Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, August 16, 2023 (part 4 of 5)

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 5 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 11
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 13
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 14
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 16
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 18
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 19
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 20
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 22
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 23
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 26
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 28
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 29
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 30
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 32
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 33
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 34
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 35
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 38
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 40
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 42
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 43
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 45 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 3 of 4 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project address is 6000 Baseline Road, within the southern portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), south of Sierra Village Drive, east of Santucci Boulevard, west of Westbrook Boulevard, and north of Baseline Road and Curry Creek (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location (parcel bordered in red)
Background
The project site is identified as parcels KT-41A and KT-41B within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road. The SVSP consists of a mix of land uses, with KT-41A and KT-41B designated for Community Commercial land use. The SVSP anticipated these parcels to be developed with large commercial uses as shown in figure B-29 of the SVSP, which provides a concept design for a commercial center that can support over 950,000 square feet of commercial uses. Prior to taking action on the SVSP, the City adopted Resolution 10-160 certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, collectively analyzing, and reducing to the extent feasible, impacts associated with development that would occur pursuant to the SVSP.

Additionally, Development Agreements with the property owners of the SVSP parcels and the City were entered into to outline development obligations within the SVSP.

The current project is a Major Project Permit Stage 1 and Stage 2 for the construction of a continuing care retirement community (see Figure 2). The proposed development is consistent with what was anticipated in the SVSP in that it is composed of a large commercial use that is consistent with the zoning and land use Baseline Rd.

Santucci Bl.

Westbrook Bl.

Sierra Village Dr.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 4 of 5 ends

designations for the site adopted with the SVSP. The addendum documents the details of the site use and layout and how they are within the scope of the impacts anticipated with the SVSP EIR.

Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site General
Commercial Community Commercial Leveled and graded, undeveloped North (West)
Residential
Small Lot/
Development
Standards
Medium-Density
Residential Single-family subdivision under construction North
(Center)
Parks and
Recreation Parks and Recreation Graded and undeveloped park site North (East)
Residential
Small Lot/
Development
Standards
Low-Density Residential Single-family subdivision
South Open Space Open Space Curry Creek
South
(Beyond
Baseline Rd.)
Specific Plan
– Placer
Vineyards
Specific Plan
Placer Vineyards Specific
Plan Curry Creek
West Multi-Family
Residential High-Density Residential Leveled and graded, undeveloped East General
Commercial Community Commercial Leveled and graded, undeveloped Environmental Setting
The project site was rough-graded and has been annually maintained, and is therefore dominated by relatively flat topography and is devoid of trees, wetlands, or other natural features. The site is primarily populated by nonnative annual grasses, and aerial photography shows evidence of ground disturbance, including areas of bare ground and furrows from discing on the property. There are no structures on the property. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcels. Curry Creek is located south of the project site with the majority located in unincorporated Placer County and a portion located within a designated Open Space preserve within City limits to the southwest of the project site. The Open Space preserve includes the entirety of Curry Creek and its floodplain, including a buffer between any wetland or riparian resources and the boundary of the Open Space parcel.

The project site is bordered by Baseline Road to the south, which is currently a two-lane road but is designated for expansion to six lanes with full buildout of the SVSP area. An open space parcel containing Curry Creek within unincorporated Placer County is located to the south of the project site beyond Baseline Road. The site is bordered on the east by parcel KT-42, which is an undeveloped commercial site and contains similarly disturbed non-native grasslands. The site is bordered on the west by parcel KT-30, which is an undeveloped multi-family residential site and contains similarly disturbed non-native grasslands. The site is bordered on the north by single-family subdivisions as well as a neighborhood park. The site will be served by utilities within Westbrook Boulevard.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 5 of 6 ends

Proposed Project
The proposed project is a request for a Major Project Permit Stage 1 and Stage 2 to approve the site plan and phase one building elevations for the Erickson Senior Living project for construction of an approximately 2,130,404 square-foot continuing care retirement community and includes the following requested entitlement:

A. Development Agreement Amendment (DAA) – The project site is within the area covered by the Baseline P&R Development Agreement. The applicant proposes to amend the agreement in order to memorialize the operations and use type classifications of the project as well as timing for needed electrical improvements.

B. Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 – The intent of the Major Project Permit (MPP) process is to streamline the review of large and diverse projects that could be constructed over a period of several years. The MPP process allows for the resolution of site issues prior to the review of more detailed architectural and landscape issues that may not be finalized at the time the site plan is ready. Stage 1 consists of the approval of a preliminary development plan (Figure 2). The preliminary plan will establish the configuration of the buildings, rough grading and drainage on-site, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and the preliminary landscape plan. The entire Erickson Senior Living site is included in the MPP Stage 1 review.

C. Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 2 – Stage 2 of the Major Project Permit includes review of the architectural design, landscape treatments, and design guidelines. Only Phase 1 of the project is included in the MPP Stage 2 review.

D. Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) – The applicant proposes to move the existing lot line that divides the two large lot parcels to better accommodate the proposed site plan.

Figure 2. Site Plan

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the abovedescribed project. The document relies on previous environmental documents and site-specific studies prepared

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 6 of 7 ends

to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project as well as updated technical analyses, prepared by qualified consultants. This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

Where, as here, an EIR addressing an earlier version of the project has been previously prepared and certified, the lead agency considers the relevance of that prior EIR in light of the current modified version of the project and changed circumstances since the time of the preparation of the prior EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162–15163, if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that new information of substantial importance, or changes to the project or surrounding circumstances will require major revisions to the previous EIR due either to a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect on the environment, the lead agency is required to prepare a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement to analyze the project at hand. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164, if the agency finds no basis for requiring the preparation of either a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement, but some changes or additions are necessary, an Addendum shall be prepared.

The Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SVSP EIR) was certified by City Council on May 5, 2010 (State Clearinghouse Number 2008032115). The document analyzed the impacts that would occur as a result of development of the SVSP area, including a large commercial development on the project site. A copy of the SVSP EIR is available for review online at www.roseville.ca.us/planning under Specific Plans and then the Sierra Vista Specific Plan page. The City Council adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it certified the SVSP EIR. The EIR identified the following impacts associated with development of the SVSP area, including the buildout of the project area, as significant and unavoidable:
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 • Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
For build out of the SVSP project area, the SVSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Air pollutant emissions from construction
• Air pollutant emissions from operation
• Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming • On-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Off-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 7 of 8 ends

• Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Change in visual character
The analyses below rely on the EIR analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate.

The project impacts remain within the scope of the impacts of the SVSP EIR, because the proposed project is of the scale, type, and form of development anticipated within the SVSP EIR for the project site. The SVSP EIR anticipated approximately 215 acres of commercial development. In the SVSP, a concept plan for parcels KT41A and KT-41B was provided to illustrate possible commercial use types and building layouts. The concept project was a large retail center of “over 950,000 square feet of commercial, business professional, and service uses.” The SVSP EIR considered impacts related to project construction and those related to project operation.

The Erickson Senior Living project is within the scope of the environmental impacts related to project construction anticipated in the SVSP EIR, which evaluated the impacts of full development of the project site, including grading of the entire site and the construction of large commercial buildings, parking, utilities, and other appurtenances.

The operational impacts of the Erickson Senior Living project, as shown in technical studies included in this report, are less intensive than what was previously evaluated in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the project site, and therefore would not result in new or more severe environmental effects than were already analyzed in the SVSP EIR.

Impacts to physical resources (such as agricultural land, biological resources, etc.) are based on the grading and development of a site, not on the arrangement or use of buildings within the site. The entire project site was anticipated to be graded and fully developed with commercial uses within the SVSP EIR. For other types of impacts which are affected by size and use of buildings, such as air quality, minor technical updates have been provided, where necessary. The Environmental Checklist section, below, provides minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate, to demonstrate that the project remains within the scope of the impacts previously analyzed in the EIR.

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

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

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals, or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 8 of 9 ends

current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Since the publication of the SVSP EIR, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form). These updates address legislative changes to CEQA, clarify language, and update language consistent with case law. None of the changes to the checklist require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared. The majority of the checklist changes clarified language, reorganized existing language, or eliminated analysis requirements. For analysis requirements which have been eliminated, this is in response to

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 9 of 10 ends

case law affirming that analysis must focus on impacts caused by the project, not impacts to the project. An example of each of these types of changes is included below:
• Cultural Resources (a): Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource as defined in pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The replacement of “as defined in” with “pursuant to” is a phrasing change which has no impact on required analysis.
• Cultural Resources (c) has been moved to Geology and Soils (f).

Moving the topical section of this analysis requirement (which is related to paleontological resources) from Cultural Resources to Geology and Soils has no impact on required analysis. • Noise (b): Exposure of persons to or Generation of excessive ground borne vibration of ground borne noise levels?
The above changes redirect the analysis from considering overall exposure of persons to ground borne vibration, and focus the analysis on any ground borne vibration generated by a project. This same change is reflected in all other checklist questions related to noise. Therefore, the EIR included more analysis than is currently required, because they included analysis related to exposing neighboring areas to noise, but also analyzed the effect of noise on the proposed uses; the latter analysis is no longer required.

The updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G also includes three new sections (Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, and Wildfire) and includes new and modified requirements as part of the Transportation/Traffic section. Although the Tribal Cultural Resources section is new, the analysis of this impact area was included in the SVSP EIR as part of the Cultural Resources section. The new Energy section was formerly included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, but has been moved into the Appendix G, so while it is new to the checklist, it is not new to the CEQA Guidelines. In regards to Wildfire, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. Therefore, the Wildfire section does not apply because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area.

The changes to the Transportation/Traffic section—which is now called simply Transportation—refocuses the analysis on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “…vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.

For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project...” Section 15064.3(c) states that the section applies prospectively and did not require lead agencies to undertake VMT analysis until July 1, 2020. Even as of that date, the VMT requirement only applied to projects for which draft EIRs (or negative declarations) had not yet been issued. An addendum is considered together with a certified Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 (d)) and thus represents a later stage in the CEQA process that follows a period of time after the issuance of a draft EIR. The new VMT requirement, then, does not apply to an addendum. Here, the SVSP EIR at issue was certified in 2010, approximately 10 years before the VMT requirement took effect. Case law substantiating this includes “Citizen’s for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento” (2019).

