 8 8 32 3,402$ Task 6 Agency Engagement

6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings 12 2 14 3,898$

6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA 12 2 14 3,898$ Task 7 Stakeholder Engagement

7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan 1 2 3 390$

7.2 Stakeholder Meetings (4) 12 8 2 22 6,385$
Total Hours 6 54 24 25 78 78 16 281
Direct Expenses 400$
Total Cost
$ 1,955
$ 17,225
$ 7,461
$ 5,647
$ 4,808
$ 4,230
$ 564
$ 400
$ 42,292
Kimley Horn
Direct Expenses
KHA Total Hours
KHA Total Cost
15 PCTPA SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ANAL YSIS SUPPLEMENTAL COST BREAKDOWN: URBAN ECONOMICS
Bob SpencerPrincipal
Current Direct Pay Rate $85.10
Fringe Benefit Rate 0.00%
Indirect OH Rate 120.00%
General and Admin Rate 0.00%
Escalation (3.5%/year, scaled to 3-yr schedule) 5.00%
Profit Fee 12.00%
Fully Loaded Billing Rate $220.17
Task 1 Data Collection

1.1 Traffic Counts - -$

1.2 Land Use - -$
Task 2 Model Development

2.1 Land Use Inputs - -$

2.2 Sutter County Sub-Area Validation - -$

2.3 Future Baseline Model Run - -$

2.4 Model Post Processing (NCHRP 255) - -$
Task 3 Model Run Alternatives Development

3.1 Deficiency Assessment (Existing and Future Deficiencies) - -$

3.2 CIP List Development (logical project limits) - -$ Task 4 Fair Share Analysis Development

4.1 Fee Benefit Zone Development - -$

4.2 Select Link Analysis of CIP list - -$
Task 5 Fee Schedule Development and Nexus Study

5.1 Draft Fee Schedule Development (DUE, Cost, Fair Share) 20 20 4,403$

5.2 CIP Scenario Development and Fee Schedule Sensitivity Analyis 60 60 13,210$

5.3 Selection of Preferred Fee Schedule 8 8 1,761$

5.4 Draft/Final Fee Study Report 16 16 3,523$
Task 6 Agency Engagement

6.1 Monthly PDT Meetings 20 20 4,403$

6.2 Bi-Monthly Check-in with PCTPA 20 20 4,403$
Task 7 Stakeholder Engagement

7.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan - -$

7.2 Stakeholder Meetings (4) 12 12 2,642$
Total Hours 156 156
Direct Expenses 800$
Total Cost
$ 34,347
$ 800
$ 35,147
Urban Economics
Direct Expenses
Wallace Group Total Hours
Wallace Group Total Cost
RESOLUTION NO. 23-064

APPROVING AMENDMENT NO 1. TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, BY

AND BETWEEN PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY, THE

COUNTY OF PLACER, THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, AND THE COUNTY OF SUTTER, AND APPROVING THE FUNDING LETTER OF AGREEMENT 23-01, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (“Memorandum of Understanding”) regarding Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan for South Placer and South Sutter Region and an Implementation Plan for Riego Road/Baseline Road Improvements, by and between Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, the County of Placer, the City of Roseville, and the County of Sutter, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the Funding Letter of Agreement 23-01 between City of Roseville and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency for Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding: Regional Transportation Funding/Financing Plan for South Placer/South Sutter Region and Implementation Plan for Riego Road/Baseline Road Improvements, has been reviewed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding is approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute the Funding Letter of Agreement 23-01 between the City of Roseville and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency for Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding.

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

AYES COUNCIL MEMBER:

NOES COUNCIL MEMBER:

ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER:

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding
Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan and
An Implementation Plan for Riego Road/Baseline Road

1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND FINANCING PLAN

FOR SOUTH PLACER AND SOUTH SUTTER REGION
AND

AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RIEGO ROAD/BASELINE ROAD

1. It is mutually understood that the following paragraphs will replace “AGREEMENT SECTION

1. DEVELOPMENT OF STUDIES, paragraphs 1.5 through #1.7, page s 2 and 3,” effective January 25, 2023:

1.5 The Participating Agencies authorize PCTPA to perform the following work in support of Task 2:
1) Coordinate the efforts amongst the Participating Agencies to develop a fair share funding analysis that ensures future development within the South Placer and South Sutter region contributes their fair share towards the cost of additional infrastructure needed to mitigate cumulative regional transportation impacts attributable to new development. PCTPA will schedule and facilitate Project Development Team meetings and synthesize data to facilitate a mutually agreed upon scope and structure for a fair share transportation funding program for the South Placer and South Sutter region. PCTPA will work to develop a consensus (as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the four agencies in October 2021) and reach agreements within the Project Development Team on various fair share analysis components to permit consideration and adoption of the South Placer and South Sutter region fair share transportation funding program by the Participating Agencies’ elected bodies. .
2) PCTPA’s cost for this work is estimated not to exceed $498,546, including consultant services and option, PCTPA staff administration, and project contingency, which shall be shared equally by the Participating Agencies subject to the unanimous approval of PCTPA’s proposed budget by the Project Development Team . Exercise of the consultant services option and project contingency require prior approval of the Project Development Team.

1.6 The Participating Agencies further agree that the participants will make payments to PCTPA within thirty days of submittal of an invoice by PCTPA. The contribution by each Participating Agency pursuant to this amended Memorandum of Understanding shall not exceed $166,182. At the conclusion of Task 2, PCTPA will return any surplus funds to the Participating Agencies on a pro-rata basis reflecting the amount of the payments made by each of the Participating Agencies.

1.7 A subsequent M emorandum of Understanding is required prior to initiation of Task 3 identified in the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the four agencies in October 2021. This Agreement does not bind the Participating Agencies to take any future action beyond Task 2 to evaluate, establish, or implement the regional transportation funding and financing plan for the South Placer and South Sutter region or to conduct the Riego

Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding
Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan and
An Implementation Plan for Riego Road/Baseline Road

2 Road/Baseline Road PA&ED project development phase.

2. That all remaining provisions contained within the existing Memorandum of Understanding, executed by the four agencies in October 2021, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the last date set out below:

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY:

By: _____________________________
Matt Click
Executive Director

Approved as to Form:

By: __________________________
DeeAnne Gillick
Legal Counsel

COUNTY OF PLACER:

By: ____________________________
Ken Grehm
Director, Department of Public Works

Approved as to Form:

By: __________________________
County Counsel

CITY OF ROSEVILLE:

By: _____________________________
Dominick Casey
City Manager

Approved as to Form:

Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding
Regional Transportation Funding and Financing Plan and
An Implementation Plan for Riego Road/Baseline Road

3 By: __________________________
Michelle Sheidenberger
City Attorney

COUNTY OF SUTTER:

By:

Karm Bains, Chair
Sutter County Board of Supervisors

Approved as to Form:

By:

County Counsel

299 Nevada Street  Auburn, CA 95603  (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)

ALICE DOWDIN CALVILLO
City of Auburn

TRINITY BURRUSS
City of Colfax

PAUL JOINER
City of Lincoln

BRIAN BAKER
Town of Loomis

KEN BROADWAY
City of Rocklin

BRUCE HOUDESHELDT
City of Roseville

JIM HOLMES

SUZANNE JONES
Placer County

DAN WILKINS
Citizen Representative

MATT CLICK
Executive Director

January 25, 2023

Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
City of Roseville
Public Works Director
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

RE: FUNDING LETTER OF AGREEMENT 23-01 BETWEEN CITY OF ROSEVILLE

AND THE PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING:

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING/FINANCING PLAN FOR SOUTH

PLACER/ SOUTH SUTTER REGION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR

RIEGO ROAD/BASELINE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

Dear Mr. Shykowski:

This letter, when countersigned, authorizes reimbursement by the City of Roseville for work performed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) for the South Placer and South Sutter Fair Share Transportation Funding Analysis.

1. Agreement: This Letter of Agreement is the statement of contract specific requirements applicable to the work effort to be undertaken by PCTPA and its consultant t o develop the South Placer and South Sutter Fair Share Transportation Funding Analysis.

2. Scope of Services : PCTPA will coordinate the efforts amongst the Participating Agencies (City of Roseville, the County of Placer, and the County of Sutter) and its consultant to develop the fair share analysis outlined in the DKS Associates proposal dated November 18, 2022. This analysis will ensure future development within the South Placer and South Sutter region contributes their fair share towards the cost of additional infrastructure needed to mitigate cumulative regional transportation impacts attributable to new development. PCTPA will work to develop a consensus (as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the four agencies in October 2020 and amended on January 25, 2023) and reach agreements within the Project Development Team on various fair share anal ysis components to permit future consideration and adoption by the Participating Agencies’ elected bodies.

3. Cost: PCTPA’s cost for this work is estimated not to exceed $498,546. Th is cost includes consultant services and option, PCTPA staff administration, and project contingency. Exercise of the consultant services option and project contingency require prior approval of the Project Development Team. The City of Roseville’s contribution to this work effort pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding shall not exceed $166,182.

FUNDING LETTER OF AGREEMENT 23-01

BETWEEN CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Page 2 ends

4. Term: PCTPA services are to commence January 25, 2023. This contract shall end on December 31, 2023. Extensions to this contract may be made with the agreement of all Participating Agencies.

5. Personnel: PCTPA will provide its own personnel, including consultant services, to develop the South Placer and South Sutter Fair Share Transportation Funding Analysis.

6. Compensation: PCTPA will be invoice the City of Roseville a not to exceed amount of $166,182.

If this Letter of Agreement meets with your approval, please sign, and return one copy. You may retain a copy for your own records . Questions concerning this Letter of Agreement should be directed to David Melko of my staff at (530) 823-4090.

_____________________________________ ___________________________________ Matt Click Date Jason Shykowski Date
Executive Director Public Works Director
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency City of Roseville

Enc: Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding, January 25, 2023 Proposal for South Placer and South Sutter Fair Share Transportation Funding Analysis, DKS Associates, November 18, 2022

c: Ryan DeVore, City of Roseville
Marc Stout, City of Roseville
Mark Johnson, City of Roseville
Rick Carter, PCTPA
David Melko, PCTPA
ORDINANCE NO. 6617

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 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 as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Riego Road/Baseline Road improvement project.

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

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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2542
File #:
0201
Title:

Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Financial Report and FY2023-24 Budget Development Calendar
Contact:

Scott Pettingell 916-746-1306 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 9.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
This is an informational item and requires no City Council action.

BACKGROUND
FY2022-23 First Quarter Financial Report

The attached first quarter financial report provides an overview of the City’s General Fund revenues for the first quarter of the fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 (July 1, 2022, through September 30, 2022). General Fund expenditures, major enterprise operating funds revenues and expenditures, and revenues in other selected funds will be included beginning with the second quarter report.

FY2023-24 Budget Development Calendar

Staff will also present an overview of the FY2023-24 budget development calendar:

Date
Item
February 21,
2023
Annual City Council Priorities
Workshop
March 27 - 30,
2023
City Manager budget review
meetings
April 19, 2023
Local sales tax oversight committee
report presentation
Proposed Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) presentation
May 3, 2023
Financial policies presentation
May 17, 2023
Utilities budget update presentation
May 19, 2023
Proposed budget delivered to City
Council
May 30, 2023
City Council budget workshop
June 21, 2023
Budget adoption

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this presentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

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
FY2022-23 First Quarter Report - General Fund Revenues
Fiscal Year 2022-23
First Quarter Report
General Fund Revenues

1 Overview
This financial report provides an overview of the City’s General Fund revenues for the first quarter of the fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 (July 1, 2022, through September 30, 2022). General Fund expenditures, major enterprise operating funds revenues and expenditures, and revenues in other selected funds will be included beginning with the second quarter report.

General Fund revenues through the first quarter of FY2022-23 are trending to end the year modestly above estimates.

Sales tax (Bradley Burns and Measure B) revenue growth is leveling off compared to prior years but is still forecast to end the year on budget. Based on the most recent estimates from the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller, Property Tax revenues are forecast to end the year above estimates by $1.6 million. With the passage of Measure C in November 2022, the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax, also known as Hotel Tax, staff forecast that this revenue will exceed estimates by approximately $2 million. Building permits, plan check fees and engineering inspection fees continued with the upward trend from FY2021-22 while recreation programs revenues are returning to pre-pandemic levels.

General Fund operating revenues collected through the first quarter are 8 percent of the budget. This expected collection rate is in line with prior years due to the timing associated with receiving some of the more significant tax revenue sources. The table and graph included in this report show cumulative General Fund operating revenue through the first quarter and a revenue budget to actual comparison. Following the table and graph are additional details on each of the City’s major revenue streams.

The following factors should be taken into consideration when analyzing this information:

Sales and Use Tax is the largest General Fund revenue source. The City only receives one month of sales tax revenues in the first quarter of each fiscal year due to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) processing timelines. First quarter revenues are derived from taxable sales through July 2022, received in September.

Property Tax is the second largest General Fund revenue source, but most of this tax is received from the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller in the third (mid-January) and fourth (mid-May) quarters. This distribution schedule is why no actual property tax revenues appear in the following table and graph.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) (also known as hotel tax) is derived from payments received through August; therefore, the following charts only reflect two months of TOT revenues.

Other revenues, including reimbursements from the State, property transfer tax, business license tax, and other fees, are tracking on budget through the end of the first quarter.

