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

2. For projects located in geologic units that are not identified as paleontologically sensitive and which do not involve ground disturbance to a depth greater than 5 feet below the ground surface, no further actions related to paleontological resources shall be required.

3. For projects that would be located in paleontologically sensitive geologic units, or those that would be located in non-paleontologically sensitive surficial units but would involve ground disturbance to a depth greater than 5 feet, provide a site-specific analysis of the project’s potential to damage or destroy unique paleontological resources, and measures designed to protect unique paleontological resources, as needed and appropriate. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, construction worker personnel training, periodic monitoring during construction activities, stopping work within 50 feet of any fossil that is discovered, evaluation of the fossil by a qualified paleontologist, and proper recordation and curation of the specimen.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

5.13 MT CO2e per service population (a combination of residents and employees) and that this would be reduced slightly to 5.12 MT CO2e p er service population in cumulative buildout conditions. This value exceeds the significance thresholds for the years 2020, 203 5, and 2050 (5.07,

2.25, and 0.83 MT CO 2e per service population, respectively). The evaluation further found that mobile emissions from transportation sources

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

Page 37 of 69 ends

account for approximately 67% of citywide emissions and that emissions resulting from the operati on of buildings (energy) were the next -largest sector, at approximately 19% of citywide emissions.

The HE Addendum evaluated the impact of changing 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 are discussed in greater detail in the Transportation section of this Addendum. However, to summarize, the updated analysis found the Housing Element has a beneficial effect on VMT generation. The updated analysis found existing conditions (2020) have an average citywide VMT of 15.7 VMT/resident and cumulative conditions (2035) have an average citywide VMT of 14.7 VMT/resident. This is 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). Given that the Housing Element was found to reduce cumulative citywide VMT, it was also found to reduce transportation sector GHG emissions. The Project is located within the area of the City found to have low per-person VMT rate, where growth in the City would have the least impacts due to transportation-related GHG. In addition, the Project would meet Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, including providing solar. The GP EIR and HE Addendum found that GHG emissions were significant and unavoidable after the application of mitigation.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of GHG adequately and appropriately describes the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant effects and thus is within the scope of the GP EIR and HP Addendum.

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

Implementation Measures, but is included here for reference.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c. The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Area Sources
► The City shall utilize electric landscape maintenance equipment to the extent feasible on parks and public/quasi-public lands. ► The installation of wood-burning fireplaces or appliances in new development shall not be permitted.

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

Page 38 of 69 ends

Energy
► The City will pursue within existing and future City facilities and may partner with other public agencies and organizations to promote replacement of appliances and office equipment with energy-efficient models with a priority from highest to lowest in terms of typical GHG reductions, on: water heater, vending machine, copier, refrigerator, printer, dishwasher, water cooler, computer, and clothes washer. ► The City will pursue improvements to existing and future City facilities and may partner with other public agencies and organizations to implement comprehensive building efficiency improvements, inclusive of, but not limited to, implement lighting efficiency upgrades, improved building temperature controls, building air sealing, duct air sealing and duct replacement, upgrading and/or insulating water heaters, ensuring proper functioning and efficiency of heating and air conditioning systems, reducing heat loss through and around windows, installation of cool roofs, and implementing energy conservation education.
► The City will support education and outreach to promote rebates, incentives, and other programs (as they become available) which would promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and use available information on rebates used by consumers to determine where to focus education and outreach, including programs designed to promote electric appliances and replace natural gas appliances, and programs related to lighting.
► The City will promote the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM) program and similar programs that assist buyers in purchasing homes meeting energy-efficiency criteria. ► The City will partner with other agencies and organizations to expand the City’s urban forest to promote sequestration, but also with a focus on selection and placement that reduces the need for air conditioning and the urban heat island effect.

Land Use and Transportation
► The City will direct its own investments and review proposed development projects to reduce vehicular travel demand, promote non-vehicular travel, and facilitate local purchase and use of electric vehicles. ► The City will continue to direct its own investments and pursue outside funding for infrastructure and operational programs to promote ease and convenience of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel for daily trips. ► The City will integrate its land use and transportation planning and review and condition proposed projects to better situate residents in proximity to workplaces, goods and services, and recreational opportunities, making updates to implementing plans, such as the Capital Improvement Program, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Transportation Systems Management program, transportation impact fee program, and transit plans.
► The City will support applications for affordable housing funds from agencies that reward and incentivize good planning, such as infill housing and housing built close to jobs, transportation, and amenities.

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

Page 39 of 69 ends

► The City will partner with other agencies and proposed developments to expand bicycle parking and other facilities, pedestrian facilities and amenities, and electric vehicle charging stations, with a focus on daily destinations. ► The City will support a reduction of parking requirements for projects with a location, design, surrounding mix of uses, access to non- vehicular transportation facilities, and/or ongoing travel demand management programs that would reduce the need for vehicular trips.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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

Page 40 of 69 ends

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
EIR 4.10-19 and
Addendum page 42 No No No None
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
EIR 4.10-26 and
Addendum page 42 No No No None
g) Expose people or structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
EIR 4.10-27 and
Addendum page 42 No No No None
Discussion: The GP EIR analyses in this section considered the range and nature of foreseeable hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal resulting from implementation of the General Plan, and identified the primary ways that hazardous materials could expose indi viduals or the environment to health and safety risks.

The GP EIR included a preliminary review of environmental risk databases, but because the analysis is at the programmatic level it did not include sampling, site specific review, laboratory analysis, or inspec tion of buildings or site surfaces. Sites within the Planning Area with potential environmental hazards were identified based on information obtained from the Cortese List (including SWRCB’s GeoTracker database and DTSC’s EnviroStor database), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Public Map Viewer, and a review of California Important Farmlands mapped by the Department of Conservation. In addition, the Placer County Department of Environmental Heal th maintains lists of hazardous material sites, releases, and accident occurrences. The methodology for determining wildfire hazards included a review of aerial photographs, and a review of CAL FIRE’s fire hazard severity zone maps.

Impacts related to airport safety and noise hazards w ere found to be less than significant because the nearest airport is approximately 6.3 miles southwest of the Planning Area. This remains correct, and therefore the impacts of the Project are consistent with this conclusion.

Impacts related to the creatio n of significant hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal or possible release of hazardous materials from upset or accident conditions were found to be less than s ignificant because while population growth and new businesses in the Planning Area would increase the potential for exposure to impacts, implementation of General Plan policies combined with compliance with existing federal and state regulations would ensure impacts would not be substantial. The same conclusion was reached for impacts related to handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propo sed school . Regulations governing the transport, use, disposal, and handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, are detailed and stringent at both the federal and state level, and are developed and adopted to ensure that adverse health and safety impacts are prevented. In addition, the Planning Area does not contain any existing or planned industrial uses (those mos t likely to handle or use acutely hazardous materials) in proximity to an existing or proposed school.

Impacts related to public health hazards resulting from locating project development on a known hazardous materials site were found to be less than significant. Several sites within the City are listed on the state’s Cortese List of known hazardous materials sites, and there are approximately

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

Page 41 of 69 ends

70 known listed hazardous materials sites in the City, most of which have been remediated and closed. The largest hazardous materials site in Roseville is associated with the former Southern Pacific Railyard, which is now the Union Pacific Railyard (Railyard), where cleanup and mitigation for contamination is ongoing and may affect surrounding properties. As noted below, the Project site is not on the Cortese List.

The GP EIR indicated that most new development was not planned to occur on listed sites, but there were redevelopment and inf ill sites within areas with existing hazardous materials issues. For redevelopment or infill development areas with existing hazardous materials issues, General Plan goals and policies, in addition to application of current regulations, would not absolutely prevent exposure to hazards and hazardous materials, but would use existing f acility information to identify areas of hazardous materials use. In a programmatic analysis such as the GP EIR and HE Addendum site-specific review was not conducted, because the potential for impacts depends heavily on the exact nature and design of proposed construction, which could not be known . The GP EIR and HE Addendum indicated that while there is the potential for future exposure due to construction of infill and redevelopment sites, site-specific investigations would be required where applicable to address these conditions as part of project-level environmental review. This remains true of the Project.

Buildout of the General Plan would add additional traffic and residences requiring evacuation in case of an emergency. The GP EIR found implementation of General Plan policies was found to ensure conformance with local emergency-response programs and continued cooperation with emergency-response service providers. In addition, while buildout of the General Plan was found to have a potential to increase risk to fire for both people and property, by increasing the amount of structures in the Planning Area , implementation of General Plan policies and actions, along with existing regulations was found to ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss of injury involving fires. Impacts were found to be less than significant. The HE Addendum found that the Housing Element would not change the location or extent of uses in a manner that would affect local emergency response programs, nor are there any areas of the City which are at increased risk of wildfire hazard. This remains true for the Project. Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum conclusion related to emergency response plans and wildfire hazard remain appropriate and applicable to describe the impacts of the Project.

The nature of general plans, consistent with state law and common practice, is that specific uses or developments normally are not identified at a project level. Rather, categories of land use are defined that would allow a wide range of specific uses. The specific types of businesses allowed, and whether or not they would generate or use hazardous materials, cannot be known at the programmatic level, though the anal ysis can make assumptions about the typical range of hazardous materials used by business such as gasoline service stations and dry cleaners. In short, the GP EIR indicated that development in the Planning Area could involve a variety of land uses, including residences, commercial uses, industrial uses, utilities and transportation facilities, office space, and public services facilities (i.e., educational and institutional uses), and the analysis assumed and evaluated a range of potential uses that could handle hazardous materials, and a broad range of potential hazardous materials that could be used, in order to reach conclusions as to impacts. The HE Addendum concluded the Housing Element does not change these assessments or conclusions, because it does not introduce new types of uses not previously analyzed and the Housing Element would add residential unit capacity, which is not associated with significant use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. This conclusion remains appropriate for the Project.

As it relates to hazardous materials sites, an investigation using SWRCB’s GeoTracker database and DTSC’s EnviroStor database was completed, and determined there are no active clean -up sites within the Project area or within 1,000 feet of the Project site. There are no observable site conditions that appear to warrant further assessment. The conclusion of the GP EIR and HE Addendum remains appropriate for the Project.