Although, as explained above, VMT is not applicable to this addendum, the City of Roseville considered VMT in the SVSP EIR, albeit in a different context. The SVSP EIR’s chapter regarding Climate Change and Greenhouse

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 10 of 11 ends

Gas Emissions included an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the traffic associated with the operation of uses allowed under the SVSP at buildout. As discussed in more detail in the Transportation section of this Environmental Checklist, the trip generation associated with the project is well within the trips that were assumed as part of the SVSP. Because the project’s proposed uses are also consistent with the uses allowed pursuant to the SVSP, the trip lengths associated with project trips would not be expected to meaningfully vary from the assumptions that were used to generate the original VMT analysis in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, even if VMT were required to be analyzed, the project would not generate new or more severe impacts with respect to VMT as compared with the SVSP EIR.

Moreover, the City also analyzed VMT in connection with the 2035 General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2019080418). The General Plan Update (GPU) EIR1 used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The VMT data was then normalized to residents as a “per capita” rate. As described in the GPU EIR, and consistent with the VMT reductions in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the City has adopted a VMT significance threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita. This threshold represents a 15 percent reduction to baseline per capita VMT. The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the remaining undeveloped areas of the City, consistent with existing land use designations and existing development agreements, would exceed the City’s adopted threshold resulting in a Significant impact in both the constrained and unconstrained buildout scenarios, and that mitigation requiring land use changes was not feasible because of existing development agreements in place for the undeveloped areas of the City.

As stated in the GPU EIR and pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA, projects that are consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis. Quantitative analyses are not required if it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the GPU EIR. The proposed project includes construction of a commercial development on a parcel with a Community Commercial land use designation. A large commercial development was anticipated on this site in the SVSP and GPU EIR and the proposed project does not exceed what was anticipated with buildout of the SVSP (further discussion of this is found in the Transportation section of this Environmental Checklist) or analyzed in the GPU EIR; therefore, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with GPU EIR analysis as it relates to VMT, and the project does not require further VMT analysis.

Based on the foregoing, none of the modifications to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared.

Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to describe the impacts of the proposed project.
1 General Plan Update EIR: www.roseville.ca.us/GeneralPlan

CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? SVSP EIR
Section 4.14 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Same No No No None
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Same No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Same No No No
SVSP EIR MM 4.14-1
SVSP EIR MM 4.14-2
SVSP EIR MM 4.14-3
Discussion: Impacts to visual and aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable. The SVSP included a concept plan for potential development of the site with large format retail buildings adjacent to Sierra Village Drive. Thus, it was contemplated that homes to the north would have some view of the commercial development. While the proposed project is taller than the buildings in the concept plan, the setback from the homes is larger resulting in a comparable aesthetic impact. The proposed project does not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and the scale of development is consistent with the development anticipated within the SVSP EIR. The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

The SVSP EIR found there were no designated or eligible scenic vistas or resources within or near the SVSP, and this evaluation remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

At the time of the SVSP EIR the planning area was within a non-urbanized area, and impacts to aesthetic and visual resources were found to be significant and unavoidable, because the Specific Plan would result in large-scale development within an area dominated by open space. The

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 12 of 13 ends

proposed project is currently within an urban area, and the project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. As it relates to aesthetics, these standards ensure the high quality design and architectural character of any buildings developed as well as establishing minimum landscaping standards. The proposed project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and therefore impacts are less than significant. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

As it relates to light and glare, the SVSP EIR found impacts would be significant and unavoidable, because the Specific Plan would introduce artificial light into a rural area. EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.14-1 requires all light fixtures for commercial and office uses to have glare shields and all new buildings to be constructed with low-glare materials; this mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. In addition, project lighting is conditioned to comply with current City standards (i.e., CDG), which require the project to limit the height of light standards and also require cutoff lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. MM 4.14-2 recommends low-glare materials be utilized for new buildings to reduce glare impacts. MM 4.14-3 reduces light impacts on nearby open space through design measures and light direction and placement. Based on the above discussion, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR, and the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 (site lighting to minimize nuisance), MM 4.14-2 (use low-glare materials), and MM 4.14-3 (avoid light spillover into Curry Creek and Open Space) can be found in the table of applicable mitigation measures included with this Addendum (see Attachment 1).

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 13 of 14 ends

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.1 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-2
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? Same No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
Same No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to agricultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The SVSP EIR concluded development of the project area would convert fallow grazing land to urbanized development and have a less than significant impact with mitigation. The SVSP EIR found that while the project site did not provide opportunities for prime agricultural production, approving an urban land use designation would preclude any agricultural use of the land in the future. The SVSP EIR found that with mitigation in the form of 1:1 open space preservation, the impact would be less than significant. The project site is no longer used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 14 of 15 ends

or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. For these reasons, project impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources are less than significant. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified less than significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2 required preservation of open space within Placer County in order to mitigate for the loss of open space in the SVSP. Though this measure remains applicable to the project, the measure has been completed via an established fee program that directs funds to the Placer Land Trust, which then sets aside land.

III. Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.4 No No No None
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, MM

4.5-1, and MM 4.5-2
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No WMM 4.4-7 (a)2
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
Same No No No None
Discussion: a–b) The SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain significant. The SVSP and EIR anticipated over 2 The SVSP encompasses area that had been subject to program-level analysis in the West Roseville Specific Plan EIR. Mitigation measures from the West Roseville Specific Plan EIR that remained applicable were incorporated into the SVSP EIR and are denoted by a “WMM” label.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 15 of 16 ends

950,000 square feet of commercial development on Specific Plan Parcels KT-41A and KT-41B. A concept plan for parcels KT-41A and KT-41B was provided within the SVSP to illustrate probable commercial use types and building layouts. The concept project was a large retail center of “over 950,000 square feet of commercial, business professional, and service uses.” While the concept plan assumed somewhat less building square footage, air quality impacts related to construction remain within the scope of the SVSP EIR. Air quality impacts related to grading remain the same, because the SVSP EIR assumed the entire site would be developed, consistent with the proposed project. Construction air quality is based on maximum daily emissions, so while some additional building area may lengthen the overall construction schedule, it will not increase the amount of construction which can feasibly occur on any given day for a large commercial site. Therefore, the construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of daily construction activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR.

For operational impacts, while the square footage of the proposed Erickson Senior Living project is greater than that shown in the concept site plan, the difference in commercial use type leads to a less intensive operational impact. In terms of operational air quality impacts, there are two general types of pollutants: area and mobile source emissions, with mobile emissions representing the bulk of operational emissions. The area emissions related to landscaping equipment and consumer products will be consistent with the retail center anticipated in the SVSP EIR, as the proposed project and a retail center include similar amounts of landscaping. The mobile source emissions related to automobile emissions will be less than the retail center. A traffic study completed by Kimley-Horn is included as Attachment 2 and includes a comparison of vehicle trip generation for the proposed project versus the retail center anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The proposed project will generate only 24 percent of the trips assumed for this parcel in the SVSP EIR, which will result in substantially less mobile-source emissions. The project development intensity is substantially less than what was previously evaluated for the project site within the Specific Plan as part of the SVSP EIR. Therefore, the operational air quality impacts of the project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR, and the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. c) Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are typically generated by stationary sources like facilities using solvents and heavy industrial operations, but can also be generated by more common uses such as gas stations. The SVSP EIR found that development of the Specific Plan would include certain uses, such as gas stations, which could emit TACs, and determined that mitigation could reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed project, which includes 1,200 independent living units, 40 skilled nursing beds, and 200 assisted living/memory care beds, is not a stationary source of TAC emissions, and therefore will not result in significant impacts related to TACs. d) The SVSP EIR found that development of the Specific Plan would not involve the long-term operation of any new sources of odor and that odors from construction activities would be short-term; therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.

Consistent with this analysis, while diesel fumes from construction equipment and delivery trucks are often found to be objectionable, construction is temporary and diesel emissions are minimal and regulated. Typical urban projects such as the proposed project do not result in substantial objectionable odors when operated in compliance with City Ordinances (e.g. proper trash disposal and storage). The Project is a typical urban development that lacks any characteristics that would cause the generation of substantial unpleasant odors. Thus, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable, and impacts related to odors are less than significant.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 16 of 17 ends

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, and WMM 4.4-7(a) were identified to reduce the impacts related to air quality though the impact would still be significant and unavoidable. These measures remain applicable to the proposed project.

IV. Biological Resources
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.8 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 17 of 18 ends

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Same No No No None
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to Biological Resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The SVSP EIR concluded development of the project area would impact wetlands on-site and could potentially impact special status species found in the area. The EIR concluded that the impact on Biological Resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to wetlands, vernal pool species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other protected raptors nesting and foraging habitat to less-than-significant levels. As discussed in the Environmental Setting section, above, the project site has been rough-graded and regularly maintained through discing, and no wetlands, intact grasslands, or trees remain on the site to be impacted. The proposed project is within the scope of the development assumptions for the parcels created for commercial development with the SVSP. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section and the proposed project is located on properties already anticipated for development.

The mitigation measures adopted with certification of the SVSP EIR remain appropriate and no additional impacts will occur. EIR mitigation measures adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing impacts to special habitats (such as wetlands and grasslands) and their dependent species were implemented prior to rough grading of the site, and have been effectuated; these measures are no longer applicable. Mitigation measures which remain applicable are those requiring surveys for ground-nesting birds (MM 4.8-3) and avoiding light and glare into the Curry Creek open space (MM4.14-3). Impacts remain less than significant upon compliance with the applicable mitigation measures. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Effectuated mitigation measures which are no longer applicable are Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 (wetland permits and no net loss), MM 4.8-2 (relocate western spadefoot), MM 4.8-4 (preservation of grassland habitat), MM 4.8-5 (wildlife movement protection), MM 4.8- 6 (habitat restoration), and MM 4.8-7 (off-site surveys for infrastructure). Mitigation Measures MM 4.8-3 (protection for nesting birds) and MM 4.14- 3 (avoid light spill into Curry Creek open space) remain applicable to the proposed project, and will ensure impacts to biological resources remain less than significant.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 18 of 19 ends

V. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 to 4.9-2
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 to 4.9-2 Discussion: Impacts to cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The SVSP EIR discussed the potential for subsurface remains or deposits to be found on the site, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found. Surveys performed in the project area did not detect evidence of prehistoric archeological resources. However, the impact to cultural resources was found to be potentially significant and unavoidable because there is always the potential that resources could be encountered during grading. Though the project site has been rough-graded and no resources were found, there is still the possibility that further grading and site development could unearth resources. The mitigation measures requiring a cessation of work and consultation should resources be discovered remain applicable (MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2). MM 4.9-3 requiring studies before construction of any offsite work is also applicable to any off-site work that may be needed. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 (cease work and consult with archeologist) and MM 4.9-2 (cease work and consult with paleontologist), and MM 4.9-3 (conduct studies prior to offsite infrastructure construction) remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 19 of 20 ends

VI. Energy
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy inefficiency?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to energy resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR concluded that development and implementation of the SVSP would add land uses that would increase the demand for electrical services. However, Roseville Electric determined there were no constraints to providing a reliable energy source to serve the development proposed in the SVSP area. Electricity in the area is provided by Roseville Electric and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Impacts 4.12-5.1 and 4.12-5-2 in the SVSP EIR evaluated the potential for development of the SVSP to increase demands for electricity and natural gas and found these impacts to be less than significant.