Fiscal Year 2022-23 - First Quarter Report
General Fund Revenues

2 Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
Revenue Type Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Revenues
Balance
Remaining
% of
Budget
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 74,091,000 $ 6,070,293 $ (68,020,707) 8% Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 28,100,000 2,393,796 (25,706,204) 9% Sales and Use Tax - State Aid for Public Safety 1,622,000 303,189 (1,318,811) 19% Property Tax 64,429,000 19,858 (64,409,142) 0%
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 4,000,000 774,319 (3,225,681) 19% Parks, Recreation & Library Programs 4,188,040 1,169,268 (3,018,772) 28% Building Permits 2,920,836 815,370 (2,105,466) 28%
Plan Check Fees 2,537,000 769,992 (1,767,008) 30%
Engineering Inspection Fees 353,196 144,286 (208,910) 41% Other Revenues 13,650,324 3,301,272 (10,349,052) 24% Total $ 195,891,396 $ 15,761,643 $(180,129,753) 8%
Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax
The City's Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax revenues through the first quarter are 8 percent and 9 percent of the budget. Sales tax revenue received through the first quarter is derived from taxable sales through July 2022.

To date, the City has received Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax distributions from taxable sales through October.

These amounts total $23,479,562 in Bradley Burns Sales Tax and $9,840,473 in Measure B Sales Tax. When developing the FY2022-23 budget, staff estimated that sales and use tax would end the year between the City sales tax consultant's 8%
9%
19%
0%
19%
28%
28%
30%
41%
24%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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 & Library
Building Permits
Plan Check Fees
Engineering Inspection Fees
Other Revenues
Total
Cumulative Percentage of Revenue Collected
Amended
Budget

3 conservative and most-likely estimates. The latest sales tax data indicate some slowing in sales and use tax growth, which has resulted in our consultant shifting their estimates lower. The slower growth is related to a change in consumer behavior from taxable goods to other areas that were constrained during the pandemic such as services and travel and uncertainties around inflation, interest rates, and the potential for a slowdown or recession in 2023. Based on the consultant's latest analysis and forecast, sales and use tax revenues are forecast to end the year closer to their most- likely estimate. This adjustment in the forecast indicates that Bradley Burns may end the year under estimates by $1.3 million, and Measure B will end the year above estimates by an equivalent amount. The following charts show the consultant's latest conservative, most likely, and optimistic scenarios and a budget versus forecast comparison.

Updated Consultant Forecast Conservative Most-Likely Optimistic Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 67,428,400 $ 72,816,810 $ 78,205,300 Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 26,834,700 29,391,765 31,948,800 Total $ 94,263,100 $102,208,575 $110,154,100
Budget Versus Updated Forecast Budget Most-Likely Variance Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 74,091,000 $ 72,816,810 $ (1,274,190) Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 28,100,000 29,391,765 1,291,765 Total $102,191,000 $102,208,575 $ 17,575
The provided graphs show Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales and Use Tax revenues for the month of July as compared to budget and the projected year-end results.

Additional Sales Tax Information: The City's sales tax consultant has prepared a detailed sales tax report and business activity. 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.
$28.1
$2.4
$29.4
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Budget Actuals Year-end
Projection
Millions
Sales and Use Tax - Measure B
Most-Likely
$31.9 Optimistic
$26.8 Conservative
$74.1
$6.1
$72.8
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Budget Actuals Year-end
Projection
Millions
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns
Most-likely
$78.2 Optimistic
$67.4 Conservative
4 Secured, Unsecured and Supplemental Property
Tax
Property tax revenue for FY2022-23 is based on the assessed valuation as of January 1, 2022. The City receives most of this funding in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Based on the information provided by the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller, and the City's property tax consultant, staff anticipates property tax collections of $66 million, exceeding budget estimates by approximately $1.6 million.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Through the end of the first quarter, TOT revenues are at 19 percent of estimates ($0.8 million for the months of July and August). TOT collected through October 2022 totals $1.5 million, tracking 5 percent higher than budget estimates for the first four months of the fiscal year. On November 8, 2022, Roseville voters approved Measure C to increase the City’s TOT rate from 6 percent to 10 percent. The 10 percent tax rate went into effect on January 1, 2023. Based on the final TOT revenue of nearly $4.5 million in FY2021-22, the higher rate would have generated an additional $2.9 million of tax revenue for the General Fund last year. Accounting for Measure C, and assuming current trends continue, staff project that the City will end the year at $5.6 million (approximately $1.6 million above estimates). The following graph shows monthly TOT revenues and projected results for FY2022-23 compared to hotel tax revenue received in FY2021-22.

- 200 400 600 800 1,000July August September October November December January February March April May JuneThousandsMonthly Hotel Revenue Forecast and 2-Year ComparisonFY2022-23FY2021-22 $64.4$0.0$66.1$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70Budget Actuals Year-endProjectionMillionsProperty Tax Revenues $4.0$0.8$5.6$0.0$1.0$2.0$3.0$4.0$5.0$6.0Budget Actuals Year-endProjectionMillionsTransient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues 5 Parks, Recreation & Library (PR&L) Programs
Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) program revenues are slightly above 25 percent for the first quarter at 28 percent, as result of PRL revenues fluctuating throughout the year due to the seasonality of programming. Based on the current results, staff anticipates PRL is on track to meet its FY2022-23 revenue goals.

Building Permits, Plan Check Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees Building permit revenues, plan check, and engineering inspection fees are trending higher than budget during the first quarter due to sustained increases in the City's development activity. Staff anticipates that overall revenues will remain higher than budgeted through the second quarter, leveling off in the second half of the fiscal year due to an expected slowdown in development.

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 first quarter, revenues in this category are at 24 percent of budget estimates.

Top 25 Sales Tax Remitters California sales tax cash receipts increased by 7.7% from the same quarter last year. In this jurisdiction sales tax cash ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS receipts increased by 6.5% from the same quarter last year AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE due to a increase of $114,819,000 in Taxable Sales.

AUTONATION HONDA
BMW OF ROSEVILLE Cash Receipts Quarter Annual
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES Roseville 6.5% 8.6%
CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS Placer Countywide Pool -7.6% 2.8% COSTCO WHOLESALE Placer Countywide 1.9% 7.4%
FUTURE FORD Sacramento Valley Region 5.5% 10.8%
FUTURE NISSAN Statewide 7.7% 13.6%

GMC RELIABLE

HOME DEPOT
Annualized Percent Change in Sales Tax Cash Receipts

JOHN L SULLIVAN CHEVROLET

LEXUS OF ROSEVILLE

MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE

MCKESSON MEDICAL -SURGICAL

NIELLO ACURA

NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORE

ROSEVILLE HYUNDAI

ROSEVILLE KIA

ROSEVILLE TOYOTA & SCION

SAFEWAY SERVICE STATIONS

SAM'S CLUB

TARGET STORES

VANDERBEEK MOTORS

WAL MART STORES
Business Activity Quarter Annual Quarter Annual

6.7% 14.2% 1.1% 7.5%

6.1% 14.7% 3.2% 14.8%
-8.0% 2.2% 10.3% 11.6%

7.6% 8.4% 5.5% 3.3%
General Retail (e.g., dept. stores, misc. retail)
Food Products (e.g., markets and restaurants)
Transportation (e.g., new & used autos, gas stations)
Construction (e.g., retail & wholesale construction)
Business To Business (e.g., IT, industrial equip. etc.) 7.5% 2.1% 7.7% 6.7% TOTAL LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY 1.0% 7.8% 5.3% 9.3%
COUNTYWIDE POOL ACTIVITY -3.4% 4.2% 6.1% 6.6%
City of Roseville
Roseville California
Quarterly Report on Sales Tax and Business Activity
3rd 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 -7.6% 2.8%

Roseville
Annual Per Capita Sales Tax
Adjusted for Inflation
(Constant 2018 $)
City of Roseville
News
Economic Activity: Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.6% in the third quarter of 2022. U.S. inflation decelerated slightly to 7.7% in October of 2022, while California's headline inflation was 7.5% year over year as of August of 2022. (DIR, BEA, BLS, October Finance Bulletin) Employment: The U.S. unemployment rate increased slightly by 0.1% to 3.7% in October of 2022, now 0.2% higher than its February of 2020 pre-pandemic rate of 3.5%. California's unemployment rate increased slightly to

4.0% in October of 2022, 0.1 percentage point higher than July of 2022 rate of 3.9%. (BLS) Personal Income:U.S. personal income increased by 1.7% for the third quarter of 2022, compared to same quarter previous year. Personal consumption and expenditures increased by 4.2% , resulting in a 62.5% decrease in US personal savings for the third quarter of 2022, compared to same quarter previous year. (BEA) Annual Per Capita Sales Tax
2018Q3 $388 2019Q3 $386 2020Q3 $349 2021Q3 $407 2022Q3 $400 $43 $48 $60 $73 $70$2 $2 $2 $2 $2$35 $47 $36 $36 $34$24 $20 $20
$22 $22
$124 $118 $106
$131 $122
$45 $44 $39
$42 $45
$115 $108
$86
$101 $106
General Retail
Food Products
Transportation
Construction
Business To Business
Miscellaneous
County Pool
(Cash Basis)

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2541
File #:
0400-04-04-2
Title:

North Central Roseville Specific Plan Parcel 42A (572 Gibson Drive) – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone Project
Contact:

Escarlet Mar 916-774-5247 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the January 12, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

1 .

Consider the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020) and 2021 Housing Element Addendum; 2 .

Adopt a resolution for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation;
3 .

Adopt a resolution approving text amendments and land use map to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan;
4 .

Adopt two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Rezone; and
5 .

Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC.

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the January 12, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.

Background/Project Description

The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels, within North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) area Parcel 42A, totaling approximately 19.50 acres located at 540, 556, 564, 572, and 580 Gibson Drive. The NCRSP encompasses approximately 2,330 acres and is situated generally between State Route 65 to the north, Washington Boulevard to the west, Diamond Oaks Golf Course to the south, and Interstate 80 to the east. The NCRSP was adopted on July 5, 1990 by the City Council. An Environmental Impact Report was certified with the NCRSP (State Clearinghouse Number 88053010), which examined the impacts of the NCRSP buildout. Additionally, the City entered into several Development Agreements with various property owners within the NCRSP parcels to outline development obligations within the plan area. The NCRSP development agreement that originally pertained to the project site, referred to as the Regional 65 Centre Development Agreement (Regional 65 Centre DA), and all subsequent amendments expired in 2010. As the majority of the NCRSP is built-out, the infrastructure obligations identified in the Regional 65 Centre DA have been completed. Impact fee obligations associated with development of the remaining NCRSP undeveloped parcels, including the project site, are discussed further in the Development Agreement section of this report. The project site is bordered by State Route 65 on the north, Gibson Drive on the south, an office complex (the Shea Center) on the east, and an apartment complex on the west. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional and a zoning designation of Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan.

Project Description
The requested entitlements will allow for the development of 360 affordable multi-family dwelling units on the site. While the entitlements associated with the current project only includes the legislative entitlements to facilitate development of an apartment complex, the applicant has submitted an Objective Design Standard (ODS) application that would allow the development of a 357 unit apartment project. The project will require the future approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to merge the five (5) existing parcels into one parcel.

The current project entitlements are listed below:

General Plan Amendment (GPA)
-
The General Plan Land Use Map will be amended to change the land use designation of approximately 19.5 acres NCRSP Parcel 42A from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR) at a density of approximately 18.50± units per acre, in order to facilitate development of approximately 360-multi-family dwelling units. The General Plan Land Use Map amendment is provided in Exhibit B.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)

–The NCRSP document will be amended to reflect the
division of NCRSP Parcel 42A into NCRSP Parcels 42A and 42C, the proposed land use change for the new NCRSP Parcel 42C, and the addition of 360 multi-family dwelling units to the plan area. The North Central Roseville Land Use Summary table on page 2-14, the North Central Roseville Land Use Plan Figure 2-4 on page 2-15, and the North Central Roseville Land Use by Parcel Number table on page 2-16 will all be updated to reflect the land use change, unit allocation, and parcel
acreage
. Further, a new section, Section 3.4.2 – Special Policies for NCRSP Parcel 42C, will include project specific site design requirements and an affordability component of the project.

While not
directly
associated with the applicant’s request, staff is recommending two additional changes to the NCRSP. In
anticipation
of future proposed development applications, staff is
recommending that two new land uses be added to the list of permitted land uses within the Community Commercial and Business Professional land use designations. Staff is recommending that the Community Care Facility and Long Term Care Facility land use types be permitted within the Community Commercial and the Business Professional land uses designations. The inclusion of these two land uses is consistent with the existing permitted use types within the City’s Zoning
Ordinance
. Exhibit C includes the NCRSP change pages, including
a revised land use map depicting the amended land use for NCRSP Parcel 42C.

Rezone
– A rezone is requested to amend the current zoning designation of new NCRSP Parcel 42C from
Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA-NC) to Multi-Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation
. Exhibit D includes the Rezone exhibit.

Development Agreement (DA)
– The project includes a new Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC to reflect the change in land use and document the requirements related to the provision of affordable housing units for the project (see Exhibit E).

Summary Evaluation

Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. The policies for land use amendments relate to promoting land use patterns that enhance quality of life and minimize conflicts between land uses.

Land use modifications are also evaluated for impacts to noise, air quality, traffic, and utilities.

These same potential impacts are evaluated in the Addendum prepared for the project, included as
Exhibit A
.

The proposed project is unique, in that while typical policies associated with land use changes from
non-residential to residential uses (the adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non- Residential Land Uses) apply, policies associated with the recently approved Housing Element also apply. The 2021 Housing Element Update concluded in the City having a deficit of affordable housing units necessary to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In order to reduce/eliminate this deficit, the City Council approved several Implementation Measures/Programs with the Housing Element Update. Program 14 is the Rezone Program for Adequate Sites, which included four strategies that would result in land use changes to increase the acreage of High Density Land Use, therefore, increasing the potential number of affordable housing units and reducing the affordable housing deficit. One of the four strategies was the identification of Opportunity Sites that would be good candidates for conversion from non-residential land use to residential land use. The proposed project site, new NCRSP Parcel 42C, is listed in the Housing Element Opportunity Sites inventory as a site with the potential to be converted to High Density Residential land use, with a conservative estimate that the site could provide 300 residential units.