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

Page 42 of 69 ends

Existing required federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous materials will ensure impacts related to the Project will remain less than significant. The GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis and conclusion remains appropriate and adequate to describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantially more severe increases in significant effects and thus is within the scope of the GP EIR and HP Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: None.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

No No No None
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site;
EIR 4.13-33 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None

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

Page 43 of 69 ends

ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
EIR 4.13-35 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
EIR 4.13-35 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? EIR 4.13-35 and
Addendum page
45 No No No
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
EIR 4.13-27 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
EIR 4.13-41 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None
f) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
EIR 4.13-41 and
Addendum page
45 No No No None

Discussion: The GP EIR described potential impacts related to surface and groundwater hydrology and water quality, along with flooding, in the Planning Area. The analysis used the City’s floodplain mapping (which includes Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplains); the 303(d) list of waterbodies impaired by pollution according to the State Water Resources Control Board; and a review of applicable watershed management, groundwater management, and restoration plans; and the environmental documentation provided for the City’s Specific Plans.

Impacts related to violation of water quality standards or conflict with a water quality control plan were found to be less than s ignificant because while buildout of the Planning Area would introduce uses which could result in additional discharges of pollutants, the policies of the General Plan combined with current land use s tormwater, grading, and erosion control laws, along with regulations and permit conditions would ensure that significant impacts associated with violation of standards or conflicts with water quality control plans would not occur. The Project would have to comply with these rules and regulations.

Impacts related to substantial interference with groundwater recharge or decrease in water supplies that would impede implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan were found to be less than s ignificant because while buildout of the Planning Area would result in additional impervious surfaces and therefore could reduce infilt ration to groundwater, the Planning Area soils are substantially impermeable and only provide low levels of groundwater recharge. In addition, while development would result in the use of additional water, some of which could

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

Page 44 of 69 ends

be from groundwater sources, the City’s Urban Water Master Plan and the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan provide for sustainable management of groundwater supplies.

Impacts related to substantial alteration of drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or sil tation were found to be less than s ignificant because while construction and grading could result in runoff of soils and soil erosion, implementation of General Plan polic ies and existing regulations will ensure that substantial impacts do not result.

Impacts related to substantial alteration of drainage patterns resulting in runoff that would exceed the capacity of stormwater s ystems, cause an increase in flooding, or provide additional sources of polluted runoff were found to be less than significant because while buildout of the Planning Area would increase impervious surfaces and contribute to increased runoff, which could contribute additional pollutants, res ult in hydromodification, or increased flood potential, implementation of General Plan policies combined with current drainage and flood control regulations ensures that impacts are not substantial.

Impacts related to release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones were found to be less than s ignificant because General Plan policy and the City’s development regulations do not permit permanent storage of materials within flood hazard zones, and temporary stor age is only permitted with a Flood Encroachment Permit, part of the purpose of which is to ensure there will be no impacts to the floodplain or water quality. In addition, the Planning Area is not near any water bodies which pose a tsunami or seiche hazard.

The analyses described above are based on the potential impacts of grading and general development within the Planning Area, and the 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 hydrology and water quality were found to adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Housing Element. This conclusion remains appropriate for the Project, because the Project will be required to meet low impact water quality design standards (LID), which will introduce landscaping and water quality treatment, such as bioswales. The conclusions of the GP EIR and HE Addendum remain appropriate, and the Project does not result in new or substantial ly more severe increases in significant effects and thus is within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: None.

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

Page 45 of 69 ends

XI. Land Use and Planning

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project does not include changes to the engineering or locations of any of the City’s existing or planned roads, other paths of travel, or community connectivity, but includes connection to existing City public sidewalk.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum included an analysis of potential inconsistencies between the General Plan and other land use plans, policies, or regulations, including with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), SACOG Blueprint, Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission, new Specific Plans, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Roseville/Placer County Memorandum of Understanding. In all cases, it was determined there were no inconsistencies between the General Plan and other plans that would result in significant impacts; impacts were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, adding high density residential development in the City’s infill areas—particularly within the City’s core—are actions supported by the SACOG MTP/SCS. Specifically, the change in land use of the Project site from office to residential was contemplated by the Housing Element and the Project is consistent with the Housing Element.

Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR analyses of potential land use impacts adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantial increases in significant effects.

Mitigation Measures: None.

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

Page 46 of 69 ends

XII. Mineral Resources

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

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

Page 47 of 69 ends

XIII. Noise

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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

Page 48 of 69 ends

Discussion: The GP EIR identified noise conditions for new noise-sensitive developments within areas with the potential to be affected by substantial existing or future transportation noise sources and stationary noise sources. Existing conditions were compared to cumulative buildout conditions, based on existing and future General Plan land uses. The methodology used for this analysis was consistent with approaches recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the City of Roseville. Noise modeling was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD- 77-108) and the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual (2018). Stationary-source noise levels were obtained from manufacturer specifications and industry-standard technical reports. Traffic data from the traffic impact analysis prepared for buildout of the General Plan were used to model existing and future traffic noise levels.

The Planning Area does not intersect with any military bases, special use airspaces, or low-level flightpaths and is not located in safety zones or noise contours associated with airfields or airports that are a concern for land use compatibility planning. The Planning Area is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. Therefore, impacts due to these issues were found to be less than significant without the need for detailed analysis. This evaluation does not require updating and is adequate.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluated the potential for temporary, short-term noise and vibration impacts due to construction. The analysis found that while buildout of the General Plan would involve noise associated with construction and some level of vibration due to typical construction practices, the City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction to daytime hours, because these are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and are also outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods when residents are most sensitive to noise and vibration. The analysis recognizes that the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan policy ensure that the impact of construction is reduced to the extent practicable, given that construction cannot be avoided and is a necessary part of development. The GP EIR and HE Addendum concluded that vibration levels from construction were less than significant, because large-scale projects with extensive excavation and pile driving are not contemplated near vibration-sensitive uses. However, construction noise could cause significant impacts, and additional mitigation is not available. Construction noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The Project does not change the location or intensity of construction activities within the City and does not affect the maximum daily noise generation. Maximum daily noise is based on the maximum amount of land area or building area that can feasibly be developed during any given day, so while the Project may increase the duration of a construction project, it does not change the amount of construction per day or the intensity of construction. Accordingly, the construction noise impacts of the Project are within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the General Plan and HE Addendum.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis of permanent or long-term noise impacts due to transportation and non-transportation noise included evaluations of roadway noise in existing and cumulative buildout conditions; landscape and building maintenance activities; mechanical equipment; solid waste collection; parking lots; commercial, office, and industrial activities; and residential, school, and recreation activities and events. The evaluation considered the impacts of these noise sources on sensitive receptors, including on residential uses. The analysis evaluated the potential for residential sites to be exposed to undue noise because of proximity to non-residential uses or other noise- generating sources, including an assessment of the cumulative noise generated by all of the City’s higher-capacity roadways, and concluded that the City’s General Plan includes extensive policies related to noise which are designed to reduce exposure to unacceptable noise

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

Page 49 of 69 ends

volumes to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, the GP EIR and HE Addendum concluded impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the City cannot demonstrate that adverse noise impacts will be absolutely prevented.

Potential noise exposure has already been evaluated in the GP EIR and HE Addendum for existing residential sites, so the development of these sites does not change these evaluations. However, residential uses on non-residential sites could expose sensitive receptors to noise, the most common of which is roadway noise. An Environmental Noise Assessment was prepared for the Project by Saxelby Acoustics (Noise study) and is included as Attachment 1. The Noise study found the traffic noise levels from Highway 65 are projected to increase by approximately 4 dB under future conditions based on the Noise Study Report for the SR 65 Capacity and Operational Improvements Project (ICF International, January 2016). The report found that based upon the exterior transportation noise levels along Highway 65 of 75 dBA Ldn, an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of up to 30 dBA would be required to meet the City of Roseville General Plan standards. Saxelby Acoustics determined the necessary noise control measures to achieve this noise level reduction and are listed below as mitigation measures.

The City’s existing Building Permit process includes review for compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and the California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 2), to ensure interior noise meets the City’s standard of 45 dBA Ldn. The Building Code also includes the same standard. While impacts to future project residents are not CEQA impacts, the Project must comply with the City’s existing policies and ordinances related to noise and such compliance will ensure that interior noise levels are reduced to be consistent with the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis and assumptions.

In addition to noise affecting residential uses, development of residential sites can have indirect effects on noise through the generation of traffic. The updated transportation analysis for the HE Addendum indicated that while adding units in the area would redistribute traffic, it generally does so in a manner that reduces travel (vehicle miles traveled), and therefore would result in noise consistent with the volumes evaluated in the GP EIR. These analyses remain applicable to the Project, which would not result in new or unanticipated traffic noise impacts.

The GP EIR anticipated the potential for vibration-sensitive land uses to be developed in areas with some amount of existing vibration, such as near the Union Pacific Railroad. A General Plan policy requires all feasible measures necessary, as a part of proposed development and public infrastructure projects, to avoid structural damage to adjacent structures and avoid substantial annoyance for adjacent vibration- sensitive uses, consistent with California Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Agency guidance—guidance that is specifically designed to avoid annoyance to vibration-sensitive uses and structure damage. Impacts due to vibration were found to be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of potential noise impacts adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project does not result in new or substantial increases in significant effects.

To ensure compliance with the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard and ensure the Project is designed to meet the Building Code, the implementation measures below apply:

Implementation Measure #1: Building facades shall include use of stucco with exterior sheathing and a resilient channel for hanging interior gypsum board. An alternative to RC channel is use of a staggered stud exterior wall.

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

Page 50 of 69 ends

Implementation Measure #2: Building Interior gypsum wallboards and gypsum ceiling shall be 5/8”.

Implementation Measure #3: The mechanical ventilation penetrations for exhaust fans not face toward Highway 65. Where feasible, these vents should be routed towards the opposite side of the building to minimize sound intrusion to sensitive areas of the buildings. Where vents must face toward Highway 65, it is recommended that the duct work be increased in length and make as many “S” turns as feasible prior to exiting the dwelling.

Implementation Measure #4: Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to allow occupants to keep doors and windows closed for acoustic isolation.

XIV. Population and Housing

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Discussion: The General Plan analyzed in the GP EIR did not include changes to land use, the Sphere of Influence, or new growth.

Furthermore, the majority of the vacant land adjacent to the City’s boundaries are within existing adopted Specific Plans wit hin Placer County which contemplate urbanization and development. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded the General Plan did not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, and impacts were found to be less than significant. The Housing Element includes additional residential units, but these units fall within the scope of the GP EIR analysis, as do the units associated with the Project. The Housing Element also contemplated

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

Page 51 of 69 ends

that the Project site would be rezoned and developed with housing. Therefore, the Project addition of units would not result in substantial unplanned direct or indirect population growth.