The project includes development of an approximately 2.1 million square-foot continuing care retirement community. The project would consume energy both during project construction and during project operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or which would be wasteful.

The completed project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This includes standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances, to name a few. The project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the project. The project plans were distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; energy supplies are available to serve the project. Roseville Electric provided a memo that confirmed they would be able to provide the electrical capacity needed for the Erickson Senior Living project. Construction of the project will occur in phases over approximately 10 years. The memo states what infrastructure improvements will need to be completed by the project developer if they have not yet been completed with by other anticipated

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 20 of 21 ends

surrounding developments. This is a matter of timing for the development and does not conflict with the ability to efficiently provide energy to other uses.

The proposed project will not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, nor would it conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed uses are within the scope of the build out assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this Project.

VII. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
i) Ruptures of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
Same No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Same No No No None
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? Same No No No None
iv) Landslides? Same No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 21 of 22 ends

c) Be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Same No No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Same No No No None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Same No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 and
Section 4.9
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-2
Discussion: Impacts to geology and soils resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides. The project site is located in Roseville, which is in Placer County. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies the South Placer area as a low severity earthquake zone. No active faults are known to exist within the County.

The project site is considered to have low seismic risk with respect to faulting, ground shaking, seismically related ground failure and liquefaction.

The SVSP EIR indicated that compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements would be sufficient to avoid impacts related to these issues. This conclusion remains appropriate for the proposed project because there is no new information indicating that geologic conditions are different than previously understood and the proposed project is within the development area anticipated in the SVSP EIR.

As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, though the project site has been rough-graded and no resources were found, there is still the possibility that further grading and site development could unearth resources. Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g. fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations.

The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-2 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) remains applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 22 of 23 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.5 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, 4.5-1
and 4.5-2
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts relating to greenhouse gases were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable. The SVSP EIR quantified the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from buildout and operation of the SVSP and concluded that the SVSP would cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the project’s GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR, as previously discussed in the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section. For operational impacts, GHG is primarily generated by vehicle travel, and to a much lesser extent by building energy usage. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and with the scale and intensity of development anticipated in the SVSP EIR, also as previously discussed in the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section. Although the building area of the proposed project is greater than anticipated in the SVSP EIR, the development intensity and vehicle travel, as discussed in the Air Quality section, will be substantially less. Furthermore, the California Building Code (CBC) requirements related to energy efficiency have become more stringent since publication of the EIR, and therefore GHG emissions related to building energy demands would be less than previously anticipated.

The City evaluated the proposed Erickson Senior Living in order to determine whether the project falls within the scope of vehicle-related GHG emissions anticipated in the SVSP EIR, first by examining the trip characteristics of the project and then by examining the expected trip lengths.

Kimley-Horn prepared a transportation memorandum (Kimley-Horn Memo, Attachment 2) dated March 13, 2023 which compares the anticipated transportation impacts of the project to the impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The Memo indicates the SVSP EIR transportation analysis accounted for the various uses (e.g. strip malls, small-scale retail, and large format retail) that make up the Community Commercial land use. In other words, the traffic analysis assumed and accounted for large retail uses that would generate a higher volume of traffic as well as smaller retail uses, which would generate a relatively smaller amount of traffic. The Memo concludes that the project will generate fewer trips and result in less travel than the typical retail uses evaluated in the SVSP EIR.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 23 of 24 ends

Based on the foregoing analysis, greenhouse gas emissions, from both the construction and operational phases, will result in impacts within the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. The project has incorporated the applicable requirements of SVSP EIR mitigation into the project design, and will comply with the required mitigation in the SVSP EIR.

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

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

4.10 No No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment though reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Same
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 24 of 25 ends

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Same No No No None
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Same No No No None
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Same No No No None
g) Expose people or structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 25 of 26 ends

Discussion: Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. The SVSP EIR includes a brief overview for each impact topic, concluding that compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure most impacts will be less than significant. The exception was for unknown soil contamination, as land which was used for agricultural purposes may include undiscovered, underground storage tanks or other contamination issues; mitigation for this was included. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The SVSP EIR analysis also found that there would be sufficient emergency services and facilities and that the area was not located within an airport land use plan or other aviation hazard area. These conclusions still fit for the proposed project, which is within the same development footprint.

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

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

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

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

The proposed uses for the Erickson Senior Living site are a continuing care retirement community, assisted living/memory care, and skilled nursing, and are all uses found in the Community Commercial land use category. These uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 26 of 27 ends

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

4.13 No No No
SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Same No No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 27 of 28 ends

d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Same No No No None
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Same No No No None
f) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? Same No No No None Discussion: Impacts related to hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. A Drainage and Storm Water Master Plan was prepared and approved by the City as part of the SVSP EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Drainage and Storm Water Master Plan demonstrated that the increases in impervious surfaces being caused by buildout of the SVSP would be offset by proposed drainage facilities and storm water improvements. The project is located adjacent to an open space preserve to the southwest, which contains Curry Creek, but no drainage is proposed directly into the creek. The project would offset increases in peak flow and no development would occur within the 100-year floodplain area. The project design complies with the West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual, and includes onsite treatment of stormwater through the use of onsite swales and other best management practices. With regard to storm water quality, the EIR notes that there are existing programs, regulations, and permits in place to ensure that the project would not have significant effects related to water pollution from construction or operation, though a mitigation measure is included to require compliance with these regulations.

The project is in an area of flat topography and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project falls within the development footprint of the SVSP, and does not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts, and the prior conclusions remain appropriate. Thus, the project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 28 of 29 ends

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

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Physically divide an established community? SVSP EIR Section 4.1 No No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-3, 4.6-1
and 4.6-2
Discussion: Impacts related to land use and planning were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. The SVSP EIR concluded that there were some potential land use incompatibilities between certain types of uses in the Specific Plan, but that these could be addressed by a mix of mitigation measures and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and Grading Ordinance. The EIR concluded that all impacts of the SVSP could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The Erickson Senior Living project involves a commercial use, which is principally permitted in the General Commercial zone and Community Commercial designated land use parcel where the project is proposed. The proposed uses are consistent with the buildout assumptions anticipated in the SVSP EIR, and therefore the conclusions of the SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project. The project is consistent with the policies of the Zoning Ordinance, SVSP, and the General Plan which are adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects.

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

As described above, the project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 (construction noise) and MM 4.6-2 (commercial noise controls) are applied during construction, so remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 29 of 30 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to mineral resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR indicated that there were no significant mineral resources in the area, and this finding remains accurate. Therefore, the project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 30 of 31 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.6 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration
of ground borne noise levels? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 31 of 32 ends

Discussion: Impacts related to noise were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable for temporary construction noise and increases in traffic noise outside the plan area. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an impact resulting from traffic on all of the major roadways in the SVSP area. Traffic-related noise levels expected in the year 2025 plus project were found to be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed Erickson Senior Living includes a continuing care retirement community consisting of independent living units, assisted living, memory, care and skilled nursing facilities, which are all principally permitted uses on this parcel and are therefore substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR. None of the proposed uses includes equipment or operations that are known to create noise in excess of a typical medical office use.

Existing and future noise from Baseline Road was estimated to be approximately 66 db in the exiting plus SVSP project condition and 71.7 db at full buildout (at a point 100 feet from the centerline). As discussed in the Transportation section of this Environmental Checklist, the proposed project is within the scope of the transportation impacts analyzed in the SVSP EIR, and therefore would not result in new or increased impacts related to roadway noise.

The project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 (construction noise), was applied in the SVSP EIR related to commercial and residential projects. Construction noise controls in the mitigation includes located fixed equipment away from noise sensitive uses and having a construction disturbance coordinator to address noise concerns. This mitigation measure remains applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 32 of 33 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.2 No No No None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to population and housing were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable for inducement of substantial population growth. The SVSP EIR indicated the SVSP would increase the number of housing units above those which had been anticipated in the General Plan, and analyzed the effect on supporting services, infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. It was concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The impact identified by the SVSP EIR was the result of adopting an urban land use plan over a non-urbanized area. The proposed project is currently within an urbanized area which is planned for such use consistent with the development assumptions for this parcel in the SVSP EIR.

Technical studies were provided to show that water and sewer impacts (Attachment 3) and electricity impacts (Attachment 4) are consistent with the impacts of the SVSP EIR and the site can be adequately served with existing planned infrastructure. Therefore the project will not have a new or more severe impact related to unplanned population growth. No existing buildings or residents are present on the project site; therefore, no residences or communities would be displaced.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 33 of 34 ends

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

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

An analysis of impacts to schools was included in the SVSP EIR, which concluded that two new elementary schools and one new intermediate school would be required in the project area. The high school students generated from the SVSP were assumed in the nearby high schools located outside the plan area. A portion of the SVSP is located within the Center School District and a portion is located within the Roseville City School District, though the current project area is entirely within the Center School District. This project will contain a continuing care

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 34 of 35 ends

retirement community and no children will reside in the development, and will therefore not create an increased demand for schools or have an impact on schools.

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

The project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR because no development beyond what was analyzed in the SVSEP EIR would occur and accordingly there would be no increased demand for services or need for construction of new facilities. Therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.11 No No No None
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 35 of 36 ends

Discussion: Impacts related to recreation were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP indicates that the required parkland dedication was met by dedication of parkland and through payment of park dedication in-lieu fees. As noted in the EIR, the payment of Citywide and neighborhood park fees will be required, and the payment of fees combined with the dedication of parkland will ensure that impacts to park services are less than significant. The project includes many on-site park-like amenities for residents, who will be elderly and largely stay within the development; therefore, this conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project. Moreover, because the level of development is consistent with what was analyzed in the SVSP EIR, the project would not cause the need for construction of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment beyond what was previously studied.