Although the proposed land use amendments are supported by the 2021 Housing Element Update Implementation policies, staff has reviewed the project against the City adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses. As described below, in the Development Agreement (DA) Evaluation, there are two potential development scenarios for the project site. One scenario (the “Affordable Project”) would result in a project with 100% of the units made available to households with incomes between 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% AMI, with an average affordability of 60% AMI. The second scenario (the “Self-Financed Project”) would result in a project with a minimum of 10% of the units made available to Very-Low Income Households (50% AMI) and 10% of the units made available to Low Income Households (80% AMI). The Self-Financed Project would also be required to pay all typical development impact fees, including parks and recreation fees and school fees as well as a Public Benefit Fee of $1,010 for all market rate units. Based on the terms of the DA, the project meets the requirements of the City adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses.

A full
analysis of each of the findings for the conversion of non-residential land uses is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2). In summary, the project is consistent with the
2021 Housing Element Implementation Measures, the Non-Residential Conversion Guidelines and is also consistent with the goals and polices of the General Plan and NCRSP.

The project also includes a Rezone of the newly created Parcel 42C. The project would rezone new NCRSP Parcel 42C to
Multi-Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC) to be consistent with the proposed General Plan and NCRSP land use designation.

Finally, the project includes a Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC. The draft DA is included as Exhibit E.

The DA
will reflect the
change in land use for new NCRSP Parcel 42C, provide the land owner with vested entitlement rights and document the obligations of both the future developer of the site and the City . A list of
the more pertinent terms of the DA are:

Section 1.3.2 (Term): The Development Agreement will be in effect for a period of 20 years.

Section 2.9 (Affordable Project): The developer has committed to attempt to finance a 100% affordable housing project. The developer has committed to applying for various affordable housing financing programs through the end of 2024, with a minimum of three applications for funding.

Section 2.10 (Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (AHRA)): If the developer proceeds with the Affordable Project, as referenced in Section 2.9, the developer and the City will enter into a AHRA. The AHRA would require that
the Affordable Project would result in a project with 100% of the units made available to households with incomes between 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% AMI, with an average affordability of 60% AMI. The AHRA will require the units to only be rented to qualified affordable households for a period of 55 years.

Section 2.11 (Self-Financed Project): If the developer is not able to obtain financing to develop the Affordable Project, the proposed DA allows for the development of a multi-family project with a minimum of 20% of the units as deed-restricted affordable units. The Self-Financed Project would require that a minimum of 10% of the units be made available to Very-Low Income Households (50% AMI) and 10% of the units be made available to Low Income Households (80% AMI).

Section 2.11.1: An
Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement
would be required for the Self-
Financed Project. The AHRA will require the affordable units to only be rented to qualified affordable households for a period of 55 years.

Section 3.1 (Public Benefits): If the developer proceeds with the Self-Financed Project, a public benefit fee of $1,010 will be paid to the City for each market rate unit.

Section 3.4 (Public Trail): Consistent with a previous agreement and the provisions of the NCRSP, the developer shall dedicate an easement, along portion of the site adjacent to Highway 65, for a pedestrian and bicycle trail. The developer shall also improve the trail, consistent with a previous agreement. The City will maintain the trail after construction.

In summary, City staff found the proposed DA consistent with the General Plan, NCRSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The provisions of the DA help to further City housing goals and policies. The DA is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting

The project was heard by the City's Planning Commission on January 12, 2023. The developer addressed the Commission, gave a brief history of the project site and requested approval by the Commission. No public testimony was received at the hearing. After deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council consider the Addendum to the 2035
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020) and 2021 Housing Element Addendum, adopt two (2) resolutions approving the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, and make the findings of fact for the Rezone and Development Agreement
with a vote of 7 in favor of the project and none against.

Public Outreach

The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments 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.

Notices of both the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing were published in the Roseville Press Tribune and on the 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 comments regarding the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the City’s General Fund. The legislative entitlements would facilitate eventual construction of the 360 affordable multi-family apartment complex. The eventual construction of the apartment complex would generate revenue to the City through the payment of typical development impact fees associated with either the Affordable Project or the Self-Financed Project as discussed above. In addition, the Development Agreement requires the project to annex into Community Facilities District No.
3, which provides resources to the General Fund for a variety of municipal services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Addendum to a previously certified 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 have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020), inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum, has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted or certified prior environmental document adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 3 Sewer Study
Exhibit A Addendum & Checklist
Exhibit B GP Land Use Map Amendment
Resolution 23-061
Exhibit C NCRSP Redlines
Resolution 23-062
Exhibit D Rezone Exhibit
Ordinance Rezone
Ordinance DA
Development Agreement
Vicinity Map
Copyright nearmap 2015, Maxar
Roseville Parcel
Roseville Street Label
1/13/2023, 8:45:55 AM
0 0.08 0.160.04 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
CC ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 2023
P repared by: Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.3: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement – 572 Gibson Drive – NC RSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone – File #PL21-0307

REQUEST
The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) to modify the land use designation from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR); and a Rezone from Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA -NC) to Multi -Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA- NC) to allow the development of 360 multi- family dwelling units on the approximately 19.5 acre site. Further, the project includes a Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC to reflect the change in land use and document the requirements related to the provision of affordable housing units.

Applicant – Brad Shirhall, TLA Engineering and Planning Property Owner – Roseville Land Holdings, LLC

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
T
he Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. R
ecommend the City Council consider the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020) and 2021 Housing Element Addendum;

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (Land Use Map);

3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment (Text & Land Use Map);

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

5. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
T
here are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all of staff’s recommendations to the City Council.

BACKGROUND
The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels, within NCRSP Parcel 42A, totaling approximately

19.50 acres located at 540, 556, 564, 572, and 580 Gibson Drive. The project site is within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) area (see Figure 1 below) . The NCRSP encompasses approximately 2,330 acres and is situated generally between State Route (SR) 65 to the north, Washington Boulevard to the west, Diamond Oaks Golf Course to the south, and Interstate 80 to the east. The N CRSP was adopted on July 5, 1990 by the City Council. An Environmental Impact Report was certified with the NCRSP (State Clearinghouse Number 88053010), which examined the impacts of the NCRSP buildout. Additionally, the City entered into several Development Agreements with various property owners within the NCRSP parcels to outline development obligations within the plan area. The CC ATTACHMENT 2
NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 2 of 7

NCRSP development agreement that originally pertained to the project site, referred to as the Regional 65 Centre Development Agreement (Regional 65 Centre DA), and all subsequent amendments expired in 2010. As the majority of the NCRSP is built-out, the infrastructure obligations identified in the Regional 65 Centre DA have been completed. Impact fee obligations associated with development of the remaining NCRSP undeveloped parcels, including the project site, are discussed further in the Development Agreement section of this report. The site is bordered by SR 65 on the north, Gibson Drive on the south, an office complex on the east, and an apartment complex on the west. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional and a zoning designation of Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan.

Figure 1: Project Site

Project Description
The requested entitlements will allow for the development of 360 affordable multi-family dwelling units on the site. Currently, the applicant is only requesting legislative entitlements to facilitate eventual construction of the apartment complex on the project site. At a later date, the applicant proposes to submit an Objective Design Standard (ODS) application to allow the development of the site through the ministerial design review process and a Tentative Subdivision Map to merge the five (5) existing parcels into one parcel. The project entitlements include:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) - The General Plan Land Use Map will be amended to change the land use designation of approximately 19.5 acres NCRSP Parcel 42A from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR) at a density of approximately 18.50± units per acre, in order to facilitate development of 360-multi-family dwelling units. The General Plan Land Use Map amendment is provided in Exhibit B.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) –The NCRSP document will be amended to reflect the division of NCRSP Parcel 42A into NCRSP Parcels 42A and 42C, the proposed land use change for the new NCRSP Parcel 42C, and the addition of 360 multi -family dwelling units to the plan area. The North Central Roseville Land Use Summary table on page 2 -14, the North Central Roseville Land Use Plan Figure 2-4 on page 2-15, and the North Central Roseville Land Use by Parcel Number table on page 2- 16 will all be updated to reflect the land use change, unit allocation, and parcel agreage. Further, a new Project Site

NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 3 of 7

section, Section 3.4.2 – Special Polocies for NCRSP Parcel 42C, will include project specific site design requirements and an affordability component of the project.

While not directely associated with the applicant’s request, staff is recommending two additional changes to the NCRSP. In antcipation of a future proposed development application, staff is recommending that two new land uses be added to the list of permitted land uses within the Community Commercial and Business Professional land use designations. Staff is recommending that the Community Care Facility and Long Term Care Facility land use types be permitted within the Community Commercial and the Business Professional land uses designations. The inclusion of these two land uses is consistent with the existing permitted use types within the City’s Zoning Ordiance. Exhibit C includes the NCRSP change pages, including a revised land use map depicting the amended land use for NCRSP Parcel 42C.

Rezone – A rezone is requested to amend the current zoning designation of new NCRSP Parcel 42C from Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA -NC) to Multi- Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. Exhibit D includes the Rezone exhibit.

Development Agreement (DA) – The project includes a new Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC to reflect the change in land use and document the requirements related to the provision of affordable housing units for the project (see Exhibit E).

EVALUATION – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. The policies for land use amendments relate to promoting land use patterns that enhance quality of life and minimize conflicts between land uses. Land use modifications are also evaluated for impacts to noise, air quality, traffic, and utilities. These same potential impacts are evaluated in the Addendum prepared for the project, included as Exhibit A.

Program 14 is the Rezone Program for Adequate Sites, which included four strategies that would result in land use changes to increase the acreage of High Density Land Use, therefore, increasing the potential number of affordable housing units and reducing the affordable housing deficit. One of the four strategies was the identification of Opportunity Sites that would be good c andidates for conversion from non- residential land use to residential land use. The proposed project site, new NCRSP Parcel 42C, is listed in the Housing Element Opportunity Sites inventory as a site with the potential to be converted to High Density Residential land use, with a conservative estimate that the site could provide 300 residential units.

Although the proposed land use amendments are supported by the 2021 Housing Element Update Implementation policies, staff has reviewed the project against the City adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses. As described below, in the Development Agreement (DA) Evaluation, there are two potential development scenarios for the project site. One scenario (the “Affordable Project”) would result in a project with 100% of the units made available to households with incomes between 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% AMI, with an average affordability of 60% AMI. The second scenario (the “Self-Financed Project”) would result in a project with a minimum of 10% of the units made available to Very -Low Income Households (50% AMI) and 10% of the units made available to Low Income Households (80% AMI). The Self-Financed Project would also be required to pay all typical development impact fees, including parks and recreation fees and school fees as well as NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 4 of 7

a Public Benefit Fee of $1,010 for all market rate units. Based on the terms of the DA, the project meets the requirements of the City adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses.

Land Use Compatibility: Table II-9 of the General Plan contains a table addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses. For purposes of the table, “adjacent” includes land uses separated by collectors and local streets (e.g., Gibson Drive). The proposed HDR land use is considered to be compatible with the adjacent HDR land use to the west, compatible with the adjacent OS/FP to the northwest, and compatible with HDR properties to the south across Gibson Drive. In addition, the project is conditionally compatible with the adjacent BP site to the east. To address any potential compatibility issues, the NCRSP requires buffering between business-professional uses and multi-family residential through setbacks, soundwalls or fencing, landscaping, or a combination thereof. Compatibility between the proposed project site and the adjacent business-professional site will be evaluated and addressed during the future design review for the multi-family project. The City of Roseville General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II -10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation. The proposed R3 zone is listed as an implementing zone for the HDR land use; therefore, the proposed zoning designation is compatible with the proposed General Plan land use.

Traffic: As explained in the Transportation section of the Addendum (see Exhibit A), the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) included a transportation analysis which estimated Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) using the City’s travel forecasting model. An updated VMT analysis was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants to evaluate VMT impacts resulting from the Housing Element (HE).

In short, the HE analysis found that an increase to the City’s baseline VMT occurred because of development in the western area of the City, in Specific Plans with the highest VMT per person. However, the cumulative conditions analysis found a decrease in citywide VMT per resident with the HE, which is both a reduction from baseline and a reduction compared to the GP EIR analysis of cum ulative (2035) conditions. The project is located in the NCRSP, which is a low -VMT area in the City. The addition of residential units within this area would reduce citywide VMT by adding more residents within an area where VMT rates are low. Further, the HE established a Rezone Program that would identify additional sites within the City that were capable of housing additional units. As part of the Rezone Program, the City examined vacant sites thought the City to find properties with the potential to be converted to hig h density residential use. The project site was identified as one of the opportunity sites to convert to HDR.

Therefore, the project is appropriate for the site.

Utilities: Similar to the Transportation section above, as part of the environmental review of the project, the GP EIR evaluation of utility services was based on full buildout of the General Plan and demand factors based on acreage by land use type. The GP EIR analyzed the water demand for the City’s buildout conditions, which found to have a surplus water supply during normal years and during multiple-dry years.

In a single year or multiple-dry years the City’s overall water demand was found to have an approximate 9,000-afy deficit and 2,000- afy deficit, respectively. However, the City’s con servation measures are sufficient during dry years to offset the deficit. Hence, the HE was found to be within the scope of the total dwelling units analyzed within the GP EIR, and the project site is consistent with the anticipated number of units as outlined in the HE Rezone Program.

A sewer capacity study was prepared by Woodard & Curran, Inc., the project’s engineering consultant, to analyze the potential impacts associated with the project on the City’s sewer system (see Attachment 1). The memo concluded there is adequate capacity for the p roject. The City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded there is enough capacity to support the project with the new land use change.

Based on the evaluation above, staff finds the project is consistent with the 2021 Housing Element Implementation Measures, the Non-Residential Conversion Guidelines and is also consistent with the goals and polices of the General Plan and NCRSP.

NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 5 of 7

EVALUATION – REZONE
Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

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

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The project would rezone new NCRSP Parcel 42C Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA -NC) to Multi- Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation.

The City of Roseville General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II- 10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation. The proposed General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential (HDR). The proposed Multi-Family Housing (R3) zone is listed as an implementing zone. According to both the General Plan and NCRSP, the HDR land use designation applies to land characterized by apartments or condominiums with multiple- story structures containing multiple attached dwelling units. The proposed project would allow for up to 360 apartment units with a density of 18.5 units per gross developable acre, which is consistent with the HDR land use designation.

In conclusion, staff finds the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and NCRSP for the HDR land use, and the project will not adversely affect the public interest, safety, or welfare of the City.

EVALUATION – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

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

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the North Central Roseville Specific Plan;

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

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

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

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

The project includes a new Development Agreement (DA) by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC. The proposed DA is included as Exhibit E. Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

The proposed DA will reflect the change in land use for new NCRSP Parcel 42C, provide the land owner with vested entitlement rights and document the obligations of both the future developer of the site and the City. The following is a list of the most pertinent terms of the proposed DA:

NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 6 of 7

Section 1.3.2 (Term): The Development Agreement will be in effect for a period of 20 years.

Section 2.9 (Affordable Project): The developer has committed to attempt to finance a 100% affordable housing project. The developer has committed to applying for various affordable housing financing programs as reasonable by the end of 2024, with a minimum of three applications.

Section 2.10 (Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (AHRA)): If the developer proceeds with the Affordable Project, as referenced in Section 2.9, the developer and the City will enter into a AHRA. The AHRA would require that the Affordable Project would result in a project with 100% of the units made available to households with incomes between 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% AMI, with an average affordability of 60% AMI. The AHRA will require the units to only be rented to qualified affordable households for a period of 55 years.

Section 2.11 (Self -Financed Project): If the developer is not able to obtain financing to develop the Affordable Project, the proposed DA allows for the development of a multi-family project with a minimum of 20% of the units as deed-restricted affordable units. The Self -Financed Project would require that a minimum of 10% of the units be made available to Very-Low Income Households (50% AMI) and 10% of the units be made available to Low Income Households (80% AMI).

Section 2.11.1: An Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement would be required for the Self-Financed Project. The AHRA will require the affordable units to only be rented to qualified affordable households for a period of 55 years.

Section 3.1 (Public Benefits): If the developer proceeds with the Self-Financed Project, a public benefit fee of $1,010 will be paid to the City for each market rate unit.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach for the proposed project has occurred at multiple points during the processing of the project, as described below.
• Upon receipt of the application, 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; no comments were received.
• Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 consultation requirements, the City of Roseville contacted those listed on the Native American Heritage Commission list about the project and provided the opportunity to participate in consultation with the City. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) responded to the request for consultation and requested a site visit, which occurred on November 9, 2021.

NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Properties Apartments Rezone, 572 Gibson Drive; File #PL21-0307 Planning Commission – January 12, 2023 – Page 7 of 7
• A n
otice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on December 30, 2022, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. To date, no comments have been received as of publication of the staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Cons
istent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020), inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum, has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted or certified prior environmental document adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project.

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

1. Recommend the City Council consider the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418, certified on August 5, 2020) and 2021 Housing Element Addendum;

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – 572 GIBSON DRIVE – NCRSP PCL 42A – SHEA CENTER APARTMENTS REZONE – FILE #PL21- 0307;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 572 GIBSON DRIVE – NCRSP PCL 42A – SHEA CENTER APARTMENTS REZONE – FILE #PL21- 0307;

4. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the REZONE – 572 GIBSON DRIVE – NCRSP PCL 42A – SHEA CENTER APARTMENTS REZONE – FILE #PL21- 0307; and

5. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ROSEVILLE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC – 572 GIBSON DRIVE – NCRSP PCL 42A – SHEA CENTER APARTMENTS REZONE – FILE #PL21-0307.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Sewer Study

EXHIBITS
A. Addendum & Checklist
B. General Plan Land Use Map Amendment
C. NCRSP Redlines
D. Rezone Exhibit
E. DA
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.

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Shirhall, TLA Engineering & Planning, Inc.

PREPARED BY: Dylan Merlo, Woodard & Curran
REVIEWED BY: Chris van Lienden, PE, Woodard & Curran
DATE: December 8, 2021
RE: Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation

1. BACKGROUND
Woodard & Curran was asked to analyze the impacts of the proposed Shea Center Apartments development on the City of Roseville’s sewer system. The location of the proposed site is shown in Figure 1. The proposed development includes 360 dwelling units spanning 19.5 acres in Roseville on previously undeveloped land. The development would discharge sewer flows into City -owned sewers on Gibson Drive and in undeveloped land to the northwest of the development. A conceptual site plan of the development is included in Appendix A.

Woodard & Curran performed modeling work using InfoWorks ICM software, which provides a fully-dynamic solution for modeling sanitary sewer systems. Woodard & Curran had previously migrated the Roseville sewer system model to Infoworks ICM in 2017. Pipeline information for all trunk sewers (pipes > 10-inches) were previously validated through review of record drawings while smaller diameter sewers were modeled based on pipe diameter and slope information in the City’s GIS database. Recalibration was performed based on flow meter data collected during the 2015/2016 wet weather season, and future flows were estimated for 2050 and buildout land use conditions. Future flows previously assumed from the parcels were removed from the model and replaced with flow projections for the proposed development. Subsequently, the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) sewers were added to the City model.

The purpose of this TM is to document whether the updated sewer model predicts that City and SPWA sewers will have capacity for the proposed development.

2. MODEL RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
Wastewater flow projections for the proposed development were estimated based on the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) unit flow factor of 190 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/DU) , resulting in an ADWF of 68,400 gpd. The flows were divided up among the apartment units per the preliminary site plane as in Appendix A. Figure 1 summarizes the loading. For this analysis, a diurnal pattern was applied to the ADWF, as well as projected rainfall -dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I) based on the City’s standard 10 -year 24 -hour design event. Modeled flows from the proposed development are summarized in Table 1.

CC Attachment 3

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 Table 1: Modeled Shea Center Apartments Sewer Loads
Loading Manhole
(Roseville Model/
SPWA Model)
Equivalent
Dwelling Units
(EDUs)
Average Dry
Weather Flow
(gpd)
Peak Wet
Weather Flow
(mgd)
SMH E05-133 224 61,560 0.116
SMH E05-291 36 6,840 0.0129
Total: 360 68,400 0.129
For this evaluation, simulations representing peak wet weather flow under buildout land use conditions have been performed. A profile indicating model results under buildout conditions with the development are indicated in Figures 2 and 3 for loading manholes SMH E05-133 and SMH E05-291, respectively. Note that sewers downstream of the loading manholes connect at manhole SMH E05 -013. Figure 4 shows the model results downstream of manhole SMH E05- 013 to the SPWA trunk connection at SMH G04 -031. Figure 5 shows the SPWA trunk downstream from SMH G04 - 031 to the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant. Model results indicating d/D performance for each pipe segment for all scenarios is included in Appendix B.

City of Roseville design standards specify that pipes 10-inch diameter or less should have maximum depth of flow under design conditions of 0.7 times the diameter (d/D < 0.7). Pipes larger than 10-inches should have a d/D < 1.0. As indicated in the Figures and Appendix B, the model predicts all sewers downstream of the proposed development would have a d/D < 1.0 or a d/D < 0.7 where pipe diameters are 10-inches or less.

SPWA design standards from the Systems Evaluation indicate that surcharging up to within 5 feet of the manhole rims (ground surface) is considered acceptable under 10-year design storm PWWF, as long as the surcharge (flow height in the m anhole) does not exceed 4 feet from the top of the pipe up the manhole. As indicated in the Figures and Appendix B, the model predicts no surcharging in the SPWA trunk downstream of the proposed development (d/D <

1.0 for all downstream sewers).

Legend
±
Figure 1
Figure Exported: 12/3/2021 By: dmerlo Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\0012128.00 Shea Properties Mgmt- Sewer Study\wip\GIS\SiteOverview.mxd Project #: 0012128
Map Created: December 2021
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles
Proposed
Development Location
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions. Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users sole risk.

XW Modeled Pump Station
%, WWTP
Pipes Downstream of
Development
Sewer
Sewer Trunk Network
SPWA Trunk (Outside
Roseville)
Shea Estates
Development
Roseville City Boundary
36 Units Load
to Gibson Drive at
SMH E05-291
224 Units Load
Norhwest to SMH E05-133
SPWA Trunk Connection
at SMH G04-031
SMH E05-013

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation November 2021 Figure 2 –Hydraulic Profile (SMH E05-133 to SMH E05-013)

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 Figure 3 –Hydraulic Profile (from SMH E05-291 to SMH E05-013)

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 Figure 4 –Hydraulic Profile (from SMH E05-013 to SMH G04-031)

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 Figure 5 –Hydraulic Profile (from SMH G04-031 to Pleasant Grove WWTP)

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021

APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021

APPENDIX B – MODEL RESULTS

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 10 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 Model Results

From MH ID To MH ID
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Pipe Length
(ft)
Pipe
Slope (%)
Pipe Load: d/D (1
indicates backwater
surcharge, 2
indicates insufficient
pipe capacity)
SMH E05-291 SMH E05-034 8 73 2 0.13
SMH E05-034 SMH E05-028 8 398.6 1.8 0.24
SMH E05-028 SMH E05-027 8 349.1 1.5 0.25
SMH E05-027 SMH E05-026 8 324.6 3.9 0.21
SMH E05-026 SMH E05-033 8 268.4 4.6 0.2
SMH E05-033 SMH E05-025 12 55.3 0.452 0.2
SMH E05-025 SMH E05-023 12 193 0.912 0.28
SMH E05-023 SMH E05-021 12 158.7 0.321 0.28
SMH E05-021 SMH E05-020 12 209.3 0.401 0.27
SMH E05-020 SMH E05-018 12 284 0.335 0.28
SMH E05-018 SMH E05-013 12 237.4 0.354 0.48
SMH E05-013 SMH E05-012 18 397.8 0.204 0.38
SMH E05-012 SMH E05-017 18 345.4 0.414 0.31
SMH E05-017 SMH E05-022 18 402.4 0.417 0.32
SMH E05-022 SMH E05-024 18 196.1 0.398 0.32
SMH E05-024 SMH E05-029 18 242.2 0.401 0.32
SMH E05-029 SMH E05-031 18 240.5 0.403 0.32
SMH E05-031 SMH E04-041 18 250.4 0.2 0.38
SMH E04-041 SMH E04-040 18 231.4 0.199 0.4
SMH E04-040 SMH E04-377 18 92.6 0.194 0.4
SMH E04-377 SMH E04-042 18 137.6 0.203 0.39
SMH E04-042 SMH E04-043 18 231.7 0.242 0.38
SMH E04-043 SMH E04-039 18 359.8 0.2 0.41
SMH E04-039 SMH E04-032 18 300 0.2 0.41
SMH E04-032 SMH E04-029 18 355.7 0.197 0.42
SMH E04-029 SMH E04-027 18 356.4 0.196 0.65
SMH E04-027 SMH E04-024 18 345.9 -0.029 0.65
SMH E04-024 SMH E04-023 18 399.5 0.483 0.35
SMH E04-023 SMH E04-022 18 384.4 0.583 0.36
SMH E04-022 SMH E04-021 18 199 0.538 0.36
SMH E04-021 SMH E04-020 18 386.1 0.661 0.35
SMH E04-020 SMH E04-019 18 96.9 0.403 0.4
SMH E04-019 SMH E04-360 18 100.4 0.428 0.39

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 From MH ID To MH ID
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Pipe Length
(ft)
Pipe
Slope (%)
Pipe Load: d/D (1
indicates backwater
surcharge, 2
indicates insufficient
pipe capacity)
SMH E04-360 SMH E04-018 18 150 0.433 0.39
SMH E04-018 SMH E04-017 18 230.3 0.59 0.36
SMH E04-017 SMH E04-015 18 287.8 0.42 0.4
SMH E04-015 SMH E04-014 18 401.4 0.419 0.42
SMH E04-014 SMH F04-028 18 227.2 0.423 0.42
SMH F04-028 SMH F04-025 18 297.5 0.42 0.44
SMH F04-025 SMH F04-024 18 306.5 0.421 0.44
SMH F04-024 SMH F04-023 24 273.8 0.197 0.44
SMH F04-023 SMH F04-022 24 387 0.202 0.44
SMH F04-022 SMH F04-021 24 390.5 0.2 0.46
SMH F04-021 SMH F04-020 24 389.8 0.18 0.46
SMH F04-020 SMH F04-019 24 388.4 0.18 0.46
SMH F04-019 SMH F04-018 24 338.2 0.18 0.46
SMH F04-018 SMH F04-017 24 337.8 0.178 0.46
SMH F04-017 SMH F04-016 24 336.8 0.181 0.46
SMH F04-016 SMH F04-015 24 81.3 0.172 0.45
SMH F04-015 SMH F04-042 24 60.5 0.182 0.44
SMH F04-042 SMH F04-030 24 165.3 0.181 0.44
SMH F04-030 SMH F04-029 24 25.8 0.929 0.45
SMH F04-029 SMH F04-007 21 383.7 0.605 0.47
SMH F04-007 SMH F04-006 21 399.4 0.576 0.47
SMH F04-006 SMH F04-005 21 396.9 0.595 0.48
SMH F04-005 SMH F04-004 21 373.6 0.586 0.48
SMH F04-004 SMH F04-003 21 350.9 0.578 0.48
SMH F04-003 SMH F04-002 21 281 0.584 0.49
SMH F04-002 SMH F04-001 21 367.9 0.582 0.49
SMH F04-001 SMH F04-120 21 135.1 0.577 0.49
SMH F04-120 SMH G04-041 21 169.3 0.579 0.49
SMH G04-041 SMH G04-040 27 281.4 0.128 0.63
SMH G04-040 SMH G04-039 27 396.1 0.005 0.63
SMH G04-039 SMH G04-038 27 254.5 0.326 0.49
SMH G04-038 SMH G04-031 27 129.3 0.131 0.56
SMH G04-031 SMH G04-037 42 337.2 0.617 0.46
SMH G04-037 SMH G04-036 42 397.9 0.244 0.46
SMH G04-036 SMH G04-035 42 384.6 0.244 0.48