The General Plan analyzed in the GP EIR did not involve converting established residential areas to a non-residential land use or redeveloping existing residential areas with new residences by removing existing dwelling units, and displacement impacts were thus found to be less than significant, and nor did the Housing Element . The Project also does not convert established residential areas to non-residential use; on the contrary, the Project does the opposite by converting a non -residential site to multifamily residential use , as contemplated by the Housing Element. Therefore, the Project will not result in significant impacts related to the di splacement of a substantial number of existing people or housing.

Based on the foregoing t he GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of potential growth inducement impacts and displacement 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 thus is within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: None.

XV. Public Services

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response ti mes or other
performance objectives for any the public services:

a) Fire protection? EIR 4.11-23
and
Addendum
page 54
No No No None

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

Page 52 of 69 ends

b) Police protection? EIR 4.11-22
and
Addendum
page 54
No No No None
c) Schools? EIR 4.11-25
and
Addendum
page 54
No No No None
d) Parks? EIR 4.11-27
and
Addendum
page 54
No No No None
e) Other public facilities? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Discussion: The GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluated police, fire, school, and park facility/service demands resulting from buildout of the General Plan. The analysis indicated that all of these services would require additional facilities and/or staff, but that each of the City’s adopted Specific Plans had anticipated and planned for these needs and had included the identification of sites and finan cing mechanisms. The EIRs for each Specific Plan had already evaluated the potential physical impacts of constructing the fa cilities. Therefore, the GP EIR and HE Addendum concluded that the General Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical i mpacts associated with the provision of new or altered facilities, and impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project is within the scope of the above GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis. The Project would not add units that would change the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis, nor would it redistribute units in a manner that would concentrate service demands in an unanticipated location where service demands could not be met . Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of potential public service impacts 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.

Mitigation Measures: None.

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

Page 53 of 69 ends

XVI. Recreation

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) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
EIR 4.11-27
and
Addendum
page 55
No No No None
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
EIR 4.11-27
and
Addendum
page 55
No No No None
Discussion: The GP EIR indicated that buildout of the General Plan would add residents to the City, and these residents would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, and would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, but that each of the City’s adopted Specific Plans had anticipated and planned for these needs and had included the identification of sites and financing mechanisms. The EIRs for each Specific Plan had already evaluated the potential physical impacts of constructing the facilities and the City’s policies ensure that adequate parkland acreage is developed and maintained. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded that the General Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or maintenance of recreation facilities, and impacts were found to be less than significant. The HE Addendum indicated the Housing Element units were within the scope of the above GP EIR analysis, and would not redistribute units in a manner that would concentrate service demands in an unanticipated location. This conclusion is also correct for the Project, which will add residents within the City’s core area, as contemplated by the HE Addendum. Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of potential public service impacts 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.

Mitigation Measures: None

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

Page 54 of 69 ends

XVII. Transportation

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The transportation analysis found that the City’s buildout VMT would be 15.5 VMT per resident in constrained conditions and 14.9 VMT per person in unconstrained conditions. Constrained conditions assumed a transportation network which only included future facilities with identified funding sources that were certain to be constructed by 2035, and was a worst-case evaluation provided to ensure the GP EIR did not underestimate any impacts. The unconstrained conditions included all facilities included in the SACOG 2020 MTP/SCS project list.

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

Page 55 of 69 ends

In addition to the citywide average VMT, the GP EIR also included a VMT evaluation by Specific Plan area. This evaluation showed that certain areas of the City are “low-VMT areas,” which are defined in the GP EIR as areas of the City with VMT below the significance threshold. This analysis was based on the constrained conditions, so even under worst-case conditions the following areas were found to be low-VMT: the Downtown Specific Plan, Del Webb Specific Plan, North Central Roseville Specific Plan, Northeast Roseville Specific Plan, and Riverside Gateway Specific Plan.

An updated VMT analysis was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants to evaluate VMT impacts resulting from the Housing Element. This analysis updated the baseline conditions to February 2020 in order to ensure the baseline represented normal conditions, unaffected by COVID, and used constrained conditions for the cumulative analysis. The analysis found the City’s baseline VMT has increased to 15.7 VMT per resident due to the fact that ¾ of new development since the prior analysis has occurred in the western area of the City, in Specific Plans with the highest VMT per resident. However, the cumulative conditions (2035) analysis found citywide VMT decreases to 14.7 VMT per resident with the Housing Element, which is both a reduction from baseline and a reduction compared to the GP EIR analysis of cumulative (2035) conditions. The Specific Plan analysis found that the same list of planning areas are low-VMT, plus the Highland Reserve North Specific Plan. While Housing Element VMT remained above the City’s adopted significant threshold of 12.8 VMT per resident, it was lower than VMT reported in the GP EIR.

The Project is located in the North Central Roseville Specific Plan, 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.

Per service population VMT includes all per resident VMT plus VMT from all other sources, including trips from homes outside the area to work or shop and trips inside the City with neither trips at the home (from work to shopping). The service population analysis of the GP EIR was included for informational purposes to provide a coarse assessment of how non-home-based trips change over time. The GP EIR stated that appropriate methodologies for service sector VMT were still being developed and the resulting data was less reliable. For this reason, a significance threshold for service population VMT was not developed. This conclusion remains current, as stated in the updated transportation analysis prepared for the Housing Element. The GP EIR found that in existing conditions the citywide average was 29 VMT per service population while the cumulative conditions citywide average would be 33 VMT per service population (constrained) or 32.4 VMT per service population (unconstrained). An updated service sector analysis was provided for the Housing Element, but it used an updated methodology and therefore cannot be directly compared to the results reported in the GP EIR. The service sector analysis calculated that in existing conditions the citywide average is 32.5 VMT per service population and the cumulative conditions citywide average is 35.1 VMT per service population. While the numbers from the GP and Project analysis cannot be compared, the trend can: in both analyses, the citywide average service sector VMT is anticipated to increase over time rather than decrease. This means that while trips generated by residents of the City will be traveling less over time (as measured by per resident VMT) it is expected that all trips will be traveling more over time.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum included a Level of Service (LOS) analysis, provided for informational purposes. While LOS is not an impact under CEQA, the City maintains an LOS policy requiring that 70% of intersections operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The GP EIR found that 83.5% of intersections would operate acceptably during a.m. peak hours and 71.9% would operate acceptably during p.m. peak hours. The updated analysis found that 80.5% of intersections would operate acceptably during a.m. peak hours and 72.9% would operate acceptably during p.m. peak hours. The minor changes in results are mainly due to model updates, which included

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

Page 56 of 69 ends

updates for the future and base year in the City of Rocklin using Rocklin’s current circulation and development plans and roadway network updates based on current plans and data. However, in both the GP EIR and updated analysis, the City’s intersections operate at LOS consistent with City policy. The Project is within the density anticipated by the GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis and in a location anticipated by the HE Addendum and therefore, the Project also would not result in conflict with the City’s LOS policy and is within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

The GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluated hazards due to design features, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. The City’s transportation networks have been comprehensively planned through the Specific Plan process to conform to the City’s Design and Construction Standards. The City’s Design and Construction Standards establish appropriate and safe designs, including minimum signal and driveway spacing, sidewalk and pedestrian crossing designs, bicycle lane designs, and other features which ensure a safe and reliable network. The City also maintains standards requiring minimum roadway widths, turnaround areas, and turning radii to ensure that emergency vehicles maintain access. Finally, the City’s construction standards also provide for and regulate the use of temporary traffic controls at construction sites, including signage and flaggers. The City’s comprehensive planning process also ensures that uses are compatible and do not increase hazards. The GP EIR and HE Addendum concluded impacts were less than significant. This conclusion remains appropriate for the Project, which does not change roadway engineering, introduce incompatible uses, or contemplate development which would negatively affect emergency access. Accordingly, the Project’s impacts are within the scope of those analyzed in the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Finally, the GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluation found the General Plan and Housing Element would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities nor would it adversely affect performance or safety of such facilities; impacts were found to be less than significant. The General Plan will require all new facilities and facility improvements contained in the circulation diagram would be constructed to applicable design standards, including the City’s Design and Construction Standards (City of Roseville 2020), which have been created to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. The Project does not change this conclusion, as it does not introduce any programs or policies which would conflict with transportation plans. On the contrary, increased densities are generally transit-supportive and the Project would include the construction of an eight foot (8') wide pedestrian/bikeway trail, adjacent to Highway 65, with connections from the project site to the trail.

Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of potential transportation impacts 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.

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 4.3.1 – The proposed General Plan Update should be amended as follows:

Implementation Measure
Proposed development projects that could have a potentially significant VMT impact shall consider reasonable and feasible project modifications and other measures during the project design and environmental review stage of project development that would reduce

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

Page 57 of 69 ends

VMT effects in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction. The below list of potential measures is not intended to be exhaustive, and not all measures may be feasible, reasonable, or applicable to all projects. The purpose of this list is to identify options for future development proposals, not to constrain projects to this list, or to require that a project examine or include all measures from this list. Potential measures include:
- improve or increase access to transit;
- increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare; - incorporate affordable housing into the project;
- incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network;
- orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; - improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; - provide traffic calming;
- provide bicycle parking;
- unbundle parking costs;
- provide parking cash-out programs;
- implement roadway pricing;
- implement or provide access to a commute reduction program; - provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; - provide transit passes;
- shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-matching services; - providing telework options;
- providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle; - providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;

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

Page 58 of 69 ends

- providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; - providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes; - locate the project near transit;
- increase project density;
- increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings; - increase connectivity and/or intersection density on the project site; and/or - deploy management strategies (e.g., pricing, vehicle occupancy requirements) on roadways or roadway lanes.

The City shall evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange. Such an offset program, if determined feasible, would be administered by the City or a City-approved agency, and would offer demonstrated VMT reduction strategies through transportation demand management programs, impact fee programs, mitigation banks or exchange programs, in-lieu fee programs, or other land use project conditions that reduce VMT in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction. If, through on-site changes, a subject project cannot demonstrate consistency with state guidance on VMT reduction, the project can contribute on a pro-rata basis to a local or regional VMT reduction bank or exchange, as necessary, to reduce net VMT impacts.

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

Page 59 of 69 ends

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
EIR 4.9-39
and
Addendum
page 61
No No No MM 4.9-4
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

EIR 4.9-39
and
Addendum
page 61
No No No MM 4.9-4
Discussion: For the GP EIR the City of Roseville contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 consultation requirements, asking for a list of individuals that might have knowledge of the Planning Area. The City used this list to circulate a letter dated April 3, 2017 providing the opportunity to participate in consultation to ensure consideration of Tribal Cultural Resources in the context of local land use policy. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) responded to the request for consultation and provided information on the presence of tribal cultural resources as well as historic resources (cultural resources) within the Planning Area.