Given the foregoing, the project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

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

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 36 of 37 ends

d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 37 of 38 ends

Discussion: The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that, with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to adjacent agency roadways were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, and mitigation to lessen the impact was adopted. These analyses were based upon the level of service criteria and metrics. Per changes in state law, level of service is no longer considered an impact under CEQA, such that this document need not further address the level of service impacts studied in the EIR. However, the Kimley-Horn Transportation Memo confirms that the trips generated by the project are significantly less than the SVSP EIR assumptions and thus the level of service conclusions in that EIR remain valid. In accordance with the changes in the law adopted after the EIR was certified, wholly new CEQA documents must examine transportation impacts in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Though there is no requirement to consider VMT associated with the project given use of the existing EIR, the discussion below provides information as to the project’s consistency with the VMT assumptions within the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter of the SVSP EIR and the General Plan Update (GPU) EIR.

Checklist item “b” focuses on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This was added to the checklist after publication of the SVSP EIR. However, the SVSP EIR did include quantification of VMT projected from Specific Plan implementation. The SVSP EIR’s chapter regarding Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions included an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the traffic associated with the operation of uses allowed under the SVSP at buildout. As discussed in the Kimley-Horn Memo, the trip generation and travel associated with the project is well within the trips that were assumed as part of the SVSP. Because the project’s proposed uses are also consistent with the uses allowed pursuant to the SVSP, the trip lengths associated with project trips would also be expected to mesh with the assumptions that were used to generate the original VMT analysis in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, VMT stemming from the project would be within the scope of VMT set forth in the SVSP EIR, confirming that no new or more severe VMT impacts would result.

In addition, the GPU EIR used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The VMT data was then normalized to residents as a “per capita” rate. As described in the GPU EIR, and consistent with the VMT reductions in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the City has adopted a VMT significance threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita. This threshold represents a 15 percent reduction from baseline per capita VMT. The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the remaining undeveloped areas of the City, consistent with General Plan land use designations and existing development agreements, would exceed the City’s adopted threshold, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact in both the constrained and unconstrained buildout scenarios.

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

The proposed project has no impact on air traffic patterns, and does not present substantial safety risks. The project design does not introduce hazards such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The project has been reviewed by the City Engineering Division and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 38 of 39 ends

to all City project require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards. Compliance with existing regulations ensure that impacts are less than significant.

The proposed use is within the scope of the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts or cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR relative to transportation. Thus, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

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

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

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

SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 39 of 40 ends

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. In addition to archeological resources, tribal cultural resources are also given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographicallydefined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. This section was added as a stand-alone section to the CEQA Guidelines after the publication of the prior environmental document to which this Addendum is attached, but were previously addressed as part of the Cultural Resources chapter of the EIRAs part of this project, notice of the proposed project was mailed to tribes which had requested such notice, and no requests for consultation were received.

Given the forgoing, the project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 40 of 41 ends

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

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

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

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

4.12.4 No No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to utilities and service systems were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the plan area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands from development of the plan area. Furthermore, the Kimley-Horn Water and Sewer Memo (Attachment 3), compares the expected water demand from the SVSP with expected water demand for the Erickson Senior Living site based on historical data from other Erickson projects and finds the project is expected to use approximately 83% of the gallons of water day as

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 41 of 42 ends

anticipated for this site in the SVSP EIR. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the proposed project and memo and concluded there is sufficient water supply to meet the demands of the project. Therefore, the impact conclusions of the SVSP EIR with respect to water supply are still applicable to this project.

Development of the project area will require the construction of water lines and sewer lines and facilities, but these were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP. The project does not require any major changes or need for expanded facilities.

Additionally, the Water and Sewer Memo concluded that the Peak Wet Weather Flow would be approximately 42% of that anticipated in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, the project will have no effect on wastewater generation beyond that previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR. Environmental Utilities determined that the proposed project changes fell within the scope of the prior assessment. The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the plan area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project.

The SVSP EIR indicated that the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facilities would be used to dispose of solid waste, and that there was sufficient capacity to accept solid waste from the SVSP. The SVSP EIR also found that impacts related to solid waste would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed project is a commercial use consistent with the designated zone and is consistent with the waste assumptions of the SVSP.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.12.4-1 (expand the landfill) and 4.12.4-2 (diversion of construction debris) were included to require payment of fees to be used for landfill expansion and to require a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream. The landfill expansion measure has already been implemented, as fees are already in place that will apply to the proposed project. The remaining measure regarding diversion of construction debris remains applicable, as it is a project-level measure that applies during construction.

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 42 of 43 ends

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

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 43 of 44 ends

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

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

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

ADDENDUM
June 13, 2023
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B – Erickson Senior Living – 6000 Baseline Rd.; File #PL22-0207

Page 44 of 45 ends

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
SVSP EIR No No No None
Discussion: Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. The cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the SVSP EIR, and mitigation measures have already been incorporated. With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in this document chapter, and permit conditions, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species. Based on the foregoing, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to the mandatory findings of significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

1. SVSP Applicable Mitigation Measures

2. Kimley-Horn Transportation Memo

3. Kimley-Horn Water and Sewer Study

4. City of Roseville Electric Capacity Study
SVSP PCL KT-41A & KT-41B, Erickson Senior Living,
PL22-0207

TABLE OF APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Documents to be Submitted to City
Staff Use Only
MM 4.4-1 Dust and Construction Control Measures
In accordance with the PCAPCD, the applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations as listed above (e.g., Rule 202, 218 and 228). In addition, at the time of tentative map the applicant(s) shall implement a minimum of five (5) of the following measures unless superseded by state or other more stringent standards:

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

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

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Dust Control Plan and
proof of submittal to
PCAPCD
Attachment 1
• Paints and coating shall be applied either by hand or by high volume, low-pressure spray. This measure will reduce evaporative ROG emissions.
• All construction shall comply with the following measures to reduce fugitive dust related emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
o Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on soil haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
o Suspend grading operations during high winds (greater than 15mph). o Sweep streets as necessary if silt is carried off-site to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
o Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
o Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
o Phase grading into smaller areas to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion over extended periods of time.
o Pave or apply gravel to anyon-site haul roads.
o Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding andwater. o Clean earth moving construction equipment with water or sweep clean, once per day, or as necessary (e.g., when moving onsite), consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices and the Roseville Grading Ordinance. Water shall be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite. Operational water truck(s), shall be on-site, as required, to control fugitive dust. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned, as needed, to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked offsite. o Spread soil binders on unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking areas. Soil binders shall be non-toxic in accordance with state and local regulations. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers, or vegetated mats, etc. according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all-inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96hours). o Minimize diesel idling time to a maximum of five minutes. o Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators ratherthan temporary diesel power generators, if feasible.
o An applicant representative, ARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely (i.e., once per week) evaluate project related off-road and heavy-duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement for projects grading more than 20 acres in size, regardless of how many acres are to be disturbed daily. o Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed the PCAPCD Visible Emissions Rule 202. Fugitive dust is not to exceed 40% opacity and not go beyond property boundary at any time. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits are to be immediately notified and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours.

The following measures will be required:

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

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

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

4. Prior to building permit approval, in accordance with District Rule 225, only U.S. EPA Phase II certified wood burning devices shall be allowed in single-family residences. The emission potential from each residence shall not exceed a cumulative total of 7.5 grams per hourfor Attachment 1
all devices. Masonry fireplaces shall have either an EPA certified Phase II wood burning device or shall be a U.L. Listed Decorative Gas Appliance. (Rule 225)

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

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

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Director of Public
Works shall ensure
that dust and
construction-control
measures are
implemented.

Attachment 1
emissions associated with the proposed project. Certain measures would already be components of the project (i.e., Specific Plan policies, design guidelines and standards), and/or would be applied consistent with the City’s General Plan Policies, addressing GHG emissions and climate change, but are provided here for purposes of completeness.

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

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

MM 4.14-1 Site Lighting to Minimize Nuisance
Light producing uses, such as ball fields, within the SVSP Area shall be located and oriented to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential areas. Lighting should be shielded and designed to distribute light in the most effective and efficient manner, using the minimum amount of light to achieve the necessary illumination for the use, as defined by suggested lighting standards for competitive play.

MM 4.14-2 Use Low Glare Materials
In order to reduce the effects of daytime glare from development of commercial or office uses within the SVSP Area, building developers should make use, when feasible, of low-glare materials.

MM 4.14-3 Avoid Light Spill Over into Curry Creek and Open Space Areas Outdoor lighting shall be placed, designed and directed so as to avoid light spillover into the habitat of Curry Creek and the Open Space Preserve areas located immediately adjacent to the open space, as shown on the Land Use Map as parcels KT-1, KT-40, KT-30, KT-41, DF-1, DF-2, DF-40, CG-1, CG82m JM-21, JM-3, and JM-4.

Comply with the measure Pre-Construction: Ensure
fixtures shown on
Improvement Plans and
Building Plans comply with the
measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Utilities
to address well
drilling.

None
MM 4.6-2 Commercial Noise Controls
For all commercial uses within 150 feet of residential uses, the developer shall implement the following or equally effective measures: In general, where commercial land uses adjoin residential property lines, the following measures should be included in the design of the commercial use. If the primary noise sources are parking lot noise, HVAC equipment and light truck deliveries, then 6-7 foot tall masonry walls shall be constructed to provide adequate isolation of parking lot and delivery truck activities. HVAC equipment shall be located either at ground level, or when located on roof-tops the building facades shall include parapets for shielding.

The Planning Department shall
review development proposals
to ensure that the uses are
compatible
Prior to issuance of Building
Permits
The Planning
Director shall review
all commercial plans
and ensure that
appropriate
measures are
implemented.

Attachment 1
MM 4.8-3 Avoid Nesting Sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:

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

Black Rails and Tri-colored Blackbirds
Prior to earth moving that would disturb marsh habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence of the California black rail. If either of these species is found, all earth moving within 250 feet shall stop and measures, including establishing nest protection buffers along both sides of Curry Creek during the nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31st) shall be implemented.

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

Results of preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit or
Improvement Plans. Applicable
construction restrictions shall be
reflected within plans. The
applicants shall prepare annual
reports on the status and success
of mitigation and shall submit these
reports to USFWS and CDFG. The
applicants shall coordinate with
USFWS and CDFG to modify as
necessary any mitigation plans in
an effort to attain mitigation
success.

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

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

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

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Engineering and
Building
None
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Paleontologist Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g. fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance, if feasible in light of project design or layout, or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed feasible and necessary by City staff in consultation with the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.