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Shea Center Apartments Sewer Capacity Evaluation December 2021 From MH ID To MH ID
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Pipe Length
(ft)
Pipe
Slope (%)
Pipe Load: d/D (1
indicates backwater
surcharge, 2
indicates insufficient
pipe capacity)
SMH G04-035 SMH G03-045 42 376.8 0.188 0.48
SMH G03-045 SMH G03-030 42 240.1 0.162 0.51
SMH G03-030 SMH G03-044 42 55.5 0.378 0.52
SMH G03-044 SMH G03-038 42 257.4 0.124 0.52
SMH G03-038 SMH G03-043 42 190.2 0.247 0.47
SMH G03-043 SMH G03-042 42 170.1 0.223 0.47
SMH G03-042 SMH G03-041 42 398 0.241 0.47
SMH G03-041 SMH G03-040 42 397.7 0.241 0.47
SMH G03-040 SMH G03-036 42 440.8 0.24 0.47
SMH G03-036 SMH G03-035 42 369.9 0.268 0.5
SMH G03-035 SMH G03-039 42 383 0.225 0.57
SMH G03-039 SMH G03-048 42 366.8 0.128 0.57
SMH G03-048 SMH G03-050 42 345.1 0.142 0.58
SMH G03-050 SMH G03-049 42 365.8 0.139 0.58
SMH G03-049 SMH G03-047 42 321.8 0.14 0.58
SMH G03-047 SMH G03-046 42 166.1 0.132 0.57
SMH G03-046 SMH G03-052 42 346.7 0.144 0.58
SMH G03-052 SMH G03-051 42 100 0.05 0.58
SMH G03-051 SMH G03-056 42 225.7 0.182 0.57
SMH G03-056 SMH G03-055 42 366.8 0.139 0.57
SMH G03-055 SMH G03-054 42 314.6 0.137 0.56
SMH G03-054 SMH F02-004 42 383.5 0.143 0.54
SMH F02-004 SMH F02-003 42 356.9 0.28 0.63
SMH F02-003 SMH F02-002 42 377 0.034 0.62
SMH F02-002 SMH F02-055 42 382.2 0.249 0.48
SMH F02-055 SMH F02-056 72 119.7 0.05 0.42
SMH F02-056 SMH F02-057 72 328.8 0.052 0.42
SMH F02-057 SMH G02-001 72 292.3 0.048 0.42
SMH G02-001 SMH G02-002 72 268.7 0.052 0.42
SMH G02-002 SMH F02-058 72 499.6 0.05 0.41
SMH F02-058 SMH F02-059 72 279.8 0.068 0.42
SMH F02-059 SMH F02-060 72 239.6 0.05 0.42
SMH F02-060 SMH F02-061 72 349.3 0.049 0.42
SMH F02-061 SMH F02-062 72 329.3 0.052 0.42
SMH F02-062 SMH F02-063 72 328.7 0.052 0.42

TLA Engineering and Planning, Inc. 13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
ADDENDUM TO THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH #2019080418, CERTIFIED ON AUGUST 5, 2020) AND

CHECKLIST DOCUMENT
Project Title/File Number: NCRSP PCL 42A – Shea Center Apartments Rezone/PL21- 0307
Project Location: The Project is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels totaling approximately 19.50 acres located at 540, 556, 564, 572, and 580 Gibson Drive. The Project site is within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) area. The site is bordered by SR 65 on the north, Gibson Drive on the south, an office complex on the east, and an apart ment complex on the west.

The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional (BP) and a zoning designation of Business
Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA-NC).

Project Description: The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the North Central Roseville
Specific Plan (NCRSP) to modify the land use designation from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR); a Rezone from Business Professional/Spe cial Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA -NC) to Multi -Family Housing/Special Area North Central Ros eville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC) to allow the development of the site with up to 360 multi-family dwelling units; and a Tentative Subdivision Map to merge five parcels . In addition, the project includes a Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC to reflect the change in land use and housing units.

Project Applicant: Brad Shirhall, TLA Engineering and Planning Property Owner: Roseville Land Holdings, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Escarlet Mar, 916-774-5247
An addendum to a previously certified environmental impact report may b e prepared for a project if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report ( EIR) have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15164). The conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR are listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which is based on Public Resources Code section 21166.

Similarly, for later activities implementing a previously adopted plan or program, a lead agency can rely on the EIR prepared for that plan or program if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 2 of 69 ends

would be required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2).) In such a case, the agency can approve the activities as being with in the scope of the project covered by the previously prepared EIR and no new environmental document is required. (Id.) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document that the environmental effects of those activities are within the scope of the program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4).) Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15168, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate tha t none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the certified environmental impact report (EIR) for the 2035 General Plan (State Clearing Housing Number 2019080418), including addendums thereto, adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but c an be included in or attached to the adopted or certified environmental document for consideration by the hearing body.

Similarly, a checklist prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 need not be circulated for public review. This Addendum/Checklist (called Addendum throughout the remainder of this document) analyzes the environmental effects of the Project, with particular focus on those aspects of the Project, its circumstances, or its environmental impacts that require additional discussion.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 3 of 69 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 5

Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 13
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 15
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 16
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 22
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 27
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 32
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 32
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 36
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 39
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 42
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 45
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 46
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 47
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 50
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 51
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 53
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 54
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 59
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 63
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 65
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 67

Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 69

Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 69

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 4 of 69 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The Project is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels totaling approximately 19.50 acres located at 540, 556, 564, 572, and 580 Gibson Drive (see Figure 1). The Project site is within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) area. The site is bordered by SR 65 on the north, Gibson Drive on the south, an office complex on the east, and an apartment complex on the west. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional (BP) and a zoning designation of Business Professional/Special Area North Central R oseville Specific Plan (BP/SA-NC).

Figure 1: Project Location
Background
The Project site is within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) area. The NCRSP encompasses approximately 2,330 acres and is situated generally between State Route (SR) 65 to the north, Washington Boulevard to the west, Diamond Oaks Golf Course to the south, and Interstate 80 to the east. The NCRSP was adopted on July 5, 1990 , by the City Council. An Environmental Impact Report was certified with the NCRSP (State Clearinghouse Number 88053010), which examined the impacts of the NCRSP buildout.

Environmental Setting
The project site is comprised of five (5) individual parcels, the parcels create an irregular shaped lot. The site is undeveloped with the exception of frontage and landscape improvements along Gibson Drive. Frontage improvements consist of sidewalk, curb and gutter, street trees, and gro undcover. The site was previously graded and disturbed. At one time, the site was used to stockpile spoils from adjacent development parcels.

Vegetation on the site is sparse with few small trees and shrubs on the property. Topography of the site is sloped upwards. Several grade changes occur throughout the site. A single gravel driveway is located on the west portion of the site. Stockpile of rocks is still evident on the site. Much of the site ’s surface has been disturbed Gibson Dr.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 5 of 69 ends

throughout the years, with evidence of pedestrians noticeable by the discoloration of the ground in certain areas of the site, specifically closest to the bikeway and pedestrian path located northwest of the project site.

The site is adjacent to State Route 65 to the north, Business Professional uses to the east, and multi -family residential uses to the south across Gibson Drive and to the west. Table 1 below identifies the land use designation and uses of the site and surrounding properties.

Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site BP/SA-NC BP Vacant
North - - State Route 65
South R3 HDR Condominiums
East BP/SA-NC BP Office complex
West R3 HDR Apartment complex

Proposed Project
The conceptual site plan shows merger of the five (5) existing lots to allow the development of an up to 360 multi- family dwelling unit Project with landscaping, lighting, and parking improvements. In addition to the site improvements, the conceptual site plan shows several on -site outdoor play and activity areas located on t he southern portion of the Project site, which will be shielded from State Highway 65 through the apartment buildings and setback. The conceptual site plan shows an on-site water quality treatment and detention features.

Entitlements
The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) to modify the land use designation from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR); a Rezone from Business Professional/Special Are a North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA-NC) to Multi -Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA -NC); and a Tentative Subdivision Map to merge the five parcels into a single parcel . In addition, the project includes a Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC to provide certainty for the City of Roseville and the project proponent. The list of entitlements are listed below:

1. General Plan Amendment

2. Specific Plan Amendment to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan

3. Rezone from Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (BP/SA-NC) to Multi- Family Housing/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan (R3/SA-NC)

4. Tentative Subdivision Map

5. Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum tiers from the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) and the 2021 Housing Element Addendum (HE Addendum) (combined, the GP EIR and HE Addendum), which analyzed the impacts of full buildout of the City’s General Plan land uses and implementation of its policies consistent with the General Plan and the 2021 Housing Element . The GP EIR is available for review on the City ’s website at

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 6 of 69 ends

https://www.roseville.ca.us/generalplan and the HE Addendum is available at www.roseville.ca.us/housingelement. The GP EIR evaluated the following topical sections, as numbered below:

Chapter 4.0. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis • Section 4.1. Land Use and Agriculture
• Section 4.2. Population, Employment, and Housing
• Section 4.3. Transportation
• Section 4.4. Air Quality
• Section 4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 4.6. Noise and Vibration
• Section 4.7. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources • Section 4.8. Biological Resources
• Section 4.9. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.10. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire • Section 4.11. Public Services and Recreation
• Section 4.12. Utilities and Service Systems
• Section 4.13. Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.14. Aesthetics
• Section 4.15. Energy
The HE Addendum evaluated the same impact areas, but was formatted in the same analysis order as the CEQA Guidelines Initial Study Checklist, in which impacts are evaluated by topic area in alphabetical order. For each impact topic and question, the HE Addendum listed the location (page number) where that topic was addressed in the GP EIR and the disposition of the impact. This Addendum follows the same format. The area analyzed in the GP EIR and HE Addendum included all areas within the City limits and those areas that are within the City’s Sphere of Infl uence, referred to throughout as the Planning Area . For consistency with previous documentation, in this Addendum the Planning Area will continue to refer to the area assessed within the GP EIR and HE Addendum, while “Project area” will refer to the much smaller subarea of the Planning Area affected by the proposed Project.

The GP EIR included a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of City buildout compared to baseline physical conditions and conservatively assumed that developable sites would be fully developed, rather than developing at average intensities . As of 2019 GP EIR baseline conditions, the City had approximately 21,000 units of residential development capacity before reaching buildout conditions, a figure which had dropped to approximately 19,000 units at the time of the HE Addendum, and which is currently estimated as 18,000 units.

However, because of the conservative development assumptions within the GP EIR, the evaluation included the addition of between 20,000 and 25,000 units from existing conditions to buildout conditions, which is up to 4,000 units more than the City’s buildout projections. A range was used in order to provide flexibility for future projects which could affect City buildout, ensuring that some future project changes could still fall within the scope of the GP EIR. The HE Addendum evaluated the addition of approximately 1,500 new high density units1 to the City’s projected buildout total as part of the Housing Element Rezone Program (Rezone Program), leaving 2,500 units

1 The Rezone Program provided capacity for 2,086 “lower income” units. This is not equivalent to adding 2,086 new units to the City’s cumulative buildout conditions. For Housing Element planning, density is used as a proxy for affordability; high density residential units at densities of 23 units per acre or greater are counted as “lower income.” One of the Rezone Program strategies includes increasing the density of existing planned high density properties which are currently planned for densities below 23 units per acre. So a site planned for 200 units at 20 units per acre would have zero “lower income” units, but increasing the density of the site to 30 units per acre would move all of the units into the “lower income ” category, thereby adding 300 lower income units while only adding 100 new units to buildout. The HE Addendum found the Rezone Program would add buildout capacity for 1,563 high density residential units.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 7 of 69 ends

of GP EIR buildout capacity. This total remained w ell within the range of development analyzed within the GP EIR. The HE Addendum indicated that the purpose and scope of the Addendum w as focused on the way in which the Housing Element changed the mix of uses, rather than the use totals, by increasing residential density in certain areas and removing non-residential capacity.

This Addendum is focused in the same manner as the HE Addendum. The Project is within the scope of General Plan buildout and is consistent with and within scope of the Rezone Program. The Rezone Program included an “Opportunity Sites” strategy, which estimated that 600 units of additional capacity would be provided through the conversion of vacant non-residential sites to multifamily, High Density Residential sites. Housing Element page X-202 includes a detailed description of the Opportunity Sites strategy, inc luding a map of potential sites (see Housing Element Figure X-36, below). The proposed Project site is specifically identified on the map as an opportunity site.

The Housing Element was required by law to demonstrate a “realistic capacity,” which is a conservative amount of development ca pacity determined to be realistic based on market conditions, site constrain ts, and other factors. This analysis provides a conservative assumption, and is not a limit on the number of units which could be accommodated. T he Rezone Program states that it “ conservatively assumed” that 10 acres of the Shea property would be developed with 300 multifamily residential units and the remaining 9.5 acres would be developed with office and business professional uses consistent with the current land use designation. The development potential used in the GP EIR and HE Addendum is based on the average Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

The Business Professional land use designation has an average FAR of 0.30, and therefore the 9.5 acres of Business Professional land was assumed to have the potential to support approximately 124,000 square feet of office uses.