Impacts related to substantial adverse changes in the significance of a tribal cultural resources were found to be significant (GP EIR page 4.9- 39) because the Planning Area is known to contain these resources and is sensitive for the presence of undiscove red or undocumented

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

Page 60 of 69 ends

resources. In addition, some tribal cultural resources may also be cultural resources. The UAIC has indicated tribal cultur al resources of significant value to the tribe are present in the Planning Area and could be impacted by grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area. The General Plan included policy revisions to further strengthen protections, the GP EIR included mitigation measures to address these impacts, and the City adopted new Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation, all of which were developed within input from the UAIC . Nonetheless, impacts could still occur. After mitigation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Notice of the Housing Element was distributed pursuant to SB 18 and, since it was anticipated an EIR could be required, notice pursuant to AB 52 was also distributed. Both were distributed in letters dated September 22, 2020. No requests for consultation were received. The HE Addendum found the GP EIR analysis was based on the potential impacts of grading and general development within the Planning Area, and the Housing Element neither changed the boundaries of the Planning Area nor the locations of potential grading and development within the Planning Area.

For the Project the City of Roseville contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to SB 18 consultation requirements, asking for a list of individuals that might have knowledge of the Planning Area. The City used the NAHC list to circulate a letter dated September 23, 2021, providing the opportunity to participate in consultation to ensure consideration of Tribal Cultural Resources in the context of local land use policy changes included in the Project and in compliance with General Plan Policies OS4.1 . The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) responded to the request for consultation and requested a site visit, which occurred on November 9, 2021.

Through the consultation process between the City and UAIC, Project-specific ways to implement the City’s Standard Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval in its adopted Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation and General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-2bwere agreed to and are included below. .

The GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses adequately and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project is consistent with the tribal cultural resources policies of the General Plan. The Project does not result in new or substantial increases in significant effects.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation consists of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-2 and, for human remains, 4.9-3 and 4.9-4. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2b states that 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 t o be equally as effective by the City. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9 -3 and 4.9-4 state that 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 Consul tation. Below are the applicable procedures and recommended mitigation from Volume II Part C of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation that implement the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

Implementation Measure TCR-1: Unpaid Tribal Observation A minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork or other soil disturbance activities, the Construction Manager shall not ify the City of the proposed earthwork start-date, in order to provide the City representative sufficient time to contact the consulting tribe(s). A single tribal representative shall be invited

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

Page 61 of 69 ends

to, at its discretion, voluntarily observe any or all ground -disturbing activities during construction , including any soil piles, trenches, or other disturbed areas.

The tribe shall be provided 72 hours to accept or decline observation via email. The single tribal observer shall be required to comply with all job site safety requirements and shall sign a waiver of liability prior to entering the job site. During this inspection, a UAIC Tribal Representative or Tribal Monitor may provide an on-site meeting for construction personnel information on TCRs and workers awareness brochure. Should the tribe choose not to observe any or all of the activity, the City shall deem the mitigation measure completed in good faith without tribal observation as long as the notification was mad e and documented.

If any TCRs are encountered during this initial inspection, or during any subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find and the measures included in the Post-Review Discovery Procedures Mitigation Measure shall be implemented.

Implementation Measure TCR-2: Post-Review Discovery Procedures If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during constr uction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archeologist or project archaeologist and ( if present) tribal monitor, or, in the absence of either, contact the consulting tribe(s) and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) if the find is a tribal cultural resource .

All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in wr iting for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and consulting tribes and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no -work radius.

The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource.

The type of discovery, as described below will determine the subsequent actions. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon fu rther investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and s ubsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, cult urally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.

The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of t he City:
 Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative. No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shal l provide written documentation of this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors.  Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time o f discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding

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

Page 62 of 69 ends

of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery o f non-tribal resources. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion o f the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure).

If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, a s defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.  Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cu ltural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feas ible. Work shall not resume within the no -work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that t he site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.  Response to Human Remains : If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on -site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection me asures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7 050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the reco mmendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).

If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no -work radius until the City, through consultation as a ppropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

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

Page 63 of 69 ends

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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

Page 64 of 69 ends

Discussion: The GP EIR evaluation of utility services was based on full buildout of the General Plan, and capacity evaluation used the metrics appropriate to the impact area, as follows: for water, dwelling units or dwelling unit equivalents (edu); for wastewater, demand factors based on acreage by land use type; and for waste, total population and employees. The GP EIR also evaluated the potential for facility expansions, including the planned expansion of the Dry Creek wastewater treatment plant; off-site construction of the Ophir water treatment plant by the Placer County Water Agency; a new planned substation and 60-kilovolt overhead transmission lines within the Creekview Specific Plan; and construction of water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, and supporting facilities (e.g. pump stations). Except for the Ophir water treatment plant, expanded and new utilities and service systems would be within the Planning Area, and impacts associated with these facilities have already been identified and mitigated through Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, with the exception of the Ophir plant, impacts were found to be less than significant. Construction of the Ophir plant was addressed in the Foothill Phase II Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline EIR, discussed in the GP EIR, and it found that construction air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The GP EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would indirectly contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact, and the HE Addendum reached the same conclusion. No additional water or wastewater infrastructure offsite is required to support the Project, which is within the buildout assumptions of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

Under buildout conditions, the City has a total water demand of 48,762 acre feet per year (afy), and has surplus water supply during normal years and during multiple-dry years 1 and 2. However, during a single-dry year there is an approximate 9,000-afy deficit and during multiple- dry year 3 there is an approximate 2,000-afy deficit. The City’s conservation measures are sufficient during dry years to offset the deficit.

Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant. The Housing Element was within the scope of the total dwelling units analyzed within the GP EIR, and was therefore found to be within the scope of analysis of the water evaluation; no changes or updates to this analysis was found to be required in the HE Addendum. This conclusion remains appropriate for the Project, which is also within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum.

The City’s buildout demands on the wastewater system were reported in Table 4.12-7 of the GP EIR as 8.9 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry weather flow, while the Pleasant Grove wastewater treatment plant’s effective treatment capacity is 9.5 mgd, with plans to expand capacity to 12 mgd and the Dry Creek wastewater treatment plan has a permitted capacity of 18 mgd (note that treatment plants have service boundaries that include the City and other areas). The evaluation found there would be adequate capacity to serve full buildout of the City and impacts were found to be less than significant. The wastewater evaluation was based on the total acreage of citywide land uses, with approximately 13,000 acres of residential land use and 3,100 acres of commercial/office land use. The HE Addendum evaluated the result of changing the acreage of residential compared to commercial land uses, removing up to 20 acres of commercial land use and replacing it with up to 20 acres of residential land use. Table 4.12-7 of the GP EIR indicates that sewage demand for commercial sites is 850 gallons per day per acre, while for residential it is only 190 gallons per day per acre. Therefore, the land use change contemplated by the Housing Element was found to reduce wastewater system demands. However, in the context of the citywide demands the difference was negligible, and did not change the total average dry weather flow of 8.9 mgd. The Project is within the scope of the GP EIR and HE Addendum evaluation, which contemplates the land use change from commercial to residential, and does not change land use in a manner or to a degree that requires further evaluation of treatment capacity.

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

Page 65 of 69 ends

The City’s additional waste demands were calculated based on the increase in population and employees between existing conditions and buildout conditions, and used CalRecycle solid waste disposal rates of 4.8 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 8.2 ppd per employee.

Based on these rates, buildout of the General Plan was found to generate an additional 428 ppd of solid waste. The GP EIR noted that this estimate was extremely conservative, as it does not account for recycling or waste diversion. The estimated increase in waste would be within the maximum daily throughput of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill, and therefore impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Project is within the scope of the population and employees analyzed within the GP EIR and HE Addendum, and is therefore within the scope of analysis of the waste evaluation; no changes or updates to this analysis are required.

In addition, future development accommodated under the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, or local solid waste regulations or statues, including the City’s Construction and Demolition and Recycling Ordinance, the applicable CALGreen Code (for the Project, likely the 2022 CalGreen Code), and AB 1826 (mandatory commercial organics recycling). Furthermore, the City would continue to comply with AB 1601, which requires implementation of a commercial solid waste recycling program. Therefore, impacts related to compliance with regulations pertaining to solid waste were found to be less than significant. The Project has no effect on this analysis or conclusion.

Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of utility services impacts, as updated, 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.

Mitigation Measures: None.

XX. Wildfire

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

Page 66 of 69 ends

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
EIR 4.10-27 and
Addendum page
66 No No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
EIR 4.10-27 and
Addendum page
66 No No No None
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
EIR 4.10-27 and
Addendum page
66 No No No None
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
EIR 4.10-27 and
Addendum page
66 No No No None

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

Page 67 of 69 ends

Discussion: The Planning Area is not located in or near state responsibility areas or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

The Planning Area is designated by CAL FIRE as a Local Responsibility Area, and there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in or adjacent to the Planning Area. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded the wildfire hazard risk for the City is low. The City’s comprehensive planning has ensured that existing and planned fire stations are distributed through the Planning Area, and the City maintains and plans connected transportation networks consistent with the City’s Design and Construction Standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation routes. The City maintains a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan, and the GP EIR and HE Addendum found that the General Plan and Housing Element was consistent and supportive of these emergency planning documents. The proposed Project does not affect the foregoing analysis. The Project is within the scope of the above GP EIR and HE Addendum analysis. The Project would not add units that would exceed those analyzed in the GP EIR analysis of emergency service needs, nor would it distribute units in a manner that would concentrate emergency service demands in an unanticipated location, as residential development on the Project site is contemplated by the Housing Element. Based on the foregoing, the GP EIR and HE Addendum analyses of wildfire impacts 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.