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

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Engineering and
Building
None
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 Conduct Studies Prior To Offsite Infrastructure Construction Prior to undertaking construction of off-site infrastructure, the City shall determine whether or not cultural resource surveys have been undertaken for any areas to be disturbed during construction. If surveys were conducted, the City shall document that any identified resources were treated as recommended in the studies. If no studies or surveys were conducted, the City shall ensure that a qualified archaeologist conducts the appropriate level of study. If resources are found, recommendations, including the possible management recommendations listed in MM 4.9-1 and MM4.9-2, shall be implemented to ensure that the resources are avoided, protected and/or recorded, as determined to be feasible and appropriate by City staff.

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering and
Building
Applicable studies
MM 4.10-1 Identify Potential Hazardous Materials (soil contamination, tank or well sites, lead based paint and/or asbestos)
Prior to site development in the SVSP, recommended testing and remediation, if needed shall occur.

Groundwater wells shall be properly closed.

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

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

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

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering and Fire Phase I environmental
assessment, if conditions
warrant
MM 4.12.4-2 Divert Construction Debris
The applicants shall ensure a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream generated from development within the SVSP. In Developer contracts with construction contractors and their subcontractors, the Developer shall require that construction waste be reduced by 50%. The Developer shall further require that contractors and sub-contractors submit records of diversion and disposal to the City’s Environmental Utilities Department in order to verify compliance with this requirement.

Comply with the measure Construction: Contractor to
ensure diversion occurs during
construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

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

Attachment 1
kimley‐horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To:

From:

Re:

Date:

Jack Varozza, P.E., QSD/P
Senior Engineer, City of Roseville
Pedro Cortes
Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE, RSP1
Curtis Yee, E.I.T.

Erickson Senior Living
Local Traffic Evaluation
Roseville, California
March 13, 2023
This memorandum documents the transportation analysis completed for the Erickson Senior Living project. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the proposed project’s localized traffic operations and access points, including throat depths and driveway treatments, that are necessary to ensure safe and efficient operations.

Project Description
Erickson Senior Living intends to construct up to 1,201 continuing care units and an assisted living facility with 240 beds on a currently vacant site located along the north side of Baseline Road between Watt Avenue/Santucci Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard in Roseville, California. A fifty (50) space Park & Ride lot is included at the project’s western frontage along Santucci Boulevard. Access to the project site is proposed to be accomplished from multiple driveways along the project frontages. The primary access driveway will be a full‐access driveway along Baseline Road. This main driveway intersection will be signalized and will also house the primary gated entry serving the project. One additional secondary driveway is also provided on Sierra Village drive along the northern frontage of the project, and one emergency vehicle access with resident egress is provided on Westbrook Boulevard along the eastern frontage of the project. The aforementioned Park & Ride lot is currently shown as being external to the project’s on‐site roadway network and would be accessed via one driveway along Santucci Boulevard. The project site plan is provided in Exhibit 1.

Study Facilities and Analysis Methodology
Study Facilities
Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site. Exhibit 3 illustrates the study facilities, traffic control, and lane geometry. The lane geometries represented in the Exhibit 3 and the analysis include the 4‐lane Baseline Road currently under construction and the pending opening of the Santucci Boulevard leg at its intersection with Baseline Road. A weekday, peak‐hour level of service (LOS) analysis was completed for the following intersections:

1. Baseline Road @ Watt Avenue/ Santucci Boulevard

2. Baseline Road @ Site Access Driveway (South)

3. Baseline Road @ Westbrook Boulevard

4. Santucci Boulevard @ Park & Ride Driveway (West)

5. Sierra Village Drive @ Site Access Driveway (North)

6. Westbrook Boulevard @ Site Access Driveway (East)
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 2 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
Level of Service (LOS) Definitions
The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A, which represents minimal delay, to F, which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition).

The HCM includes procedures for analyzing side‐street stop controlled (SSSC), all‐way stop controlled (AWSC), and signalized intersections. The SSSC procedure defines LOS as a function of average control delay for the worst (most delay) minor street approach or movement. Conversely, the AWSC and signalized intersection procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM.

Table 1 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Un‐Signalized Signalized
Average Control
Delay* (sec/veh)
Average Control
Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F > 50 > 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition * Applied to the worst lane/lane group(s) for SSSC and AWSC
Assessment of Proposed Project
Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The number of trips anticipated by the proposed project was approximated using data included in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE Land Use (LU) Code 255 (Continuing Care Retirement Community) and Code 254 (Assisted Living) were used to approximate trips generated by this project. Land Use Code 90 (Park‐and‐Ride Lot with Bus or Light Rail) was used to approximate trips generated by the Park & Ride lot.

Table 2 presents the project trip generation estimate. As shown, the project is anticipated to generate 3,752 weekday trips, 271 trips during the AM peak‐hour, and 353 during the PM peak‐hour.

It should be noted that per the Sierra Vista Specific Plan1 , the project parcel was originally designated as a
commercial land use. The land use is represented as a mix of office and retail in the Buildout/2035 CIP Travel Demand Model (TDM). Table 2 presents the comparison of the originally assumed PM‐peak‐hour trips with the proposed project trip generation. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project’s PM peak‐ hour trips represent only approximately 24‐percent of the originally assumed trips in the City TDM.

Therefore, cumulative scenarios were not considered in the analysis.

The distribution of project traffic was developed based on the project area roadway volumes, general knowledge of project area traffic patterns, and engineering judgement. The project trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 4. Project Trips were assigned to the study intersections and the surrounding roadway network according to these patterns. The project trip assignment is reflected in Exhibit 5. 1 Sierra Vista Specific Plan, City of Roseville, Adopted May 5, 2020.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 3 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
Table 2 – Proposed Project Trip Generation
Analysis Results
Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
To establish Existing conditions, traffic counts were collected for the existing study intersections on Tuesday, March 1, 2022. Existing intersections turning movement counts are included as Attachment A.

The proposed project trips were then added to the existing peak‐hour traffic volumes. Furthermore, additional non‐project trips were generated and distributed on the network to account for the anticipated traffic associated with the connection of Santucci Boulevard to Baseline Road. The number of trips added were based on the trip generation for 609 single‐family detached units from the developments north of Sierra Village Drive found in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. Exhibit 6 presents the established Existing plus Project peak‐hour traffic volumes.

Table 3 presents the peak‐hour intersection LOS analysis results. As indicated in Table 3, the study intersections operate between LOS A and C in the Existing plus Project scenario. Analysis worksheets for the Existing plus Project are provided in Attachment B.

Table 3 – Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Summary Total In Out Total In Out
N/A Retail 549 ‐‐‐‐ 1,351 ‐‐
N/A Office 98 ‐‐‐‐ 141 ‐‐
‐‐‐‐ 1,492 ‐‐
255 Continuing Care
Retirement Community1 1,201 2,966 180 117 63 228 89 139 254 Assisted Living1 240 624 43 26 17 58 23 35
90 Park‐and‐Ride Lot with Bus
or Light Rail1 50 162 48 37 11 67 17 50
3,752 271 180 91 353 129 224
Source: 1Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition
ITE Land
Use Code
Land Use # Units Weekday
Trips
AM Peak‐Hour PM Peak‐Hour
Total Proposed Project Trips
Proposed Project
Buildout/2035 CIP Model Travel Demand Model
Total Assumed Trips
Delay (sec) LOS
AM 25.2 C
PM 31.2 C
AM 6.7 A
PM 6.5 A
AM 14.4 B
PM 9.7 A
AM 0.3( 8.6 WB) A(A)
PM 1.1(9.1 WB) A(A)
AM 1.1(9.4 NB) A(A)
PM 1.3(9.5 NB) A(A)
AM 0.4 (9.2 EB) A(A)
PM 0.8(9.1 EB) A(A) SSSC
Baseline Road @ Westbrook Boulevard
Notes: Side Street Stop Controlled (SSSC)reported asintersection delay followed by worst approach's delay.

Existing
plus Project
1 Baseline Road @ Watt Avenue/Santucci
Boulevard
Control Peak
Hour
LOS
Threshold ID Intersection
3 2
Baseline Road @ Site Access Dwy
(South)
4 Santucci Boulevard @ Park & Ride Dwy
5 Sierra Village Drive @ Site Access Dwy
(North)
6 Westbrook Boulevard @ Site Access
Dwy (East)
C
Signal
Signal
Signal
SSSC
SSSC
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 4 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
Queuing Analysis
Queueing for select movements was analyzed to evaluate turning movement storage lengths. Table 4 summarizes the expected 95th percentile queues for left‐turn movements at the Base Line Road intersections with Watt Avenue/Santucci Boulevard, Site Access Driveway (South), and Westbrook Boulevard.

Table 4 – Turning Lane 95th Percentile Queues
As shown in Table 4, the westbound left‐turn queues exceed the available storage at Intersection #1 (Baseline Road @ Watt Avenue/Santucci Boulevard) in the PM peak‐hour scenario. The proposed project adds 26 trips for the PM Peak‐Hour to this movement, or approximately 6‐percent of the total turning movement volume. By removing the project trips, the project is found to contribute just over one vehicle length in queuing to the Existing condition.

It is recommended that the signal timing at Intersection #1 (Baseline Road @ Watt Avenue/Santucci Boulevard) be optimized upon construction of the full intersection. Optimizing the signal could improve the intersection’s westbound left 95th percentile queue length to approximately 430‐feet. In addition to signal timing optimization, it is recommended that a striping modification be made to the westbound left turn at Intersection #1 to push the opening of the left‐turn lane 100‐feet east and remove the bay taper striping to open up the adjacent two‐way left‐turn lane and accommodate the excess queue. The queuing analysis for the optimized signal is shown in Attachment B. The striping modification will be constructed as part of the ongoing intersection improvement along Baseline Road.

Minimum Required Throat Depth (MRTD)
The MRTD was determined for the unsignalized site access driveways, as well as the Park & Ride lot driveways per the City of Roseville Traffic Impact Study Standards2 . The City’s MRTD methodology uses
traffic volumes approaching the side‐street stop control (project trips), conflicting volumes for right‐ and left‐turns along the major street, and percentages of right‐turn movements to determine the MRTD. The 2 City of Roseville Improvement Standards, Section 4 ‐ Traffic Impact Studies, City of Roseville, January 2016.