The proposed Project includes up to 360 units of multifamily residential and no office uses, while the HE Addendum included 300 units plus 124,000 square feet of office uses. The proposed Project increases the Project Site

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 8 of 69 ends

potential residential development by 60 units, but removes 124,000 square feet of potential office uses, resulting in a net decrease of development intensity compared to previous analyses. Therefore, the proposed Project falls within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis. The GP EIR and HE Addendum focused on program-level, citywide, and cumulative impacts. Th e Project falls within the scope of these analyses, and therefore this Addendum focuses on impacts particular to the site and the specific Project circumstances.

The geographic scope of the environmental setting relevant to a project’s impacts varies depending on the issue topic. For example, the geographic scope of the environmental setting for air quality impacts related to ozone is the relevant air basin because this is the extent of the impacts’ effects, whereas the geographic scope of the environmental setting for greenhouse gas emissions is global. Other impacts have more localized effects. For example, with impacts tied to construction, such as archeology and groundborne vibration from construction, the environmental setting is typically defined by the geographic scope of the construction area and its immediate surroundings.

The proposed Project does not facilitate or include construction within areas that had not previously been anticipated for construction within the GP EIR and HE Addendum. Therefore, the Project does not include any changes which would affect the GP EIR analyses related to the following categories:
• Section 4.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources • Section 4.8. Biological Resources
• Section 4.9. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.10. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire • Section 4.13. Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.14. Aesthetics
This Addendum provides a summary of the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis and its basis for determining impacts for each of the above topical sections, to clearly show that the Project does not change these impact evaluations.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable:
 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts
 Air Quality – Construction
 Air Quality – Operational
 Air Quality – Pollutant Concentrations
 Greenhouse Gases
 Noise and Vibration (short-term and long-term)
 Historical Resources
 Archeological Resources
 Disturbance of Human Remains
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Construction of Utilities (indirect impacts)
 Aesthetics
 Light and Glare
All of the above impacts were also found to be significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts, along with the following:
 Biological Resources – Special-status plants, riparian habitat/sensitive natural communities, or wetlands and other waters

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 9 of 69 ends

 Biological Resources – Special-status wildlife species and habitats In order to assess the citywide impacts of changing the location and intensity of residential uses consistent with the Rezone Program, the HE Addendum included an updated citywide traffic impact study and VMT analysis.

Analysis topics which use this information, including Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Transportation, were updated based on the updated citywide study. The updated analyses found the Housing Element would actually reduce impacts compared to the analyses of the GP EIR. The HE Addendum found that analyses related to Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ; Biological Resources; Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources; Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Aesthetics would generally be unchanged by the Housing Element. The HE Addendum found that the Housing Element would not result in any new or substantially increased impacts compared to the GP EIR analysis.

The analyses in this Addendum rely on the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate. The Project implements a portion of the Housing Element Rezone Program, and is within the buildout range described within the GP EIR and HE Addendum and within the same development footprint. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to change impacts or the general effects of urban development.

PURPOSE AND USE OF ADDENDUM
The adopted Rezone Program Opportunity Sites strategy was assumed to provide 600 high density residential units, with additional units provided through an infill strategy; commercial-to-residential rezone strategy; and increases in allowed density on existing, vacant multifamily sites. The capacity values for each strategy are explicitly described as estimates, with the Rezone Program further stating that the strategies wou ld be implemented together or in part in order to achieve the total Rezone Program capacity.

The Housing Element did not approve any housing projects or land use amendments; it was a policy -level document establishing the framework for future actions. The HE Addendum stated:

After the 2021 Housing Element is adopted the City would begin identifying sites and taking specific land use actions, at which time an environmental review process will be needed to determine the physical effects which would resul t from those actions. To streamline that future environmental review, this Addendum evaluates the physical effects of implementing the rezone program to the extent reasonable and practicable, based on the Project description above.

The Addendum for the proposed Project is being prepared consistent with the above statement. As described, the Project includes a proposal to change the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation and zoning district of the site from Business Professional and Business Professional/Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan to, respectively, High Density Residential and Multifamily Residential (R3) /Special Area North Central Roseville Specific Plan . Development of the entire site was assumed within the GP EIR and HE Addendum, because it had an urban land use designation, and therefore the Project does not increase the physical development footprint compared to what was analyzed in the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and/or third-tier documents.

According to Section 15152(f)(3), significant effects identified in a first-tier EIR have been adequately addressed, for purposes of later approvals, if the lead agency determines that such effects have been either:

A) “mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior [EIR] and findings adopted in connection with that prior [EIR]”; or
B) “examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR] to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.”
The GP EIR and HE Addendum form a program EIR that helps determine the need for subsequent environmental documentation, as well as dictates the scope of project-level CEQA review. According to Section 15168(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing future environmental documents on later activities in the program. A program EIR can:
1) “Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects.
2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. 3) Focus an EIR on a later activity to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before.”
Before preparing any additional environmental review, however, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that lead agencies should first determine whether any of the conditions listed in Section 15162 have been met.

Section 15162 prohibits a lead agency from preparing a subsequent EIR unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 11 of 69 ends

 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;  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
 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 as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
o 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 o 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.

If none of the conditions in Section 15162 have been met, then no new environmental review is required, and the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2).) Nevertheless, a lead agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity that led it to conclude no additional environmental review is required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4).) This Addendum is the recommended written checklist for the Project. It also acts as an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

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

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 12 of 69 ends

and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals, or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified o r adopted is available and requires an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects o f the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigatio n measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the proje ct proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative . If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Mitigation Measures Implemented or Addressing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. In any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time , the response will include the mitigation measure number. If “none” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or has already been implemented.

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

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

CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
EIR 4.14-18 and
Addendum page
15 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
EIR 4.14-18 and
Addendum page
15 No No No None
c. In non -urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict w ith applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
EIR 4.14-19 and
Addendum page
15 No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
EIR 4.14-24 and
Addendum page
15 No No No None
Discussion: Aesthetics and visual resources are subjective by nature, and therefore the extent of visual impact s associated with adoption and implementation of development evaluated at a program level is difficult to quantify. The GP EIR analysis was conducted qualit atively, assessing the potential implications of full buildout of the Planning Area.

There are no designated or eligible state scenic highways within or near the Planning Area, nor is the Planning Area visible from such a highway, so the GP EIR concluded there were no impacts with respect to this topic (GP EIR page 4.14 -18). This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

Impacts related to substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista were found to be less than significant (GP EIR page 4.14 -18) because there are no scenic vistas in the Planning Area. This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

Impacts related to, in a non-urbanized area, substantially degrading the visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, were found to be significant (GP EIR page

4.14-19). The significance determination was driven by the impacts to non-urbanized areas, where buildout of the Planning Area will convert large areas of open, undeveloped land to urban uses. This is unrelated to the Project area, which occurs in an urbanized area.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 14 of 69 ends

In an urbanized area, the criteria for evaluation is whether a project will conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The GP EIR discusses the effects of infill and redevelopment at length, acknowledging that new development in infill settings may result in some buildings that are taller or of a greater scale than the current development in the local neighborhood. However, the analysis indicates that new development will be required to comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, General Plan policies, and as applicable with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and that these are intended to foster development which is compatible and com plementary with the existing development. Furthermore, the GP EIR notes that allowing for greater density and intensity can improve the character of neighborhood centers and corridors, th at taller or larger buildings do not necessarily constitute a visual impact, and that adding uses and density typically improves visual quality by developing vacant or underused properties and improving maintenance of existing structures and yards.

The HE Addendum discussed the infill aspects of the Rezone Program, which includes the Project site. The Project site is located within an urban infill area of the City surrounded by existing urban uses. The proposed Project land use amendment and rezoning would be consistent with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project is designed to comply with such regulations, including the develo pment standards in the R3/SA-NC zone.

Similarly to impacts related to visual quality, the GP EIR and HE Addendum were found to be significant (GP EIR page 4.14-24), because buildout of the General Plan would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting in less developed areas on the edge of the urban portions of the City, where there is low existing ambient nighttime lighting . The Project involves nighttime lighting to provide for the security and safety of Project users.

However, the Project is already located within an urbanized setting with many existing lighting sources from the office complex to the east and the condominiums to the west. Lighting will be conditioned to comply with City standards (i.e. Community Design Guidelines) to limit the height of light standards and to require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. The Project will not create a new source of substantial light. None of the Project elements are highly reflective, and thus the Project will not create a new source of glare.

Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum adequately describes the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant effects related to aesthetic impacts in urbanized areas.

Mitigation Measures: None.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 15 of 69 ends

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
EIR 4.1-17
and
Addendum
page 17
No No No None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
EIR 4.1-17
and
Addendum
page 17
No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
N/A No No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? N/A No No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
EIR 4.1-17
and
Addendum
page 17
No No No None
Discussion: The GP EIR indicates approximately 20 acres of Prime Farmland borders Pleasant Creek within Reason Farms. The remainder of the Planning Area is designated by the Placer County Important Farmland map as Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, Other Land, and Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of Conservation 2016). These designations are not considered Important Farmland under CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21060.1 and 21095 and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). The areas of Prime Farmland with Reason Fa rms is

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 16 of 69 ends

not designated for conversion to urban land uses. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded buildout of the General Plan would not convert Important Farmland to nonagricultural uses and no impact would occur. This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project site, which is not planned for agricultural use and does not contain any type of farmland.

The Planning Area is not zoned for agricultural uses and no parcels are under Williamson Act contracts (Placer County 2020). Therefore, the GP EIR concluded buildout of the General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project site, which is zoned for office use.

The Planning Area does not contain any forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as def ined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govern ment Code section 51104(g)), and therefore there are no impacts related to forest land. This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

Mitigation Measures: None.

III. Air Quality

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.4-29 and
Addendum
page 18
No No No MM 4.4-2a and MM 4.4-2b
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
EIR 4.4-36
and
Addendum
page 18
No No No MM 4.4-3
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
EIR 4.4-49
and
Addendum
page 18
No No No MM 4.4-5

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 17 of 69 ends

Discussion: The City of Roseville, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is within the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non -Attainment Area. Under the Clean Air Act, Placer County has been designated a "serious non - attainment" area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, “non-attainment” for the state ozone standard, and a "non-attainment" area for the federal and state PM 10 standard (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). Within Placer County, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated.

The GP EIR evaluated construction-related activities, which would result in temporary emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., PM 10, PM2.5, CO) and ozone precursors (e.g., ROG and NOX) from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing); exhaust emissions from use of off-road equipment, material delivery, and construction worker commutes; building construction; asphalt paving; and application of architectural coatings. The GP EIR also evaluated activities associated with the operation of General Plan land uses, which would generate criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions from mobile, energy, and area sources . The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate emissions resulting from both construction-related activities and operational activities. The Project also falls within the scope of the units evaluated by the GP EIR and HE Addendum. Further, the HE Addendum traffic model considered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) project as part of the existing conditions, and assumed additional square feet of industrial capacity on the balance of the original Blue Oaks Commerce Center site. The Project is within the assumed cumulative analysis and therefore, would not result in a change to the construction-related analysis in the GP EIR, which concluded that citywide emissions would exceed the adopted Placer County Air Pollution Control District significance thresholds, and that even after application of mitigation these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This citywide analysis remains appropriate and applicable to the Project.

Note that this evaluation considered the combined effects of development activities occurring concurrently across the City; individual projects may not, by themselves, result in significant impacts. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Manage ment District (SMAQMD) CEQA Handbook (page 3-4) indicates that an individual project on a vacant site generally needs to involve 35 or more acres to exceed the construction -related significance threshold. The Project site is approximately 19.50-acres in size.

For operational emissions, the HE Addendum evaluation noted that the Housing Element did not change the total units analyzed but did change the location and density of uses, which can have an effect on operational emissions related to transportation. An updated analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was prepared for the Housing Element; the details and findings of this VMT analysis were discussed in greater detail in the Transportation section of the HE Addendum. To summarize, the updated analysis found the Housing Element had a beneficial effect on VMT generation. The updated analysis found existing conditions (2020) had an average citywide VMT of 15.7 VMT/resident and cumulative conditions (2035) have an average citywide VMT of 14.7 VMT/resident. This was an increase of baseline (existing conditions) VMT, which the GP EIR found to be 15.1 VMT/resident, but is a decrease of cumulative conditions VMT, which the GP EIR found to be 15.5 VMT/resident (with transportation facilities constrained) or 14.9 VMT/resident (with transportation facilities unconstrained). The HE Addendum found that operational criteria pollutant emissions would be decreased compared to the analysis of the GP EIR, because it reduced citywide VMT. The VMT reductions occurred because higher densities generally result in lower per -person vehicle miles traveled, especially in areas of the City which have low VMT rates due to proximity to services, jobs, and transit, such as the Project area. The Project is within the area of the City which generates low VMT per-person in the City, and therefore would also be expected to have a beneficial impact on per person VMT generation.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 18 of 69 ends

Given that the Project will reduce citywide VMT, it will also reduce all criteria pollutant emissions associated with transportation. The GP EIR and HE Addendum found that emissions related to operation were significant and unavoidable, because the application of mitigation was not sufficient to bring emissions below the significance thresholds. This conclusion remains adequate and is applicable to this Project. However, this is based on the citywide emissions; individual projects may not exceed the significance thresholds.

For substantial pollutant concentrations, the GP EIR and HE Addendum found construction and operation of the General Plan would generate localized air pollutant emissions that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors. Construction activities would generate diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions. Existing regulations and policies, as well as revised policies were found to reduce potential exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, but impacts related to diesel particulates were found to be significant and unavoidable. The Project would not change the location or extent of construction activities, so would result in no change to this analysis. This evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

Buildout of the General Plan would also contribute vehicles to local inter sections that could cause a CO hotspot (i.e., exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standard). However, due to requirements for cleaner vehicle emissions, proposed land use and transportation goals and policies, and use of intelligent transportation system equipment, the GP EIR concluded the General Plan’s land uses would not contribute substantial vehicle volumes to existing or future intersections that could cause a CO hotspot. Existing regulations and policies, as well as revised policies were found to reduce potential exposure to subst antial pollutant concentrations related to CO hotspots to a less than significant level. The HE Addendum included an updated Level of Service analysis (see the Transportation section of this Addendum) which found that the Housing Element would not change trip distribution in a manner that would cause the City’s Level of Service policy to be exceeded, nor would it contribute significant trips to intersections already operating at acceptable levels. Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis related to CO hotspots remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

For other emissions, the GP EIR found that buildout of the General Plan could involve actions which would expose people to objectionable odors.