Mitigation Measures: None.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

5.0 and
Addendum
page 67
No No No None

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

Page 68 of 69 ends

b) Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
EIR Chapter

5.0 and
Addendum
page 67
No No No None
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EIR Chapter

5.0 and
Addendum
page 67
No No No None
Discussion: Chapter 5.0 of the GP EIR includes an evaluation of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, and a section on the significant and unavoidable impacts evaluated within the GP EIR. No new mitigation measures beyond those already identified in the topical sections of Chapter 4.0 were identified. As discussed in the sections above, the GP EIR found that General Plan buildout would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources, c ultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. The analysis found the following impacts would also be cumulatively considerable: greenhouse gas emissions; VMT; construction and operational air quality emissions; exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations (long-term); operational noise due to traffic and stationary sources; biological resources including special status plants, riparian habitat/sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and loss of habitat and special status wildlife species; both cultural and tribal cultural resources; indirect impacts due to construction of the Ophir water treatment plant; visual quality; and creation of substantial light and glare. These significant cumulative impacts have the potential to cause adverse impacts on human beings. As described in the foregoing analyses, the Project is within the scope of all impacts evaluated by the GP EIR and HE Addendum and appropriately describe the potential impacts of the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or negative declaration and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019080418) and the 2021 Housing Element Addendum, certified on August 5, 2020 and August 18, 2021 respectively, the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
[ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

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

1. Noise Study

Environmental Noise Assessment
Shea Apartments Project
City of Roseville, California
November 1, 2022
Project #211109
Prepared for:

TLA Engineering and Planning
1504 Eureka Road, Suite 110
Roseville, CA 95661
Pre
pared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 1

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE ........................................................................................................ 2 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................................7 REGULATORY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................8 FEDERAL .................................................................................................................................................. 8 STATE ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 LOCAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE ..........................................................9 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ........................................................................................................................... 12 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................................................ 12 ANALYSIS OF INTERIOR NOISE CONTROL MEASURES ...................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 16 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 18

List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Future Transportation Noise Levels, Ldn ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Interior Noise Control Measures ................................................................................................. 15

List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 7 Table 3: City of Roseville Land Use Compatibility Chart ............................................................................... 9

Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Interior Noise Reduction Calculations

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 2 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

INTRODUCTION
The Shea Apartments project consists of the development of a vacant parcel for multi -family residential uses consisting of 18 apartment buildings. The project will include several amenities such as outdoor recreation areas and a pool area. The project site is located on Gibson Drive, south of Highway 65 in the City of Roseville, California.

Figure 1 shows the project site plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project site and noise measurement locations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrat ing object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to differen t types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers.

To avoid th is, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A -weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.

Shea Apartments Project
City of Roseville, California
Figure 1
Project Site Plan
Shea Apartments Project
City of Roseville, California
Figure 2
Noise Measurement Sites

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 5 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A -weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 -dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all- encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L
eq), which corresponds to a steady -state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a ti me varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because L dn represents a 24 -hour average, it tends to
disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 6 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level o f at least 5 -dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 7 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on Highway 65. Secondary noise sources include traffic and miscellaneous noise from surrounding uses south and west of the project site.

To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at two locations on the project site. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meters were programmed to recor d the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted L max, represents the highest noise level
measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L 50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 precision integrating sound level met ers were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

T
ABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Site Location Date Ldn Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1
Southeastern
Project Boundary
(170’ to CL of I-80)
11/16/21 73 69 68 85 67 64 82
LT-2
Northwestern
Project Region
(300’ to CL of I-80)
11/16/21 67 62 61 77 60 58 72
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2021.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 8 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

STATE
There are no state regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

LOCAL
City of Roseville General Plan
The City of Roseville General Plan Noise Element Policy N 1.2 establishes an acceptable interior noise level of
45 dBA Ldn for residential uses. For outdoor activity areas of residential uses, the normally acceptable exterior noise level standard is 60 dBA Ldn, as shown on General Plan Noise Element Table IX-1 (Table 3).

Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB L dn/CNEL or less , an exterior noise level of up to 6 5 dB L dn/ CNEL may be conditionally acceptable. In this case n ew construction or development should be taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

For playgrounds and neighborhood park uses, a normally acceptable exteri or noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn is applied.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 9 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

TABLE 3: CITY OF ROSEVILLE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CHART

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 10 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE
Saxelby Acoustics utilized the collected sound level data for Highway 65 to predict project transportation noise exposure levels. The traffic noise levels for Highway 65 adjacent to the project site are projected to increase by approximately 4 dB under future conditions based upon the Noise Study Report for the SR 65 Capacity and Operational Improvements Project (ICF International, January 2016). This future increase is accounted for in the noise model.

Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise model to map transportation noise levels at the pr oposed project site due to traffic on Highway 65. Figure 3 shows cumulative plus project noise levels (dBA, Ldn) at the project site. It should be noted that the exterior noise levels account for the preliminary site grading plans dated January 31, 2022.

Shea Apartments Project
City of Roseville, California
Figure 3
Future Transportation Noise Contours
(dBA Ldn)
1st Fl: 71 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 75 dBA
Recreation
46 dBA
Park
51 dBA
Recreation
58 dBA
Park
58 dBA
Recreation
57 dBA
Pool
56 dBA
1st Fl: 70 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 75 dBA
1st Fl: 70 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 75 dBA
1st Fl: 74 dBA
2nd Fl: 75 dBA
3rd Fl: 75 dBA
1st Fl: 71 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 74 dBA 1st Fl: 73 dBA
2nd Fl: 75 dBA
3rd Fl: 75 dBA
1st Fl: 69 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 74 dBA
1st Fl: 63 dBA
2nd Fl: 70 dBA
3rd Fl: 72 dBA
1st Fl: 69 dBA
2nd Fl: 74 dBA
3rd Fl: 74 dBA

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 12 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
As shown on Figure 3, the proposed outdoor recreation areas of the project are predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels of 51-58 dBA L dn. T his complies with t he City’s 60 dBA L dn exterior noise standard for residential outdoor activity areas. Therefore, no exterior noise control measures are recommended.

INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
As shown on Figure 3, façades of the proposed apartment uses would be exposed to maximum exterior noise levels up to 75 dBA Ldn. Modern building construction methods typically yields an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 25 dBA. Therefore, where exterior noise levels are 70 dBA Ldn, or less, no additional interior noise control measures are typically required. For this project, exterior noise levels are predicted to be up to 75 dBA L
dn at the second and third stories of the buildings closest to Highway 65. This would result in interior noise levels of up to 50 dBA Ldn based on typical building construction. This exceeds the City of Roseville General Plan Policy which requires that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB L dn.

Therefore, additional noise control measures are required to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels.

ANALYSIS OF INTERIOR NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
In order to calculate interior noise levels for the actual project construction, it is necessary to determine the noise reduction provided by the residential building fa cades. This may be calculated by using a measured A-weighted noise frequency spectrum for interstate traffic. The composite transmission loss and resulting noise level in the receiving room is first determined. After correcting for room absorption, the overall noise level in the room is calculated. It should be noted that the presence of carpet and pad flooring is known to provide substantial acoustic absorption, resulting in quieter interior noise levels.

Because the presence of carpet lowers interior noise levels, this analysis examines windows STC ratings for rooms with typical residential carpet and pad versus rooms which may have hard surface flooring (i.e. tile, vinyl plank, wood, etc.) throughout the space. For living rooms which are carpeted it is assume that hard surface flooring may occur in entry and kitchen areas only.

Based upon the exterior transportation noise levels along Highway 65 of 75 dBA L dn, an exterior-to-interior
noise level reduction of up to 30 dBA would be required to meet the City of Roseville General Plan standards. Saxelby Acoustics determined the necessary noise control measures to achieve this noise level reduction. Noise control measures differ based on building location and floor levels. Figure 4 shows the building groups and the facades requiring acoustic treatment. The noise control measures are summarized below:

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 13 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

Group 1
1st Floor
• Bedroom: STC 27 27 glazing and hard flooring, or carpet. • Living Room: STC 27 glazing and hard flooring, or carpet. 2nd and 3rd Floor
• Bedroom: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 32 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 31 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 34 glazing and hard flooring.

Group 2
1st Floor
• Bedroom: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 31 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 33 glazing and hard flooring. 2nd and 3rd Floor
• Bedroom: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 35 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 38 glazing and hard flooring.

Group 3
1st Floor
• Bedroom: STC 32 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 34 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 36 glazing and hard flooring. 2nd and 3rd Floor
• Bedroom: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 36 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 34 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 38 glazing and hard flooring.

Interior noise control measures required for all indicated facades of Groups 1, 2, and 3. • Building facades shall include use of stucco with exterior sheathing and a resilient channel for hanging interior gypsum board. An alternative to RC channel is use of a staggered stud exterior wall;
• Interior gypsum wallboards and gypsum ceiling shall be 5/8”; • Saxelby Acoustics recommends that mechanical ventilation penetrations for exhaust fans not face toward Highway 65. Where feasible, these vents should be routed towards the opposite side of the building to minimize sound intrusion to sensitive areas of the buildings. Where vents must face toward Highway 65, it is recommended that the duct work be increased in length and make as many “S” turns as feasible prior to exiting the dwelling. This separates the openings between the noise source and the living space with a long circuitous route. Each time the sound turns a

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 14 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

corner, it is reduced slightly. Flexible duct work is preferred ducting for this noise mitigation.

Where the vent exits the building, a spring
-load
ed flap with a gasket should be installed to reduce
sound entering the duct work when the vent is not in use; • Me
chanical ventilation shall be provided to allow occupants to keep doors and windows closed for acoustic isolation;
• No Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC’s) shall be used; • In lieu of these measures, an interior noise control report may be prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer demonstrating that the proposed building construction would achieve the interior noise reduction requirement of up to 30 dBA.

Interior Noise Control Measures
(Required for All Indicated Facades of Groups 1, 2, and 3) o Exterior finish shall be stucco with sheathing;
o Interior gypsum at exterior walls shall be 5/8” on resilient channel or 5/8” on staggered stud wall assembly; o Ceiling gypsum shall be 5/8”;
o Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation;
o No PTAC
’s shall be used.

Facades Needing Acoustic
Upgrades: Group 1
Facades Needing Acoustic
Upgrades: Group 2
Facades Needing Acoustic
Upgrades: Group 3
Legend
Shea Apartments Project
City of Roseville, California
Figure 4
Interior Noise Control Measures
Group 1
1st Floor:

Bedroom: STC 27 glazing and hard flooring or carpet
Living Room: STC 27 glazing and hard flooring or
carpet
2nd and 3rd Floor:

Bedroom: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 32 glazing and hard flooring
Living Room: STC 31 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 34 glazing and hard flooring
Group 2
1st Floor:

Bedroom: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 31 glazing and hard flooring
Living Room: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 33 glazing and hard flooring
2nd and 3rd Floor:

Bedroom: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 35 glazing and hard flooring
Living Room: STC 33 Glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 38 glazing and hard flooring
Group 3
1st Floor:

Bedroom: STC 32 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 34 glazing and hard flooring
Living Room: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 36 glazing and hard flooring
2nd and 3rd Floor:

Bedroom: STC 33 glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 36 glazing and hard flooring
Living Room: STC 34 Glazing and carpet on pad, OR
STC 38 glazing and hard flooring

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 16 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

CONCLUSION
The proposed project is predicted to meet the City of Roseville General Plan noise level standards assuming the following requirements are incorporated into design for the new residential uses:

Group 1
1 st Floor
• Bedroom: STC 27 27 glazing and hard flooring, or carpet. • Living Room: STC 27 glazing and hard flooring, or carpet. 2nd and 3rd Floor
• Bedroom: STC 30 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 32 glazing and hard flooring. • Living Room: STC 31 glazing and carpet on pad, OR STC 34 glazing and hard flooring.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 17 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

the building to minimize sound intrusion to sensitive areas of t he buildings. Where vents must face toward Highway 65, it is recommended that the duct work be increased in length and make as many “S” turns as feasible prior to exiting the dwelling. This separates the openings between the noise source and the living space with a long circuitous route. Each time the sound turns a corner, it is reduced slightly. Flexible duct work is preferred ducting for this noise mitigation.