AM Peak‐
Hour
PM Peak‐
Hour
#1, Baseline Road @ Watt
Avenue/Santucci Boulevard EBL
250 31 69
WBL
330 345 494
NBL
200 75 119
SBL
230 32 48
#2, Baseline Road @ Site Access
Driveway (South) EBL
150 33 30
#3, Baseline Road @ Westbrook
Boulevard EBL
270 93 61
SBL
250 273 204
Existing plus Proposed Project
Existing plus Proposed Project
95th % Queue (ft) Available
Storage (ft) Intersection / Analysis Scenario Movement
Existing plus Proposed Project
Existing plus Proposed Project
Existing plus Proposed Project
Existing plus Proposed Project
Existing plus Proposed Project
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 5 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
Park & Ride driveway was evaluated as a right‐in/right‐out driveway and the Site Access Driveway (North) was evaluated as a full access driveway. The Site Access Driveway (East) is understood to be an emergency vehicle access and was not evaluated for MRTD. Table 5 summarizes the findings of the MRTD evaluation.

Table 5 – MRTD for Site Access Driveways
As shown in Table 5, per the project site plan in Exhibit 1, the MRTD is provided for each of the driveways evaluated.

Baseline Road @ Site Access Driveway (South) Gate Evaluation As we understand, a guard shack is being proposed, according to the project site plan in Exhibit 1, to provide safe access for employees and residents entering the main gate and to monitor visitor and guest access to the facility. As such, recommendations must consider this dual‐purpose guard shack, and are informed based on estimated arrival and processing times for both residents/employees and guests.

Arrival and processing times associated with the worst‐case (highest) peak‐hour volumes entering the gate were evaluated to determine if potential queues at the guard shack have the potential to spill back onto Baseline Road. Of the worst‐case peak‐hour volume entering the gate (115 vehicles), a conservative estimate results in approximately 50‐percent (or 58 vehicles) of vehicles arriving within a peak 30‐minute period. Of these 58 vehicles arriving within a peak 30‐minute period, approximately 80‐percent are assumed to access an ‘express’ lane reserved for residents/employees, while 20‐percent will access a visitor/guest lane. The ‘express’ lane will be accessed by an automated gate, resulting in an approximate wait time of 30‐seconds per vehicle. The visitor/guest lane will require check in with the guard, resulting in an average conservative wait time of 1 ½ minutes. Actual wait times are expected to be less than the estimated wait times used to calculate the required storage in most instances. Table 6 presents the estimated arrival times and resulting anticipated queue lengths at the proposed guard shack.

Table 6 – Guard Shack Arrival and Processing Times
As shown in Table 6, the maximum queue anticipated at the guard shack is 1‐vehicle in both the resident/employee ‘express’ lane and visitor/guest lane. These values equate to approximately 25‐feet of Peak‐
Hour
Approach
Volume
ConflVol
(Left)
ConflVol
(Right)
LT
Out
RT
Out
RT% MRTD (ft)
AM 12 0 64 0 12 100%
PM 54 0 182 0 54 100%
AM 17 207 143 8 9 54%
PM 37 278 101 17 20 54%
Driveway
4 Santucci Boulevard @
Park & Ride Driveway 50
5 Sierra Village Drive @ Site
Access Driveway (North) 25
*Within a 30‐minute peak‐period
**Assumes 25‐foot vehicles
Vehicles
Entering Gate
Average Processing
Time
Total Number
of Cars
Processed by
Gate* Max Queue
Required
Storage per
Lane**
Express
Lane
Visitor/Guest
Lane
Approx. 46
Approx. 12
30 seconds

1.5 minutes
60 20
1 vehicle
1 vehicle
25 ft
25 ft
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 6 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
required storage. Based on this evaluation, it is recommended that dual‐entry lanes be provided at the gate, with an ‘express’ lane with no less than 25‐feet of storage, and a visitor/guest lane with no less than 25‐feet of storage.

Right‐Turn Deceleration Lane
According to the City’s guidelines3, a right‐turn deceleration lane is required when all four of the following conditions are satisfied:

A. The driveway is located on an arterial or expressway, B. Right turn ingress volume is expected to exceed fifty (50) during peak hour flows on the roadway.

For right turn ingress volumes between ten (10) and fifty (50) a right turn curb taper shall be constructed in conformance with the Standard Drawings,
C. There is ample room and frontage to fit a deceleration lane as determined by the City Engineer, and
D. The travel speed of the roadway, as determined by the City Engineer, equals or exceeds 45 mph.

The requirements and the conditions at the access points along Baseline Road and Santucci Boulevard are summarized in Table 7 below. Based on these guidelines, the access on Baseline Road satisfies the requirements for consideration of a right‐turn deceleration lane. The Park & Ride driveway along Santucci Boulevard does not satisfy the requirements for consideration of a right‐turn deceleration lane. However, in the interest of safety, and consistent with the provisions of the guidelines, a right‐turn deceleration lane is recommended at that driveway.

Table 7 – Right‐Turn Deceleration Lane
Conclusions
The following are the primary conclusions based on the analyses discussed herein:
 City of Roseville LOS standards are achieved at all study intersections.  Signal timing improvements and striping modifications are at the Baseline Road intersection with Watt Avenue/Santucci Boulevard (Intersection #1) to reduce the 95th percentile queue for the westbound left‐turn during the PM peak‐hour.
 City of Roseville MRTD standards are provided at all evaluated site driveways.  It is recommended that dual‐entry lanes be provided at the Baseline Road main entry gate, with an ‘express’ lane with no less than 25‐feet of storage, and a visitor/guest lane with no less than 25‐feet of storage.
 It is recommended that Right‐Turn deceleration lanes are constructed at the primary project driveway on Baseline Road and at the Park & Ride driveway on Santucci Boulevard 3 Section 5 Traffic Impact Studies, City of Roseville Design Standards, January 2016.

Access Driveway
Location
Time
Period
Located on
Arterial or
Expressway?
Right Turn
Volume
Right Turn
Volume over
50?
Ample Room
and Frontage?
Posted Speed
Limit (MPH)
Travel Speed
≥ 45 mph?
Deceleration
Lane
Appropriate?
AM Yes72 Yes Yes55 Yes Yes
PM Yes56 Yes Yes55 Yes Yes
AM Yes 37 No Yes 45 Yes No
PM Yes 17 No Yes 45 Yes No
Baseline Road
Santucci
Boulevard
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living Page 7 of 7
Local Transportation Analysis March 13, 2023
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Project Site Plan
Exhibit 2 – Project Site Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 – Study Facilities, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometry Exhibit 4 – Project Trip Distribution
Exhibit 5 – Project Trip Assignment
Exhibit 6 – Existing plus Project Peak‐Hour Traffic Volumes Attachment A – Traffic Count Data Sheets
Attachment B – Analysis Worksheets for Existing plus Project Conditions Attachment 2
Exhibit 1
Project Site Plan
Erickson Senior Living LTA
FH FH
FH
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊
◊
◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
◊
106

97.52 ∆
∆ ∆
∆
∆
∆
RB1.1
±205,730 S.F.

COMMONS 1A ±5,280 S.F.

RB1.3
±184,075 S.F.

RB1.3/RB1.4

PARKING
±30,930 S.F.

CB1.0
±14,720 S.F.

RB1.2
±194,779 S.F.

RB1.2 PARKING ±39,047 S.F.

POOL
COMMONS 1B ±19,546 S.F.

PARCEL: KT-81
ZONE:OPEN SPACE
COMMONS 2A ±3,100 S.F.

RB2.1
±182,482 S.F.

RB2.4
±125,240 S.F.

RB2.5
±171,612 S.F.

COMMONS 2C ±4,650 S.F.

RB2.3
±272,590 S.F.

RB2.2
±194,440 S.F.

CB2.0
±19,077 S.F.

RB2.3 PARKING ±37,994 S.F.

CC ±155,568 S.F.

RB1.5
±198,409 S.F.

SNF
±27,262 S.F.

RB1.4
±151,900 S.F.

RB1.5 PARKING ±30,297 S.F.

RB2.1/RB2.4

PARKING
±79,411 S.F.

February 10,
2023
NORTH
NORTH
MPP STAGE 1: SITE PLAN
LEGEND

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

LANDSCAPE AREA

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

BUILDING AREA

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SUMMARY

DEVELOPER

ERICKSON SENIOR LIVING, LLC
701 MAIDEN CHOICE LANE
BALTIMORE, MD 21228
ATTN: STEVEN MONTGOMERY
STEVEN.MONTEGOMERY@ERICKSON SENIIORLIVING.COM

ENGINEER

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES
555 CAPITOL MALL SUITE 300
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
ATTN: FAREED PITTALWALA
[email protected]

ARCHITECT

LANTZ-BOGGIO
5650 DTC PARKWAY, SUITE 200
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
ATTN: DAVID FIK
[email protected]

PROPERTY OWNER
AREA
APN: 499-010-074-000, (LOT 1) (25.88 AC)
AREA: 55.56± ACRES
APN:499-010-075-000, (LOT 2) (29.68 AC)

KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC
7700 COLLEGE TOWN DR, SUITE 101
SACRAMENTO, CA 95826

SPECIFIC PLAN

SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
PARCELS KT-41A AND KT-41B

LAND USE DESIGNATION

COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
ZONING

GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC)

PROPOSED USES

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY,

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY,

AND MEDICAL SERVICES

AMENDED SOILS AREA
Attachment 2
Sierra Village Drive
Watt Avenue Santucci Boulevard
Baseline Road
Westbrook Boulevard
Study Intersection
LEGEND
Project Location
Future Study
Intersection
1 2
6 5
4 3
#
#
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity Map

NOT TO SCALE
Erickson Senior Living LTA
10% 5%
5% 5%
30% 50% 60%
20%
20%
10%
100%
60%
20%
20%
Attachment 2
Exhibit 3
Study Facilities, Traffic Control, and Lane Configuration Erickson Senior Living LTA Watt Ave
Baseline Rd
2 Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
4 Park & Ride Dwy
SIte Access Dwy (North)
5 Sierra Village Dr
Westbrook Blvd
1 Site Access Dwy
(South)
Santucci Blvd
3 6
Santucci Blvd
Site Acess Dwy
(East)
Westbrook Blvd
Sierra Village Drive
Baseline Road
Santucci Boulevard
Westbrook Boulevard
Watt Avenue
1 2 3
6 5
4 LEGEND
Stop Control
Signal Control
# Study Intersection
# Future Study
Intersection

NOT TO SCALE
Project Location
Attachment 2
Sierra Village Drive
Watt Avenue Santucci Boulevard
Baseline Road
Westbrook Boulevard
Study Intersection
LEGEND
Project Location
Future Study
Intersection
Residential Trip
Distribution
Park & Ride Trip
Distribution
XX%
XX%
1 2
6 5
4 3
#
#
Exhibit 4
Project Trip Distribution