Construction-related activities would generate odors from the use of diesel-powered equipment and from paving and architectural coating activities.

However, these odorous emissions would be temporary and disperse rapidly with distance from the source; therefore, cons truction-generated odors would not result in the frequent exposure of receptors to objectionable odor emissions. Future land uses could result in the operation of new land use that generates objectionable odors or the siting of sensitive receptors in prox imity to existing odor-generating land uses within the Planning Area. Therefore, development under the General Plan could result in the exposure of receptors to objectionable odor emissions. Because buffer distances and implementation of specific technology- and design-based measures cannot be known at this time, it was conservatively assumed that sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial odor-generating emissions, and the GP EIR found impacts to be significant and unavoidable after the applicat ion of mitigation. The HE Addendum indicated the Housing Element does not change the location and extent of urban development, and though it includes the potential placement of residential uses in locations which are currently designated for commercial uses, none are located in areas which are exposed to significant odor sources. This remains true of the Project. The Project area was evaluated using the SMAQMD odor screening methodology, and it was found that there were no significant odor sources that would affect the Project. As a housing project, the Project also would not create other emissions, such as odor , that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Therefore the GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluation remains adequate and is applicable to this Project.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 19 of 69 ends

Mitigation Measures: All of the mitigation measures below were effectuated through inclusion in the City’s 2035 General Plan Appendix A:

Implementation Measures, but are included here for reference.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Projects that could have a potentially significant effect, as demonstrated by exceedance of the PCAPCD-recommended thresholds of significance, shall incorporate applicable PCAPCD-recommended standard operational mitigation measures, as listed below or as they may be updated in the future, or those design features determined by the City to be as effective:
► Wood burning or pellet stoves shall not be permitted. Natural gas or propane fired fireplaces shall be clearly delineated on plans submitted to obtain building permits.
► Where natural gas is available, gas outlets shall be provided in residential backyards for use with outdoor cooking appliances such as g as barbeques.
► Electrical outlets should be installed on the exterior walls of both the front and back of residences to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment.
► All newly constructed residential buildings including one- and two-family dwellings, townhomes, and multi-family units in low-rise and high-rise residential buildings shall comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). ► Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall include the required distribution of educational information on how homeow ners can increase energy efficiency and conservation in their new homes. The information shall be delivered as part of a “move -in” packet prior to occupancy of the residence.
► Streets should be designed to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops. ► Site design shall maximize access to transit, to accommodate bus travel, and to provide lighted shelters at transit access points. ► A pedestrian access network shall link complementary land uses. ► Provide bicycle storage to promote bicycling.
► Vanpool parking only spaces and preferential parking for carpools should be required for employment-generating uses. ► Consider using concrete or other non-polluting materials for paving parking lots instead of asphalt.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 20 of 69 ends

► Landscaping should be designed to eventually shade buildings and parking lots.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
If, following implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, a project’s operational emissions would still exceed PCAPCD-recommended thresholds of significance, the City would require the project to offset remaining project emissions in excess of thresholds by establishing off-site mitigation or participation in PCAPCD’s Off-site Mitigation Program.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
► The City shall require, as part of plans for development within the Planning Area, the implementation of ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective guidance concerning land use compatibility and recommended setback distances with regard to sources of TAC emissions and sensitive land uses, or related guidance as it may be updated in the future. ► As an alternative to these buffer distances, proposed sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations may provide a site -specific health risk assessment, using methods consistent with applicable guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with mitigation, if necessary, to demonstrate compliance with applicable PCAPCD-recommended health risk thresholds.

When health risk impacts exceed PCAPCD-recommended thresholds, feasible on-site mitigation measures to reduce TAC exposure shall be implemented to mitigate health risk impacts below PCAPCD-recommended thresholds. On-site measures could include but are not limited to providing enhanced filtration systems (e.g., MERV 13 or greater) for near-by sensitive receptor buildings, use of solid barriers to pollution, and vegetation to reduce pollutant concentrations, changes to the TAC emission source’s operation (e.g. technology or management practices that reduce harmful emissions at the Rail Yard), and positioning of exhaust and intake for ventilation systems to minimize exposure, among others. ► The City shall require, as part of development of land uses associated with sensitive receptors within 500 feet of high-volume roadways (defined as roadways carrying an average of 100,000 or more vehicles per day), the incorporation of feasible design measures to reduce exposure by sensitive receptors of substantial emissions of TACs from nearby high -volume roadways and operation of the Roseville Rail Yard. Design measures shall include recommended strategies from the ARB Technical Advisory, as listed below or as they may be updated in the future, or those design features determined by the City to be as effective:

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 21 of 69 ends

• Design that promotes air flow and pollutant dispersion along street corridors, including the use of wider sidewa lks, bicycle lanes, and dedicated transit lanes, which create space for better air flow and pollutant dispersion along with increasing active transportation and mode shift;
• Installation of solid barriers, particularly in the downwind direction. Note that consideration of this strategy should also weigh the negative effect of dividing neighborhoods and obscuring sightlines. • Installation of vegetation for pollutant dispersion; maximum benefit of this strategy is typically seen when combined with solid barriers. • Installation of indoor high-efficiency filtration systems and devices to remove pollutants from the air. If this strategy is selected, a plan for ongoing operation and maintenance of the systems must also be developed to ensure long-term efficiency is achieved as intended by the system.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
All new Specific Plans and proposed amendments to Specific Plans shall be evaluated for odor impacts using the SMAQMD -recommended screening distances for odor sources, or the most current adopted or recommended version. If the minimum buffer distance is not feasible, as an alternative to these buffer distances, technology- and design-based measures shall be evaluated as part of the Specific Plan design guidelines to minimize, contain, or prevent the generation of odor -causing emissions and the dispersion of such emissions to nearby sensitive receptors. For example, in the case of siting odor-producing sources, activities could be maintained within an enclosed space and appropriate air filtration systems could be implemented to reduce odors expelled from the building. For developments that would host sensitive receptors, design would include air site layout, landscaping, indoor air filtration systems, or other appropriate measures to minimize exposure of proposed sensitive receptors to odors.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 22 of 69 ends

IV. Biological Resources

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.8-64 (wildlife),
and Addendum
page 23
No No No MM 4.8-1 and 4.8-2
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
EIR 4.8-70 and
Addendum page 23 No No No MM 4.8-1, 4.8-2, and MM 4.8-3 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
EIR 4.8-73 and
Addendum page 23 No No No MM 4.8-1, 4.8-2, MM 4.8-3, and MM 4.8-4
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
EIR 4.8-76 and
Addendum page 23 No No No MM 4.8-1, 4.8-2, MM 4.8-3, and MM 4.8-4
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
EIR 4.8-79 and
Addendum page 23 No No No None

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 23 of 69 ends

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
EIR 4.8-80 and
Addendum page 23 No No No None
Discussion: The biological resources information presented in the GP EIR was based on review of the following sources: previous studies conducted for the West Roseville, Sierra Vista, Creekview, and Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Areas and associated EIRs; a comment letter received from CDFW in response to the NOP; biological resource databases, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Servi ce (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC), USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), and th e California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; aerial photography interpretation; and the draft Western Placer C ounty Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP).

Impacts related to the loss and degradation of spec ial-status plants and their habitats were found to be potentially significant (GP EIR page 4.8 - 60) as were impacts to special -status wildlife and their habitats (GP EIR page 4.8 -64), impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities (GP EI R page 4.8 -70), impacts to protected wetlands and other waters (GP EIR page 4.8 -73), and impacts to wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites (GP EIR page 4.8 -76) because buildout of the General Plan could result in direct removal or take of special -status species; modification or removal of sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, nursery sites, protected waters, and habitats sui table for special-status species; indirect effects to species or habitats that may result from construction-related runoff, sedimentation, erosion, and introduction of invasive weeds; and the introduction of new sources of noise and light. Implementation of mitigation, combined with General Plan poli cies and existing laws and regulations, were found to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, because new development would be required to identify, avoid, and preserve sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, nursery sites, protected waters, and habitats which may support special -status populations to the extent feasible, and compensate for the loss of these resources through preservation, compensation, or other appropriate measures in coordination with state and federal agencies. Furthermore, the City’s Specific Planning process has already resulted in the creation of connected open space corridors throughout the Planning Area which contain much of the sensitive habitat in the Planning Area.

Impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances protecting biological resources were found to be less than significant (GP EIR page 4. 8-79) because while buildout of the Planning Area would result in impacts to biological resources, all development would be subject to and consistent with the city’s ordinances and policies such as the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with local ordinances were found to be less than significant.

Impacts related to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved Conservation Plan were found to be less than significant because there are no adopted plans which apply to the Planning Area.

All of the analyses described above are based on the potential impacts of grading and general development within the Planning Area, and the HE Addendum noted that th e Housing Element neither changed the boundaries of the Planning Area nor the locations of potential grading and development within the Planning Area. Therefore, the GP EIR analyses of biological resources adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Housing Element.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 24 of 69 ends

The Project area is within a fully developed and urbanized location of the Planning Area, where significant impacts to biological resources would not be expected to occur. Further, as described in the environmental setting, the site vegetation is sparse with few small trees and shrubs on the site. The site was previously graded/disturbed, and no special status plants, riparian habitat/sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and loss of habitat and special status wildlife species have occurred or would occur on the site. The Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant biological effects and is within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: All of the mitigation measures below were effectuated through inclusion in the City’s 2035 General Plan Appendix A:

Implementation Measures, but are included here for reference.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure for Special-Status Plants and Habitat As appropriate to each individual project or Specific Plan, the following actions or those determined to be equally as effective by the City shall be implemented where there may be an adverse impact on special-status plants or habitat:
a. In conjunction with environmental review pursuant to CEQA, for projects that could directly affect special-status plants or habitat, the City shall require that resource field surveys, including special-status plant surveys, be submitted concurrent with development applications inventorying the type, quantity, and quality of existing open space resources and conditions. This requirement may be waived if determined by the City that the proposed project area is already sufficiently surveyed, is within an adopted specific plan area, or contains resources considered less than significant. b. The City and project proponents will identify feasible opportunities to preserve special-status plant species occurrences and sensitive habitats through design and planning.
c. If the City determines it is reasonable and feasible to do so, the City will require preservation of occupied special-status plant species habitat and sensitive habitat types as a condition of project approval. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, project proponents shall be required to mitigate all adverse effects in accordance with guidance from the appropriate state or federal agency charged with the protection of the subject species and habitat, including surveys conducted according to applicable standards and protocols, where necessary, implementation of impact minimization measures based on accepted standards and guidelines and best available science, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable loss of special-status plant species and sensitive habitats. d. If the project would result in take of state or federally listed species, the City will require project proponent/s to obtain take authorization from the USFWS and/or the CDFW, as appropriate, depending on species status, and comply with all conditions of the take authorization.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 25 of 69 ends

e. The City will require project proponents to develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan reflective of permit conditions required by State and/or federal regulatory agencies, to compensate for effects to or loss of special-status species and sensitive habitats. The mitigation and monitoring plan will describe in detail how impacts to special-status species or sensitive habitats shall be avoided or offset, including details on restoration and creation of habitat, compensation for the temporal loss of habitat, management and monitoring to avoid indirect habitat degradation (e.g., management of invasive plant species, maintenance of required hydrology), success criteria ensuring that habitat function goals and objectives are met and target special-status species cover and density parameters are established, performance standards to ensure success, and remedial actions if performance standards are not met.

The plan will include detailed information on the habitats present within the preservation and mitigation areas, the long-term management and monitoring of these habitats, legal protection for the preservation and mitigation areas (e.g., conservation easement, declaration of restrictions), and funding mechanism information (e.g., endowment). f. If available, purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank (i.e., approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the affected species or habitat) in Placer County, will be acceptable for compensatory mitigation for special-status species.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure for Special-Status Wildlife
If feasible, the City will require preservation of occupied special-status wildlife species habitat and sensitive habitat types as a condition of project approval. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, project proponents shall be required to mitigate all adverse effects in accordance with guidance from the appropriate state or federal agency charged with the protection of the subject species and habitat, including surveys conducted according to applicable standards and protocols, where necessary, implementation of impact minimization measures based on accepted standards and guidelines and best available science, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable loss of special- status wildlife species and sensitive habitats.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure for Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities If a proposed project would result in fill or alteration of a waterway or any body of water supporting riparian forest habitat, the City will require project proponent/s to notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement if determined necessary by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and comply with all conditions of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Measures for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities protection include, but are not limited to, avoid

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 26 of 69 ends

impacts by establishing a buffer zone between adjacent land uses and riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities; protect and preserve riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities to the extent feasible; and compensate for loss of riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities by creating, restoring, or preserving off-site habitat in coordination with the applicable resource agencies.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure for Wetlands and Other Waters
If a project would result in ground disturbance on sites containing waterways or other aquatic habitats, the City will require project proponent/s to complete a delineation of waters of the United States according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ methods, and to submit the completed delineation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination. If the project would result in fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States, the City will require project proponent/s to obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If the project involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, project applicants shall obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act. Project applicants shall be required to obtain all needed permits prior to project implementation, to abide by the conditions of the permits, including all mitigation requirements, and to implement all requirements of the permits in the timeframes required therein.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 27 of 69 ends

V. Cultural Resources

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historic resource pursuant to in
Section 15064.5?
EIR 4.9-30
and
Addendum
page 28
No No No MM 4.9-1a
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
EIR 4.9-33
and
Addendum
page 28
No No No MM 4.9-2a and 4.9-2b
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
EIR 4.9-37
and
Addendum
page 28
No No No MM 4.9-3 and 4.9-4
Discussion: In order to identify known and potential historical resources to determine whether any buildings, structures, objects, districts, or sites had been previously recorded or evaluated in the Planning Area for the GP EIR, Historic Property Data Files for Placer C ounty were examined, along with the current and previous General Plan, various Specific Plans and their environmental documents and technical appe ndices, and the City of Roseville Municipal Code. In addition to these standard sources of information, summar ies of Record Search results for selected specific plans and projects were also used. A similar process was used for archaeological resources, including the evaluation of stud ies completed for Specific Plans and other projects.