Shea Apartment Complex
City of Roseville, CA
Job #211109
November 1, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 18 ends

\\LUKEXPS\Sax\Job Folders\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive\Word\211109 Shea Apartments Gibson Drive 11-1-22.docx

REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A- Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.

ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

Egan, M. D. (1988). Architectural acoustics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

FHWA-HEP-
05-054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.

Hanson, Carl E. (Carl Elmer). (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.

International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.

Miller, L. N., Bolt, Beranek, & and Newman, Inc. (1981). Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/

Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology

Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC A p p a r e n t S o u n d T r a n s m i s s i o n C l a s s . S i m i l a r t o S T C b u t i n c l u d e s s o u n d f r o m f l a n k i n g p a t h s a n d c o r r e c t f o r r o o m reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL Commu n i t y N oi s e Eq ui val e n t Le ve l . D e fi ne d as t he 24‐h ou r ave r age noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL See definition of Ldn.

IIC Impact Insulation Class. An integer‐number rating of how well a building floor attenuates impact sounds, such as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurem ent period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC Noise Isolation Class. A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class. Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise Unwanted sound.

NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.05. It is a representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon striking a particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absor bing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.

SEL Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discre te event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

SPC Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed to measure the degree of speech privacy provided by a closed room, indicating the degree to which conversations occurring within are kept private from listeners outside the room.

STC Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings/floors, doors, windows and exterior wall configurations. The STC rating is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist. A larger numb er means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel
scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Threshold The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Simple Tone Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches.

Appendix B: Continuous Ambient Noise
Measurement Results

Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Tuesday, November 16, 2021 0:00 65 87 62 55 Coordinates: 38.78084°, Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:00 64 77 61 52
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:00 63 78 60 50
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:00 65 77 62 53
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:00 67 86 64 57
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 5:00 69 82 69 64
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 6:00 71 90 71 68
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:00 70 80 70 68
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:00 70 80 69 67
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:00 70 85 69 67
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:00 71 93 70 68
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:00 70 85 70 68
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:00 71 87 70 68
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 13:00 69 85 69 67
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 14:00 69 86 68 66
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 15:00 69 84 68 66
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 16:00 69 92 68 66
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 17:00 68 84 67 65
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 18:00 69 82 68 66
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 19:00 69 85 68 65
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 20:00 68 79 68 6 4
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 21:00 68 88 67 63
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 22:00 66 81 65 61
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 23:00 65 78 64 58
Leq Lmax L50 L90
69 85 68 66
67 82 64 57
68 79 67 63
71 93 70 68
63 77 60 50
71 90 71 68
73 77
74 23
Appendix B1: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Shea Apartments Gibson Drive
Northeastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-7
Night Average
CAL200
-121.27375°
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Statistics
Day Average
CNEL Night %
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
87 77 78 77
86 82
90 80 80
85 93
85 87
85 86
84 92
84 82
85 79
88 81
78 55
52 50
53 57
64 68 68 67 67 68 68 68
67 66 66 66 65 66
65 64
63 61
58 65
64 63
65 67
69 71 70 70 70 71 70 71
69 69 69 69
68 69 69 68 68
66 65
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT
-
1 Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Tuesday, November 16, 2021 0:00 58 75 56 50 Coordinates: 38.78235°, Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:00 57 70 55 46
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:00 57 67 55 46
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:00 58 71 56 48
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:00 60 75 58 52
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 5:00 63 72 62 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 6:00 64 73 64 62
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:00 63 71 63 61
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:00 62 75 61 59
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:00 63 77 62 60
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:00 64 87 63 61
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:00 63 76 63 61
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:00 64 80 63 61
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 13:00 62 77 61 59
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 14:00 61 76 60 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 15:00 61 83 60 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 16:00 61 78 60 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 17:00 60 74 60 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 18:00 61 74 60 58
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 19:00 62 75 62 59
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 20:00 62 73 61 5 8
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 21:00 61 77 60 57
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 22:00 60 73 59 56
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 23:00 59 76 58 53
Leq Lmax L50 L90
62 77 61 59
60 72 58 52
60 71 60 57
64 87 63 61
57 67 55 46
64 76 64 62
67 75
67 25CNEL Night %
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
-121.27761°
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B2: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Shea Apartments Gibson Drive
Northwestern Project Boundary
LDL 820-6
75 70
67 71
75 72
73 71
75 77
87 76
80 77
76 83
78 74 74
75 73
77 73
76 50
46 46
48 52
58 62 61
59 60
61 61 61
59 58 58 58 58 58 59 58
57 56
53 58 57 57
58 60
63 64
63 62 63
64 63 64
62 61 61 61 60 61
62 62 61 60 59
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT
-
2 Appendix C: Interior Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results

Appendix C1: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 63.2 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 42
-22Noise Reduction, dBA:

Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI 9011 Pic. Win. STC 27
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
43 45
47 46 46
51 54
57 58
54 51
48 48
46 43
40 19
22 29
32 32
35 33 34 33
26 19
13 10
9 9
12 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C2: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 63.2 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 43
-20Noise Reduction, dBA:

Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI 9011 Pic. Win. STC 27
Window - WPI 9011 Pic. Win. STC 27
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
43 45
47 46 46
51 54
57 58
54 51
48 48
46 43
40 20
23 30
34 34
37 35 36 35
28 21
14 12
10 11
14 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C3: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.7 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-27
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 910 1/8*1/8 STC 30
Noise Reduction, dBA:
51 54
55 55 55
60 62
66 66
63 59
57 57
55 52
48 27
30 32
36 34
36 37 37
34 28
21 15
13 12
10 15
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C4: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.7 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-27
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI Model 9100HS STC 32
Noise Reduction, dBA:
51 54
55 55 55
60 62
66 66
63 59
57 57
55 52
48 26
29 37 37
33 35 36 36 35
31 25
21 21 21
17 17
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C5: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.7 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 43
-28
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI Model 9100HS STC 32
Window - WPI Model 9100HS STC 32
Noise Reduction, dBA:
51 54
55 55 55
60 62
66 66
63 59
57 57
55 52
48 26
30 37 36
32 33 34 34 33
29 23
19 19 19
15 14
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C6: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.7 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-28
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Quiet Home STC 34
Window - Quiet Home STC 34
Noise Reduction, dBA:
51 54
55 55 55
60 62
66 66
63 59
57 57
55 52
48 28 29
36 32
28 32
34 35
36 33
29 25 25
22 18
16 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C7: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-27
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 910 1/8*1/8 STC 30
Noise Reduction, dBA:
50 53
55 54 54
59 62
65 65
62 58
56 56
54 51
48 27
30 31
35 33
36 36 36
34 27
21 14
13 11
9 15
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C8: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-26
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI Model 9100HS STC 31
Noise Reduction, dBA:
50 53
55 54 54
59 62
65 65
62 58
56 56
54 51
48 26
28 37 36 35
37 36 37
35 30
25 20 21
19 18 18
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C9: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-26
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 910 1/8*1/8 STC 30
Window - Millgard 910 1/8*1/8 STC 30
Noise Reduction, dBA:
50 53
55 54 54
59 62
65 65
62 58
56 56
54 51
48 27
31 32
36 34
37 37 37
35 28
22 15
13 11 10
15 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C10: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-27
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Noise Reduction, dBA:
50 53
55 54 54
59 62
65 65
62 58
56 56
54 51
48 26 26
34 35
32 36 35 35
37 33
31 26
23 23
20 14
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C11: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.8 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-31
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Noise Reduction, dBA:
54 57
58 58 58
63 65
69 69
66 62
60 60
58 55
52 29 29
35 35
32 34 34 34 35
32 29
25 22 22
18 12
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C12: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.8 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-30
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6110 STC 35
Noise Reduction, dBA:
54 57
58 58 58
63 65
69 69
66 62
60 60
58 55
52 29 29
33 35 35
38 36
38 36
32 28
25 26
24 18
13 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C13: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.8 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-30
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Noise Reduction, dBA:
54 57
58 58 58
63 65
69 69
66 62
60 60
58 55
52 29 30
36 36
33 35 35 35 36
33 30
26 23 23
19 13
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C14: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.8 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 43
-32
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Quiet Home STC 38
Window - Quiet Home STC 38
Noise Reduction, dBA:
54 57
58 58 58
63 65
69 69
66 62
60 60
58 55
52 26
28 32 33
29 34 33
35 36
32 30
26 25
21 17
13 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C15: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-29
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - WPI Model 9100HS STC 32
Noise Reduction, dBA:
53 56
58 57 57
62 65
68 68
65 61
59 59
57 54
51 28
31 38 37
33 35 35 36 35
30 25
20 20 20
16 16
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C16: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-30
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Quiet Home STC 34
Noise Reduction, dBA:
53 56
58 57 57
62 65
68 68
65 61
59 59
57 54
51 30 30
37 33
29 33
35 36 37
33 30
25 26
23 19
16 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C17: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-30
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Noise Reduction, dBA:
53 56
58 57 57
62 65
68 68
65 61
59 59
57 54
51 29 29
35 35
32 35 34 34 36
32 30
25 22 22
18 12
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C18: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-29
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6340 Fixed STC 36
Window - Millgard 6340 Fixed STC 36
Noise Reduction, dBA:
53 56
58 57 57
62 65
68 68
65 61
59 59
57 54
51 30
34 39
35 32
38 35 36
33 28
25 22
27 26
18 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C19: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 75.4 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-31
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6610PD Patio Door STC 33
Noise Reduction, dBA:
55 58
59 58 59
63 66
69 70
66 63
60 60
58 56
52 30 30
35 36
33 35 35 35 36
33 30
25 23 23
19 13
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C20: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 75.4 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 46
Room Area, ft: 134
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 23
Window & Door Area, ft: 45
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 134
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 372
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 45.2
Floor:

Floor, sf: 134
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 163
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 45
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-30
B2 Bedroom 1 (Corner)
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Millgard 6340 Fixed STC 36
Noise Reduction, dBA:
55 58
59 58 59
63 66
69 70
66 63
60 60
58 56
52 31
34 39
35 32
37 35 35
33 28
24 22
27 26
17 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C21: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 75.4 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-31
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Carpet, latex backing on foam pad
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Quiet Home STC 34
Window - Quiet Home STC 34
Noise Reduction, dBA:
55 58
59 58 59
63 66
69 70
66 63
60 60
58 56
52 32 32
37 34
30 32
34 35 36
33 29
24 24
21 17
15 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
Appendix C22: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: 211109 Shea Apartments
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 75.4 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 3
Noise Source:

Room Perimeter, ft: 73
Room Area, ft: 309
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 30
Window & Door Area, ft: 110
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 309
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 569
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 85.7
Floor:

Floor, sf: 309
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 160
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 86
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-32
B1 Living
Inputs
Freeway Traffic - I80 Roseville @ 65
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Marble or glazed tile
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 0.5" OSB, One Coat Stucco, RC
Window - Quiet Home STC 38
Window - Quiet Home STC 38
Noise Reduction, dBA:
55 58
59 58 59
63 66
69 70
66 63
60 60
58 56
52 27
29 33 33
29 34 34
36 36
33 30
27 26
22 17
13 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
TOTAL

19.50± AC

BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL (BP)
TOTAL

19.50± AC

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)
CC Exhibit B
RESOLUTION NO. 23-061

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION

ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Parcel 42A of the North Central Roseville Specific Plan from Business Professional (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR-18.5) at a density of approximately 18.50± units per acre, as shown in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the General Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum); and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed General Plan Amendments were considered and found to be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Roseville 2021 Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the City Council considered the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum) for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville desires to approve said General Plan Amendments as conducive to public interest, health, safety and welfare, and consistent with the land use practices of the City and with state law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the General Plan Amendments (attached as Exhibit B) are hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Development Services Director is hereby directed to retain said General Plan Amendments on permanent public display in the Development Services Department of the City of Roseville and is authorized to make typographical, formatting, or other non-content corrections without further Council approval.

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

City Clerk
North Central Roseville Land Use Summary
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ACRES % OF TOTAL UNITS % OF TOTAL (Specific Plan Land Use) ACRES UNITS

RESIDENTIAL
LDR (Residential) 496.96 27.25% 2,110 44.79% 41.61%
MDR (Residential) 46.57 2.56% 488 10.36% 9.62%
HDR (Residential) 112.22 131.72 6.16% 7.22% 2,113 2,473 44.85% 48.77 Subtotal 655.75 675.25 35.97% 37.03% 4,711 5,071 100.00%

SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) 2.23 0.12% 0 0.00%
CC (Commercial) 137.35 7.53% 0 0.00%
RC (Regional Commercial) 199.57 10.94% 0 0.00%
BP (Business Professional) 59.99 40.49 3.29% 2.22% 0 0.00% BP (Business Professional /Commercial) 101.55 5.57% 0 0.00% LI (Light Industrial) 46.54 2.56% 0 0.00%
LI (Light Industrial / Reserve) 21.25 1.17% 0 0.00%
IND (Industrial) 9.84 0.54% 0 0.00%
Subtotal 31.70% 0 0.00%

OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC
OS (Lower Watershed) 120.96 6.63% 0 0.00%
OS (Open Space / Recreation) 38.41 2.11% 0 0.00%
OS (Slope Easement) 18.59 1.02% 0 0.00%
OS (Wetland Preserve) 4.90 0.27% 0 0.00%
PR (Golf Course) 0.88 0.05% 0 0.00%
PR (Park) 50.06 2.75% 0 0.00%
PR (Park / Preserve) 48.74 2.68% 0 0.00%
PQP (Corp Yard) 1.48 0.08% 0 0.00%
PQP (Substation) 1.18 0.06% 0 0.00%
PQP (Elementary School) 15.98 0.88% 0 0.00%
PQP (Middle School) 18.46 1.01% 0 0.00%
PQP (Daycare) 1.04 0.06% 0 0.00%
PQP (Fire Station) 2.97 0.16% 0 0.00%
PQP (PG & E) 33.72 1.85% 0 0.00%
ROW (Right of Way) 232.04 12.72% 0 0.00%
Subtotal 32.33% 0 0.00%
Total 1,823.48 100.00% 4,711 5,071 100.00%
Last Updated: January 2023
2-14 North Central Roseville Specific Plan
CC Exhibit C