NOT TO SCALE
Erickson Senior Living LTA
60%
20%
20%
60%
20%
20%
Attachment 2
Exhibit 5
Project Trip Assignments
Erickson Senior Living LTA 6(19) 6(19) 7(30) 14(9) 21(17) 14(9)
21(17)
12(26)
12(26)
22(10)
16(35)
28(61)
43(34)
7(30)
22(10)
72(56)
8(17)
20(44)
35(91)
94(66)
14(11)
19(67)
14(11)
37(17)
11(50)
8(17)
8(17)
14(11)
14(11)
8(17)
14(11)
20(44)
Watt Ave
Baseline Rd
2 Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
4 Park & Ride Dwy
Site Access Dwy (North)
5 Sierra Village Dr
Westbrook Blvd
1 Site Access Dwy
(South)
Santucci Blvd
3 6
Santucci Blvd
Site Access Dwy
(East)
Westbrook Blvd
Sierra Village Drive
Baseline Road
Santucci Boulevard
Westbrook Boulevard
Watt Avenue
1 2 3
6 5
4 LEGEND
# Study Intersection
# Future Study
Intersection

NOT TO SCALE
Project Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Project
Trip Assignments
Attachment 2
Exhibit 6
Existing (2022) plus Proposed Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Erickson Senior Living LTA 63(59) 63(59) 36(50) 44(55) 34(77) 488(453) 34(77)
339(659)
37(80)
378(426)
607(371)
32(44)
16(35)
28(61)
43(34)
821(1128)
1037(826)
72(56)
40(45)
231(198)
78(45)
720(1194)
1077(854)
135(235)
162(168)
64(182)
37(17)
11(50)
8(17)
8(17)
143(101)
14(11)
14(11)
50(171)
251(199)
213(280)
20(44)
Watt Ave
Baseline Rd
2 Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
4 Park & Ride Dwy
Site Access Dwy (North)
5 Sierra Village Dr
Westbrook Blvd
1 Site Access Dwy
(South)
Santucci Blvd
3 6
Santucci Blvd
Site Access Dwy
(East)
Westbrook Blvd
Sierra Village Drive
Baseline Road
Santucci Boulevard
Westbrook Boulevard
Watt Avenue
1 2 3
6 5
4 LEGEND
# Study Intersection
# Future Study
Intersection

NOT TO SCALE
Project Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak-Hour
Traffic Volumes
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living
Local Transportation Analysis
Attachment A
Traffic Count Data Sheets
Attachment 2
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Watt Ave & Baseline Rd
City: Roseville Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 10 119 113 8 57 122 429
7:15 AM 14 113 82 7 86 147 449
7:30 AM 8 126 55 10 104 176 479
7:45 AM 12 109 68 12 119 150 470
8:00 AM 9 108 81 18 101 119 436
8:15 AM 15 93 65 10 104 125 412
8:30 AM 12 82 49 12 85 116 356
8:45 AM 7 81 72 14 97 111 382

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 87 0 831 0 0 0 0 0 0 585 91 0 753 1066 0 0 3413 APPROACH %'s : 9.48% 0.00% 90.52% 0.00% 0.00% 86.54% 13.46% 0.00% 41.40% 58.60% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:00 AM 37 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 44 0 467 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 37 0 366 595 0 0 1827 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.786 0.000 0.927 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.704 0.771 0.000 0.769 0.845 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 9 127 128 30 122 138 554
4:15 PM 14 93 120 13 90 90 420
4:30 PM 14 108 157 22 123 90 514
4:45 PM 15 100 157 25 93 73 463
5:00 PM 15 104 176 18 109 80 502
5:15 PM 13 110 140 19 90 85 457
5:30 PM 12 122 169 18 108 107 536
5:45 PM 22 98 176 15 99 59 469

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 114 0 862 0 0 0 0 0 0 1223 160 0 834 722 0 0 3915 APPROACH %'s : 11.68% 0.00% 88.32% 0.00% 0.00% 88.43% 11.57% 0.00% 53.60% 46.40% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 55 0 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 642 80 0 400 345 0 0 1958 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.917 0.000 0.893 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.912 0.800 0.000 0.917 0.806 0.000 0.000 22-070037-001
3/1/2022
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.913 0.916 0.930 0.866
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM

0.954
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.953 0.733 0.858
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Watt Ave Watt Ave Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
Attachment 2
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Westbrook Blvd & Baseline Rd
City: Roseville Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 15 0 11 0 49 139 0 0 0 225 20 0 459
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 21 0 10 0 13 176 0 0 0 257 14 0 491
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 19 0 8 0 9 168 0 0 0 270 21 0 495
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 7 173 0 0 0 221 16 0 433
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 12 153 0 0 0 218 12 0 419
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 23 0 7 0 10 113 0 0 0 197 22 0 372
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 23 0 8 0 12 142 0 0 0 190 10 0 385
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 20 0 12 0 13 129 0 0 0 167 7 0 348

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 146 0 71 0 125 1193 0 0 0 1745 122 0 3402 APPROACH %'s : 67.28% 0.00% 32.72% 0.00% 9.48% 90.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 93.47% 6.53% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:00 AM 37 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 68 0 32 0 78 656 0 0 0 973 71 0 1878 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.810 0.000 0.727 0.000 0.398 0.932 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.901 0.845 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 13 181 0 0 0 150 9 0 365
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 12 0 9 265 0 0 0 193 16 0 500
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 15 0 8 0 7 255 0 0 0 167 9 0 461
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 9 278 0 0 0 188 15 0 509
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 13 0 6 0 9 238 0 0 0 180 15 0 461
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 14 0 12 0 21 293 0 0 0 223 11 0 574
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 1 6 274 0 0 0 163 12 0 472
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 6 288 0 0 0 172 18 0 498

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 91 0 55 1 80 2072 0 0 0 1436 105 0 3840 APPROACH %'s : 61.90% 0.00% 37.41% 0.68% 3.72% 96.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 93.19% 6.81% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 52 0 28 1 45 1083 0 0 0 754 53 0 2016 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.929 0.000 0.583 0.250 0.536 0.924 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.845 0.883 0.000 22-070037-001
3/1/2022
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.878 0.779 0.898 0.862
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM

0.948
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.806 0.971 0.897
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Westbrook Blvd Westbrook Blvd Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living
Local Transportation Analysis
Attachment B
Analysis Worksheets for Existing plus Project Conditions Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
1: Watt Avenue & Baseline Road Timing Plan: AM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 484 48 491 714 35 56 37 525 39 68 68 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.51 0.10 0.76 0.33 0.04 0.34 0.09 0.62 0.12 0.34 0.27 Control Delay 46.9 32.7 3.0 35.6 10.8 1.3 52.6 43.4 12.2 46.9 48.6 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.9 32.7 3.0 35.6 10.8 1.3 52.6 43.4 12.2 46.9 48.6 8.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 127 0 258 123 0 32 10 103 11 38 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 163 4 345 159 8 75 30 219 32 95 28 Internal Link Dist (ft) 648 1230 400 311
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 220 330 235 200 200 230 230
Base Capacity (vph) 319 2880 1303 1173 3539 1583 164 988 1249 319 520 506 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.04 0.42 0.20 0.02 0.34 0.04 0.42 0.12 0.13 0.13 Intersection Summary
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
1: Watt Avenue & Baseline Road Timing Plan: AM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 339 37 378 607 32 44 34 488 36 63 63 Future Volume (veh/h) 34 339 37 378 607 32 44 34 488 36 63 63 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 484 48 491 714 35 56 37 525 39 68 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.70 0.77 0.77 0.85 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 185 808 360 529 1672 746 119 787 821 191 392 333 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.47 0.47 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 484 48 491 714 35 56 37 525 39 68 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 11.0 2.2 24.2 12.0 1.1 2.7 0.7 20.0 1.0 2.7 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 11.0 2.2 24.2 12.0 1.1 2.7 0.7 20.0 1.0 2.7 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 185 808 360 529 1672 746 119 787 821 191 392 333 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.60 0.13 0.93 0.43 0.05 0.47 0.05 0.64 0.20 0.17 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 2950 1316 1124 2950 1316 158 787 821 306 497 421 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.9 31.2 27.8 30.8 15.8 12.9 40.6 27.7 15.7 40.8 29.3 29.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.8 0.4 3.2 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 4.5 0.8 9.7 4.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 6.6 0.4 1.2 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 33.0 28.2 34.1 16.3 13.0 41.7 27.7 17.0 41.3 29.5 29.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B D C B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 569 1240 618 175
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.1 23.2 19.9 32.2
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 24.0 30.8 26.5 10.0 23.0 8.8 48.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 20.0 57.0 75.0 8.0 24.0 8.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 22.0 26.2 13.0 4.7 5.2 2.9 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 12.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
2: Baseline Road & Site Access Dwy (South) Timing Plan: AM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 892 1205 47
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.12
Control Delay 16.7 2.6 8.2 11.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.7 2.6 8.2 11.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 0 0 2
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 72 #247 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1230 1250 338
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 322 3011 2679 1166
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.04
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
2: Baseline Road & Site Access Dwy (South) Timing Plan: AM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 821 1037 72 28 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 43 821 1037 72 28 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 892 1127 78 30 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 95 2339 1554 107 58 33
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.66 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.05
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3466 233 1068 605
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 892 594 611 48 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1828 1708 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 3.6 8.5 8.5 0.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 3.6 8.5 8.5 0.9 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 0.62 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 95 2339 819 843 93 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.38 0.72 0.73 0.52 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290 3132 1021 1051 1031 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 2.4 6.8 6.8 14.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.1 2.0 1.9 4.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.3 2.5 8.8 8.8 18.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 939 1205 48
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.3 8.8 18.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.1 6.2 6.2 18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.6 18.9 5.1 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 2.9 2.8 10.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 0.1 0.0 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
3: Baseline Road & Westbrook Boulevard Timing Plan: AM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 774 1197 159 285 55
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.33 0.65 0.18 0.74 0.14
Control Delay 46.6 6.4 18.0 2.6 48.7 11.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.6 6.4 18.0 2.6 48.7 11.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 86 260 0 154 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 112 365 26 #273 21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1250 1277 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 270 240 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 436 3089 2365 1111 436 431
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.51 0.14 0.65 0.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
3: Baseline Road & Westbrook Boulevard Timing Plan: AM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 720 1077 135 231 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 78 720 1077 135 231 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 774 1197 159 285 55
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.93 0.90 0.85 0.81 0.73
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 152 2397 1899 847 337 300
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.67 0.53 0.53 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 774 1197 159 285 55
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 6.7 17.3 3.8 11.3 2.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 6.7 17.3 3.8 11.3 2.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 152 2397 1899 847 337 300
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.32 0.63 0.19 0.85 0.18
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 486 2664 2664 1188 486 432
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 5.0 12.0 8.8 28.7 25.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 0.2 0.7 0.2 9.1 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 1.3 5.1 1.0 5.2 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 5.1 12.7 9.1 37.8 25.3
LnGrp LOS D A B A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 885 1356 340
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 12.3 35.8
Approach LOS A B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.5 17.9 10.3 45.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 20.0 20.0 55.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 13.3 6.5 19.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.2 0.6 0.2 19.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
4: Park & RIde Driveway & Santucci Blvd Timing Plan: AM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 11 64 37 0 162
Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 64 37 0 162
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 12 70 40 0 176
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 55 0 0 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.93 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.319 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 1001 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 1001 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1001 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 -
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
5: Site Access Dwy (North) & Sierra Village Drive Timing Plan: AM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 143 14 14 50 8 8
Future Vol, veh/h 143 14 14 50 8 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 155 15 15 54 9 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 170 0 220 85
Stage 1 - - - - 163 -
Stage 2 - - - - 57 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1405 - 748 957
Stage 1 - - - - 849 -
Stage 2 - - - - 959 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1405 - 740 957
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 740 -
Stage 1 - - - - 849 -
Stage 2 - - - - 948 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 9.4