Impacts related to adverse changes to the significance of a historical resource were found to be significant, as were adverse changes in the significance of an archeological resource and adverse impacts related to the disturbance of human remains because the Planning Area is known to contain resources and is also sensitive for the undiscovered presence of historic resources, archeological resources, and h uman remains.

Although the General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance contain goals and policies which require identification an d assessment of potential resources in advance of development, impacts to resources could nonetheless occur. Grading and site development within the Planning Area has the potential to impact undiscovered subsurface historic and archeological resources, as well as human remains – particularly remains which are interred outside of formal cemeteries. The GP included policy revisions to further strengthen protections and the GP EIR inc luded mitigation measures to address these impacts, but nonetheless impacts could still occur. Therefore impacts to historic resources, archeological resources, and human remains were found to remain significant and unavoidable.

The analyses described above are based on the potential impacts of grading and general development wi thin the Planning Area, and the HE Addendum noted that the Housing Element neither changed the boundaries of the Planning Area nor the locations of potential grading and

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 28 of 69 ends

development within the Planning Area. Therefore, the GP EIR analyses of cultural resources adequately and appropriately described the potential impacts of the Housing Element. The mitigation measures included for the GP EIR and HE Addendum apply to the Project, and were implemented as part of the Project. The City undertook tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18, which is discussed in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of this Addendum. With regard to historical resources, there are no structures or other evidence of historical resources on the site an d there are no records of such resources. There are no structures on the City’s Master List or on the National Historic Register in the Project area. Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project is consistent with the cultural resources policies of the General Plan.

In addition, the Project would need to comply with state laws that prevent significant impacts to unanticipated discoveries o f human remains, including Health and Safety Code section 7050.5. The Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant effects and is within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: All of the mitigation measures below were effectuated through inclusion in the City’s 2035 General Plan Appendix A:

Implementation Measures, but are included here for reference. As noted in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project will be subject to measures that implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9 -2 through 4.9 -4. The Project site does not contain historic resources and therefore General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 is inapplicable.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a – The General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
As appropriate to each individual project or Specific Plan, the following actions or those determined to be equally as effective by the City shall be implemented where there may be an adverse impact on potential historical resources:
a. Consult the City’s Master List of Historical Resources Inventory and, as necessary, seek updated information from the North Central Information Center or other applicable data repositories to determine whether the project area has been surveyed, and whether historic built environment resources were identified.
b. If a survey of the property or the area in which the property is located has not been conducted, a qualified architectural historian shall conduct a study of the project area for the presence of historic built environment resources. c. If a study is required, it will evaluate the significance of built environment resources greater than 45 years in age that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. The study may include a field survey; background, archival and historic research; and consultation with local historical societies, museums or other interested parties; as necessary.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 29 of 69 ends

d. If necessary, the qualified architectural historian’s study will recommend appropriate protection or mitigative treatment, if any, and include recordation of identified built environment resources. Recommended treatment for historical resources identified in the report shall be implemented.
e. If no significant historic built environment resources are identified in the study or prior survey of the project area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, there is no adverse change to documented built environment historical resources and no further action is required.
f. If a significant built environment historical resource could be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, avoidance shall be considered the primary mitigation option. If avoidance is not feasible, then the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource, conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will reduce impacts to an acceptable level. If adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards cannot avoid materially altering in an adverse manner the physical characteristics or historic character of the surrounding environmental setting that contribute to a resource’s historic significance, additional mitigation may be required. g. If avoidance is not feasible and minimizing impacts through adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is not feasible, documentation is required using, as appropriate, Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and/or Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) guidelines before the property is potentially altered during project activities.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-2a – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Projects that could have significant adverse impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources shall be required to assess impacts and provide feasible mitigation. The following steps, or those determined to be equally as effective by the City, will be followed:
a. Request information from the California Native American Heritage Commission to obtain a review of the Sacred Lands File and a list of local Native American groups and individuals that may have specific knowledge of cultural resources in the area that could be affected by project implementation. Each Native American group and individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted to obtain any available information on cultural resources in the project area. Additional consultation with relevant tribal representatives may be appropriate, depending on the relative level of cultural sensitivity, as identified by Native American groups or individuals. b. Request updated information from the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (California State University, Sacramento) to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether archaeological resources were identified. In the event the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted or existing survey data is greater than five

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 30 of 69 ends

years old, the applicant will retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to assess the adequacy of the existing data (if any) and assess the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. If the survey did not meet current professional standards or regulatory guidelines, or relies on outdated information, a qualified archaeologist will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological resources.
c. If a survey is warranted, it will include all necessary background research, including that resulting from consulting with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes in addition to an archaeological pedestrian survey. Based on findings of the survey, additional technical studies may be required, such as geoarchaeological sensitivity analysis, or other analysis scaled according to the nature of the individual project. A report will document the results of the survey and provide appropriate management recommendations, and include recordation of identified archaeological resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports.
d. Management recommendations may include, but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites or archaeological monitoring at locations determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes to be sensitive for subsurface cultural resource deposits. The City will determine the need for tribal monitoring based upon the guidance provided in Volume I of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. e. Once approved by the City, provide the North Central Information Center with appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports for any resources identified. Any subsequent reports completed as a result of additional technical work will likewise be submitted to the Northcentral Information Center. f. If no archeological resources, including those which are TCRs or are associated with a TCR, are identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, mitigation is complete as there would be no adverse change to documented archeological resources. The exception would be in the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological site inadvertently exposed during project implementation. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the discovery and provide management recommendations as necessary, in accordance with the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation Section 3.2.
g. When a project will impact a known archaeological site, including those determined to be a TCR, and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the archaeological site is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3), the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which could include preservation in place or data recovery, consistent with Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation Section 3.2.4.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 31 of 69 ends

h. If a site to be tested is prehistoric, the City should determine the need for tribal monitoring based upon the guidance provided in Volume I of the Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation Section 2.4.4. i. Appropriate mitigation may include curation of artifacts removed during subsurface testing, consistent with the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. j. If significant archaeological resources that meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources, including those determined by the City to be TCRs, are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation of impacts is preservation in place. If impacts cannot be avoided through project design, appropriate and feasible treatment measures are required, which may consist of, but are not limited to actions, such as data recovery excavations. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be required if the implementing agency determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources. Studies and reports resulting from the data recovery shall be deposited with the North Central Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as outlined in the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-2b – The General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Projects that could have significant adverse impacts to undiscovered, potentially significant archaeological resources and/or TCRs which may be discovered during construction shall be required to implement the Post-Review Discovery Procedures within Volume II Part C of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation, or those determined to be equally as effective by the City.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 – The General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation Projects that could have significant adverse impacts to human remains or potential human remains shall implement the applicable procedures and recommended mitigation within the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 32 of 69 ends

Mitigation Measure 4.9-4
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 (Projects that could have significant adverse impacts to human remains or potential human remains shall implement the applicable procedures and recommended mitigation within the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation).

VI. Energy

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
EIR 4.15-9 No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy inefficiency? EIR 4.15-18 No No No None Discussion: The GP EIR and HE Addendum analyzed energy impacts by assessing energy usage associated with the construction and operation of projects developed as part of buildout of the General Plan. Energy demand was calculated consistent with the greenh ouse gases (GHG) emissions modeling (see Greenhouse Gases section of this Addendum). The analysis found that fuel consumed by construction wo uld be temporary and would not represent a significant demand, and further concluded that there are no anticipated unusual characteristics of buildout that would necessitate the use of equipment that is less energy -efficient than for other comparable projects. For building energy use, energy efficiency requirements will become more stringent over time, as they have in the past, so new projects will be more efficient than existing projects of the same type in the Planning area. The conclusions of the GP EIR and HE Addendum remain appropriate to describe the Project, because the Project does not change the location or e xtent of construction, the units are within the scope of the buildout analysis, and multi-family residential is a typical building use that does not result in unusual energy demand characteristics. Further, as the HE Addendum recognizes, the City of Roseville needs housing units to comply with its regional housing needs assessment and address existing demand for residences in the city.

Accordingly, using energy resources to build and operate the Project and other units anticipated by the HE Addendum is necessary.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 33 of 69 ends

Transportation energy would be required in the form of fuel, and the average demand for fuel per resident will decrease over buildout conditions, because the transportation analysis shows that VMT per resident will decrease at buildout conditions compared to existing conditions (see the Transportation section of this Addendum). This remains true of the Project, which is located in a low-VMT area of the City.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum found all projects within the Planning Area would be required to comply with the California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code in effect at the time of building permit application, and would therefore not confli ct with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This would remain true for the Project.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum concluded that buildout would not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary project construction and operational energy use , and impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion and the supporting analysis remains appropriate and applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None.

VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

No No No None
i) Ruptures of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
EIR 4.7-27 and
Addendum
page 36
No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? EIR 4.7-28 and
Addendum
page 36
No No No None

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 34 of 69 ends

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
EIR 4.7-27 and
Addendum
page 36
No No No None
iv) Landslides? EIR 4.7-27 and
Addendum
page 36
No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? EIR 4.7-29 and Addendum
page 36
No No No None
c) Be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
EIR 4.7-31
and Addendum
page 36
No No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
EIR 4.7-31
and Addendum
page 36
No No No None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
EIR 4.7-27 and
Addendum
page 36
No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
EIR 4.7-32
and Addendum
page 36
No No No MM 4.7-4
Discussion: The analysis prepared for the GP EIR relied on published geologic literature and maps, NRCS soil survey data, and a records search performed at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). The information obtained from those sou rces was reviewed and summarized to present the existing conditions and to identify potential environmental impacts. The GP EIR indicated impacts due to surface fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides, or the use of septic systems did not require analysis because these risks were not evident (GP EIR page 4.7-27).

The Planning Area does not include fault traces, soils subject to liquefaction or landslide hazards, and new development is required to connect to sewer systems.

Impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking were found to be less than significant (GP EIR page 4.7-28) because the evidence indicates strong shaking is unlikely and implementation of existing General Plan Seismic and Geologic Hazards goals and policies, in combination with compliance with the geologic and seismic requirements in the California Building Code (which the City has adopted), and the City’s site-specific Design Review process (as set forth in the City’s Design Standards Section 2, General Requirements), would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to people or structures related to seismic shaking.

Impacts due to soil erosion were found to be less than significant (GP EIR page 4.7 -29) because compliance with existing stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations and implementation of policies in the existing General Plan and proposed General Plan Update would reduce the soil erosion impact by requiring applicants to implement BMPs based on the City’s Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction ,

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 35 of 69 ends

develop and i mplement a SWPPP, comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, comply with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, and comply with the avoidance and minimization measures contained in the Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan, all of which are specifically designed to minimize construction-related soil erosion and degradation of water quality to the maximum extent feasible.

Impacts due to unstable and expansive soils were found to be less than significant (GP EIR page 4.7-31) because implementation of General Plan Seismic and Geologic Hazards goals and policies and compliance with existing laws and regulations, including Section 111 (Grading) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards related to soil testing for earthwork and backfill, would address issues related to unstable and expansive soils by requiring new construction to prepare site-specific geotechnical reports to identify areas of unstable soil and shrink-swell potential, and to follow design specifications contained in the CBC and standard engineering practices to prevent adverse impacts associated with these limitations.

Impacts related to the damage or destruction of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features were found to be potentially significant (GP EIR page 4.7-32) because the Planning Area contains geologic formations known to be sensitive for paleontological resources and grading could damage these resources. As mitigation, General Plan Goal OS4.1 was revised and Policy OS4.11 was added to provide guidance and protection for paleontological resources. After mitigation impacts were found to be less than significant. The areas surrounding SR 65, including the Project site, contain geologic formations known to be sensitive for paleontological resources, as shown on the Paleontological Sensitivity Map included in the GP EIR. However, the areas surrounding the Project site have been developed and the Project site has been graded in the past, and no paleontological resources have been encountered during these activities. Therefore, the potential for the presence of subsurface paleontological resources on the Project site is low and mitigation is not required.

All of the analyses described above are based on the potential impacts of grading within the Planning Area, and the HE Addendum found the Housing Element neither changed the boundaries of the Planning Area nor the locations of potential grading within the Planning Area. This remains true of the Project. The Project will be required to comply with the Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction and other relevant City standards prior to the issuance of any building permits or grading plans pursu ant to existing City standard conditions of approval. Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of geology, soils, and paleontological resources adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant effects and is within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measure below was effectuated through inclusion in the City’s 2035 General Plan Appendix A:

Implementation Measures, but is included here for reference.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Paleontological Resources
Where there is potential for a significant impact to paleontological resources:

1. Consult the Paleontological Sensitivity Map.

ADDENDUM/CHECKLIST
December 20, 2022
Shea Center Apartments Rezone; File #PL21-0307

Page 36 of 69 ends

Roseville City CouncilFebruary 15, 2023

Roseville City Council
February 15, 2023