TAYLOR RD
INTERSTATE 80

STANFORD RANCH RD
42A
BP
17 ac
42C
HDR-18.5

19.5ac
90 PR

1.81ac U
LDR-2.7

9.5ac
97 OS

18.59ac
93 PR

33.09ac
33 CC

1.98ac
55C
PR

2.9ac
52 PR

9.93ac
34A
CC

13.18ac
34B
CC

1.23ac
I
LDR-5.1

14.76ac
J
LDR-4.8

5.61ac
R
LDR-5.7

12.53ac
36 RC

88.92ac
P
LDR-3

16.94ac
95 RC

16.52ac
39A
BP/CC

19.35ac 38
BP/CC

29.55ac
45 OS/FP

1.05ac
48A
CC

39.19ac
17A
LDR-5.1

22.32ac
44 MDR-11.8

20.4ac
56 PR

13.33acN
LDR-4.5

17.12ac
20C
HDR-20.1

12.82ac
73 P/QP

18.46ac
O
LDR-2.9

8.17ac
Q
LDR-3.3

11.07ac
39B
BP/CC

2.97ac
A
LDR-4.4

16.83ac
62 P/QP

1.18ac
M
LDR-4.5

10.02ac
20B
HDR-15

13.43ac
20A
HDR-19.1

20.98ac
34C
CC

26.62ac
S
LDR-3.3

10.24ac
50A,D
PR

7.97ac
L
LDR-5.6

10.81ac
K
LDR-5

13.68ac
59 PR

0.13ac
58 PR 0.75ac
F,G
LDR-6

20.17ac
72 P/QP
8ac
H
LDR-5.4

5.4ac
E
LDR-4.8

15.23ac D
LDR-5.4

11.77ac
B
LDR-4.2

15.78ac
C
LDR-4.4

20.39ac
85 OS

15.45ac
13 LDR-4.1

21.34ac
49A
LI

46.54ac
49B
LI

12.35ac
17B
LDR-4.5

22.89ac 61
NC

2.23ac
18B
LDR-4.3

12.22ac
55A
CC

9.84ac
84 OS/FP

37.62ac
48B
LI

8.9ac
18C
MDR-9.5

26.17ac
55B
PR

3.23ac
41 CC

3.42ac
42B
HDR-18.2

14.99ac
65 P/QP

2.97ac
83 OS/FP

16.27ac
35 RC

94.13ac
82 OS/FP

6.11ac
W
LDR-3.7

1.36ac
80B
OS/FP

3.92ac
80A
OS/FP

3.66ac
Y
LDR-2.3

8.33ac
47 P/QP

1.04ac
53 PR

4.49ac
74 P/QP

7.98ac
9 LDR-5.1 6.32ac
64 P/QP

1.48ac
87 OS/FP

18.08ac
10,12
LDR-3.1

60.11ac
86 OS/FP

1.98ac
27,28
HDR-19.4 12.18ac
T
LDR-3.4

11.46ac
V
LDR-2.7

14.68ac
91 PR

13.84ac 32
CC

11.68ac
31 CC

13.73ac
X
LDR-3.4

9.1ac
21B
HDR-21.5 8.55ac
40 BP/CC

49.69ac
18A
LDR-4.6

10.46ac
21A
CC

9.31ac
43 BP

23.45ac
98D
OS

2.67ac
98C
OS

4.2ac
98E
OS

11.11ac
98A
OS 4.81ac
88 OS

12.36ac
55D
PR

2.55ac
19 LDR-4.9

33.87ac
81B
OS/FP

1.59ac
26,29
LDR-4.3

13.07ac11
LDR-6.2

3.41ac
81A
OS/FP

3.92ac
69 IND

9.84ac
98B
OS

15.62ac
63 P/QP

33.72ac
37 CC

5.62ac
96 CC

1.55ac
57 PR

5.66ac
46 HDR-19.2

11.67ac
23 OS

3.85ac
22 HDR-19.1

17.6ac

WASHINGTON BL

GROVE BL

HALLISSY DR

GALLERIA BL

ROSEVILLE PW

PLEASANT

GIBSON DR

ROSEVILLE PW
HWY 65
Last Updated: January, 2023

NORTH CENTRAL LAND USE PLAN
Figure 2-4
0 0.50.25
Miles
/
2-15

North Central Land Use by Parcel Number

Parcel General Plan Land Use
(Specific Plan Land Use)
Zoning Acres Allocated
Units
Density
A LDR (Residential) R1/DS 16.83 74 4.4
B LDR (Residential) R1/DS 15.78 67 4.2
C LDR (Residential) R1/DS 20.39 90 4.4
D LDR (Residential) R1/DS 11.77 63 5.4
E LDR (Residential) R1/DS 15.23 73 4.8
F,G LDR (Residential) RS/DS 20.17 121 6.0
H LDR (Residential) RS/DS 5.40 29 5.4
I LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.76 75 5.1
J LDR (Residential) RS/DS 5.61 27 4.8
K LDR (Residential) RS/DS 13.68 68 5.0
L LDR (Residential) RS/DS 10.81 61 5.6
M LDR (Residential) R1/DS 10.02 45 4.5
N LDR (Residential) R1/DS 17.12 77 4.5
O LDR (Residential) R1/DS 8.17 24 2.9
P LDR (Residential) R1/DS 16.94 50 3.0
Q LDR (Residential) R1/DS 11.07 36 3.3
R LDR (Residential) RS/DS 12.53 71 5.7
S LDR (Residential) R1/DS 10.24 34 3.3
T LDR (Residential) R1/DS 11.46 39 3.4
U LDR (Residential) R1/DS 9.50 26 2.7
V LDR (Residential) R1/DS 14.68 40 2.7
W LDR (Residential) R1/DS 1.36 5 3.7
X LDR (Residential) R1/DS 9.10 31 3.4
Y LDR (Residential) R1/DS 8.33 19 2.3
9 LDR (Residential) RS 6.32 32 5.1
10,12 LDR (Residential) R1/DS-NC 60.11 185 3.1
11 LDR (Residential) RS 3.41 21 6.2
13 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.34 88 4.1
17A LDR (Residential) RS 22.32 113 5.1
17B LDR (Residential) RS 22.89 104 4.5
18A LDR (Residential) RS 10.46 48 4.6
18B LDR (Residential) RS 12.22 53 4.3
18C MDR (Residential) R3 26.17 248 9.5
19 LDR (Residential) RS 33.87 165 4.9
20A HDR (Residential) R3 20.98 400 19.1
20B HDR (Residential) R3 13.43 202 15.0
20C HDR (Residential) R3 12.82 258 20.1
21A CC (Commercial) CC 9.31
21B HDR (Residential) R3 8.55 184 21.5
22 HDR (Residential) R3 17.60 336 19.1
23 OS (Wetland Preserve) OS 3.85
26,29 LDR (Residential) R1/DS 13.07 56 4.3
27,28 HDR (Residential) R3/DS-NC 12.18 236 19.4
31 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 13.73
32 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 11.68
33 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 1.98
34A CC (Commercial) GC/SA-NC 13.18
34B CC (Commercial) GC/SA-NC 1.23
34C CC (Commercial) GC/SA-NC 26.62
35 RC (Regional Commercial) RC/SA-NC 94.13
36 RC (Regional Commercial) RC/SA-NC 88.92
37 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 5.62
38 BP (Business Professional /Commercial) CC/SA-NC 29.55 39A BP (Business Professional /Commercial) CC/SA-NC 19.35 39B BP (Business Professional /Commercial) CC/SA-NC 2.97 40 BP (Business Professional /Commercial) CC/SA-NC 49.69

2-16A North Central Roseville Specific Plan
Parcel General Plan Land Use
(Specific Plan Land Use)
Zoning Acres Allocated
Units
Density
41 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 3.42
42A BP (Business Professional) BP/SA-NC 36.54 17.04 0 0.0 42B HDR (Residential) R3 14.99 273 18.2
42C HDR (Residential) R3/SA-NC 19.50 360 18.41 43 BP (Business Professional) BP/SA-NC 23.45 0 0.0
44 MDR (Residential) R3/DS/SA-NC 20.40 240 11.8
45 OS (Wetland Preserve) OS 1.05 0 0.0
46 HDR (Residential) R3/SA-NC 11.67 224 19.2
47 P/QP (Daycare) P/QP/SA-NC 1.04
48A CC (Commercial) CC 39.19
48B LI (Light Industrial /Reserve) M1/SA-NC 8.90
49A LI (Light Industrial) PD/SA-NC 46.54
49B LI (Light Industrial /Reserve) M1/SA-NC 12.35
50A,D PR (Park) PR 7.97
52 PR (Park) PR 9.93
53 PR (Park) PR 4.49
55A CC (Commercial) CC 9.84
55B PR (Park) PR 3.23
55C PR (Park) PR 2.90
55D PR (Park) PR 2.55
56 PR (Park) PR 13.33
57 PR (Park) PR 5.66
58 PR (Golf Course) PR 0.75
59 PR (Golf Course) PR 0.13
61 NC (Neighborhood Commercial) NC/SA-NC 2.23
62 P/QP (Substation) P/QP 1.18
63 P/QP (PG and E) M2 33.72
64 P/QP (Corp Yard) PR 1.48
65 P/QP (Fire Station) P/QP 2.97
69 IND (Industrial) M2 9.84
72 P/QP (Elementary School) P/QP 8.00
73 P/QP (Middle School) P/QP 18.46
74 P/QP (Elementary School) P/QP 7.98
80A OS (Lower Watershed) OS 3.66
80B OS (Lower Watershed) OS 3.92
81A OS (Lower Watershed) OS 3.92
81B OS (Lower Watershed) OS 1.59
82 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 6.11
83 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 16.27
84 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 37.62
85 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 15.45
86 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 1.98
87 OS (Lower Watershed) OS 18.08
88 OS (Lower Watershed) OS/FW 12.36
90 PR (Park / Preserve) PR 1.81
91 PR (Park / Preserve) OS 13.84
93 PR (Park / Preserve) OS 33.09
95 RC (Regional Commercial) RC/SA-NC 16.52
96 CC (Commercial) CC/SA-NC 1.55
97 OS (Slope Easement) OS/SA-NC 18.59
98A OS (Open Space /Recreation) M2 4.81
98B OS (Open Space /Recreation) M2 15.62
98C OS (Open Space /Recreation) M2 4.20
98D OS (Open Space /Recreation) OS 2.67
98E OS (Open Space /Recreation) OS 11.11
ROW ROW (Right of Way) ROW 232.04
Total 1,823.48 4,711
Last Updated: January, 2023

2-16B North Central Roseville Specific Plan
NCRSP Text Amendments

Section 3.4.2 – Special Policies for Parcel 42C
Parcel 42C is a unique Multi-family housing site in the North Central Roseville Specific Plan.

Originally, part of Parcel 42A and designated for Business Professional land use, Parcel 42C has been amended to a High Density Residential land use with the intent of providing regulated affordable housing units on the parcel. Parcel 42C shall comply with the following specific policies:

1. As referenced in Chapter 4, Table 4-3 (Allocation of Low and Very Low Income Rental Units by Parcel) a minimum of 20 percent of the residential units shall be made available as affordable housing. The affordability levels for these units shall be as follows: 50 percent very-low income units (50 percent or lower Average Median Income (AMI) for Placer County) and 50 percent low income units (50 percent or lower Average Median Income (AMI) for Placer County). Parcel 42C shall require approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement, by the City Council, prior to issuance of building permits.

2. The design of a multi-family development on Parcel 42C shall comply with the design standards found in the Roseville Community Design Guidelines.

3. A minimum forty foot (40') landscape easement shall be provided in Parcel 42C adjacent to Highway 65. The easement will accommodate an eight foot (8') wide pedestrian/bikeway helping to connect the lower watershed preserve corridors (Parcels 82 and 83), as shown in Figures 3-25a and 3-25b. The pathway is to be installed with construction of the development. The multi-family development on Parcel 42C shall provide connections to facilitate pedestrian access at not more than an average of 600 feet apart.

4. Buffering between business-professional uses and multi-family residential uses shall be provided through setbacks, soundwalls or fencing, landscaping, or a combination thereof. The use of setbacks and landscaping with berms, rather than fences and soundwalls, is encouraged.

3.7 Community Commercial Land Use
The community commercial land use is intended to provide a concentration and mix of shops and services large enough to meet the daily shopping needs of the residents and employees in the North Central Specific Plan Area. Placement of community commercial in close proximity to residents and employees, and providing pedestrian access connections, will help reduce the number and length of shopping and leisure trips, and the related effects of automobile use. A substantial percentage of the residents within the Specific Plan will be within a one-half (1/2) mile radius of a community commercial center. This equates to, at most, about a ten to twelve minute walk for most people, and is expected to encourage people to walk for many of their limited purchase, single purpose trips.

Typical uses permitted in the community commercial centers may include:
- Drug Store
- Variety Store
- Supermarket
- Restaurant/Coffee Shop/Fast Food
- Professional Services such as bookkeeper, attorney
- Hardware with outside storage
- Personal Services, such as flower shops, shoe repair, barber - Gas Station (subject to policy 6)
- Bakery
- Specialty Apparel
- Sporting Goods
- Banks
- Post Office
- Community Care Facility
- Long Term Care Facility

3.10 Business-Professional/Commercial Land Use
The business-professional I commercial land use is intended to provide a flexible mix of uses that are not usually found in a conventional office or commercial setting. For example, small professional offices may be mixed with specialty retail, restaurants, or leisure activities to serve the Plan Area residents, as well as the employees and visitors in the area. The uses permitted within the business-professional/ commercial land use include:
- small administrative and general offices
- medical and dental offices
- professional services such as attorneys, accountants, and insurance agents - restaurants
- hotels
- financial institutions
- bakeries
- hairdresser and related services
- travel agencies
- retail such as a book or stationery store, specialty clothing, shoes, and jewelry - Community Care Facility
- Long Term Care Facility

- The business-professional/ commercial parcels may include a gas station designed as an integral part of the entire site.

Table 4-3 lists units affordable to low and very low income households.

Table 4-3
Allocation of Low and Very Low Income Rental Units by Parcel Parcel Number Total Units Units Affordable % of Parcel Units 20 602 120 20.0
20C 258 26 10.0
21B 149 30 20.0
22 340 34 10.0
27 174 17 10.0
28 72 72 100.0 (Seniors)
42B 273 27 9.9
42C* 360 72 20.0
1,868 2,228 326 398 17.2 17.9
* Parcel 42 C is planned for a maximum of 360 units and fewer units may be developed. The final number of affordable units will be a minimum of 20% of the total developed units.

RESOLUTION NO. 23-062

AMENDING THE NORTH CENTRAL ROSEVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN

WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the North Central Roseville Specific Plan text and land use map to reflect the changes of Parcel 42A, as shown in Exhibit C, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan Amendments; and

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum); and

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendments as proposed and revised are consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the City Council considered the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum) for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendments, and makes the following findings:

The Specific Plan Amendments are consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Roseville General Plan and the North Central Roseville Specific Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the proposed changes to the North Central Roseville Specific Plan are adopted as set forth in the attached Exhibit C.

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

City Clerk
TOTAL

19.50± AC

BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/SPECIAL

AREA NORTH CENTRAL ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN (BP/SA-NC)
TOTAL

19.50± AC

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING/SPECIAL

AREA NORTH CENTRAL ROSEVILLE
SPECIFIC PLAN (R3/SA-NC)
CC Exhibit D
ORDINANCE NO.

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

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

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

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

SECTION 2. Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville located in the North Central Roseville Specific Plan as shown and so designated in Exhibit “D,” attached and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

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

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND ROSEVILLE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Roseville, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City of Roseville enter into a Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC, pertaining to property located within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan area.

SECTION 2 . Prior to considering the Development Agreement, the City Council considered the Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (inclusive of the 2021 Housing Element Addendum) , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations of the City of Rose ville General Plan and the North Central Roseville Specific Plan;

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

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

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

5. The provisions of the Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment.

SECTION 4. The Development Agreement, by an d between the City of Roseville and Roseville Land Holdings, LLC , a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

______________________________________
City Clerk

Roseville City CouncilFebruary 15, 2023

Roseville City Council
February 15, 2023