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 835 - - 1405 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
6: Westbrook Boulevard & Site Access Dwy (East) Timing Plan: AM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 20 0 213 251 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 20 0 213 251 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 22 0 232 273 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 137 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.94 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 886 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 886 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 886 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.025 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - -
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
1: Watt Avenue & Baseline Road Timing Plan: PM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 724 100 463 458 48 60 84 509 54 64 64 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.62 0.17 0.81 0.22 0.05 0.44 0.19 0.61 0.20 0.36 0.28 Control Delay 57.6 33.8 8.9 46.8 10.7 2.0 65.8 51.8 20.5 56.5 58.1 7.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.6 33.8 8.9 46.8 10.7 2.0 65.8 51.8 20.5 56.5 58.1 7.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 212 6 286 72 0 40 28 202 18 42 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 356 37 494 92 12 #119 66 364 48 106 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 648 1230 400 311
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 220 330 235 200 200 230 230
Base Capacity (vph) 264 2557 1168 971 3449 1544 136 818 1155 264 430 435 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.28 0.09 0.48 0.13 0.03 0.44 0.10 0.44 0.20 0.15 0.15 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
1: Watt Avenue & Baseline Road Timing Plan: PM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 659 80 426 371 44 55 77 453 50 59 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 659 80 426 371 44 55 77 453 50 59 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 724 100 463 458 48 60 84 509 54 64 64 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.91 0.80 0.92 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 235 1112 496 495 1857 828 110 655 732 205 340 288 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.52 0.52 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 724 100 463 458 48 60 84 509 54 64 64 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 19.1 5.0 27.5 7.7 1.6 3.5 2.1 20.0 1.6 3.1 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 19.1 5.0 27.5 7.7 1.6 3.5 2.1 20.0 1.6 3.1 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 1112 496 495 1857 828 110 655 732 205 340 288 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.65 0.20 0.94 0.25 0.06 0.55 0.13 0.70 0.26 0.19 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 255 2457 1096 936 2457 1096 131 655 732 255 414 351 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.3 32.2 27.3 38.2 14.2 12.7 49.4 37.0 23.1 48.8 37.6 37.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.6 0.5 3.8 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.0 2.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 7.8 1.8 11.6 2.8 0.5 1.6 0.9 9.6 0.7 1.4 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.2 33.8 27.8 42.0 14.4 12.8 51.0 37.0 25.5 49.5 37.9 38.2 LnGrp LOS D C C D B B D D C D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 908 969 653 182
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.6 27.5 29.4 41.4
Approach LOS C C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 24.0 34.1 39.9 10.7 23.7 11.4 62.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 20.0 57.0 75.0 8.0 24.0 8.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 22.0 29.5 21.1 5.5 5.7 4.5 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 12.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
2: Baseline Road & Site Access Dwy (South) Timing Plan: PM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1226 959 104
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.46 0.41 0.22
Control Delay 18.1 4.8 8.0 11.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.1 4.8 8.0 11.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 68 47 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 131 161 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1230 1250 338
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 364 2825 2342 1155
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.41 0.09
Intersection Summary
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
2: Baseline Road & Site Access Dwy (South) Timing Plan: PM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 1128 826 56 61 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 34 1128 826 56 61 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 1226 898 61 66 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 79 2134 1368 93 104 60
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.60 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3470 229 1072 617
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 1226 473 486 105 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1829 1706 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 6.3 6.4 6.4 1.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 6.3 6.4 6.4 1.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 0.63 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 79 2134 720 741 166 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 305 3293 1074 1105 1054 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 3.6 7.2 7.2 12.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 3.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.2 3.9 8.2 8.2 16.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1263 959 105
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 8.2 16.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.4 7.4 5.8 16.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.6 18.4 5.1 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 3.8 2.6 8.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.7 0.2 0.0 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
3: Baseline Road & Westbrook Boulevard Timing Plan: PM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 1298 1005 267 213 64
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.55 0.53 0.28 0.62 0.18
Control Delay 39.7 7.7 13.9 2.3 39.2 10.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 7.7 13.9 2.3 39.2 10.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 140 159 0 89 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 225 241 33 204 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1250 1277 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 270 240 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 500 3320 2689 1267 500 493
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.37 0.21 0.43 0.13
Intersection Summary
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
3: Baseline Road & Westbrook Boulevard Timing Plan: PM
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 1194 854 235 198 45
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 1194 854 235 198 45
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 1298 1005 267 213 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.92 0.85 0.88 0.93 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 136 2406 1897 846 278 248
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.68 0.53 0.53 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 1298 1005 267 213 64
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 11.1 11.0 5.7 6.9 2.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 11.1 11.0 5.7 6.9 2.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 136 2406 1897 846 278 248
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.54 0.53 0.32 0.77 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 594 3259 3259 1454 594 529
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.5 4.9 9.1 7.8 24.3 22.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 4.4 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 1.5 2.8 1.3 2.9 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 5.3 9.6 8.3 28.6 22.8
LnGrp LOS C A A A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 1272 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 9.3 27.3
Approach LOS A A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.6 13.4 8.6 38.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 20.0 20.0 55.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 8.9 4.1 13.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 21.9 0.6 0.1 19.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
4: Park & RIde Driveway & Santucci Blvd Timing Plan: PM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 50 182 17 0 168
Future Vol, veh/h 0 50 182 17 0 168
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 54 198 18 0 183
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 108 0 0 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.93 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.319 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 926 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 926 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 926 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.059 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.1 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 -
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
5: Site Access Dwy (North) & Sierra Village Drive Timing Plan: PM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 11 11 171 17 17
Future Vol, veh/h 101 11 11 171 17 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 110 12 12 186 18 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 122 0 233 61
Stage 1 - - - - 116 -
Stage 2 - - - - 117 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1463 - 735 991
Stage 1 - - - - 896 -
Stage 2 - - - - 895 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1463 - 728 991
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 728 -
Stage 1 - - - - 896 -
Stage 2 - - - - 887 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 839 - - 1463 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - 0.008 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment 2
Erickson Senior Living LTA Existing PP
6: Westbrook Boulevard & Site Access Dwy (East) Timing Plan: PM Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th TWSC Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 44 0 280 199 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 44 0 280 199 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 48 0 304 216 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 108 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.94 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 925 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 925 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 925 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.052 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 - -
Attachment 2
kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916 858 5800

MEMORANDUM
To:

Matthew Todd, Principal Engineer
George Hanson, Principal Engineer
City of Roseville Development Services Department - Engineering From: Fareed S. Pittalwala
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date:

March 21, 2022
Revised August 8th, 2022
Revised November 3rd, 2022
Revised November 16th, 2022
Subject: Erickson West Roseville – Sewer Generation and Water Demand Analysis

PURPOSE
This memorandum is being provided to the City of Roseville to provide a baseline comparison of what the currently approved Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) technical studies show for the proposed parcels, versus their proposed demands.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximately 60-acre project site is located on the northwest corner of Westbrook Boulevard and Baseline Road. Baseline Road and Sierra Village Drive are south and north of the site. The site consists of Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) parcel KT-41, which in some portions of the SVSP is labelled or broken down into KT-41A, KT-41B.

Erickson Senior Living (Erickson) proposes a community care facility with independent living, assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and other advanced care services. The self-contained community will be designed to meet most daily needs of seniors and will feature the following components:
l 200+ assisted living/memory care suites
l 40+ skilled nursing rooms
l 1,200+ independent living units (one and two-bedroom) l Fine and casual indoor and outdoor dining options
l Medical services, including pharmacy
l Recreation amenities such as fitness center, swimming and walking paths Attachment 3

Page 2 ends

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916 858 5800 The project will be built out in phases, with approximately 1,800 residents occupying the facility at full buildout. At the time of the preparation of this technical memorandum, the City of Roseville has accepted this project as a “Commercial” land use.

Attachment 3

Page 3 ends

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916 858 5800

WATER DEMAND PER SVSP WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Assuming that the project is evaluated as a commercial zone, the projected water demand will be calculated using a Water Demand Factor of 2,598 GPD/AC. Using this factor, the estimated demand for the project would be 155,880 gallons per day.

SEWER CAPACITY PER SVSP SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
According to the SVSP Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (latest revision, May 26, 2009), the land use associated with this project (KT-41) is categorized as commercial land uses and will generate the following sewer flows.

Parcel KT-41 (See Exhibit 2 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, SVSP Base + Urban Reserve Condition):

QA = Average Dry Weather Flow (MGD) = 0.048 (57,645 gpd) QF = Factored Flow (MGD) = 0.095 (114,090 gpd)
PF = Peaking Factor = 3.23
QP = Peak Wet Weather Flow (MGD) = 0.307 (368,691 gpd)
Projected DU = 55.2
Therefore, the total Projected Site Wastewater Generation for the project area per the SVSP Sewer Master Plan is:
· Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) = 57,645 gallons per day · Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) = 368,691 gallons per day Attachment 3

Page 4 ends

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916 858 5800

COMPARISON DATA FROM REPRESENTATIVE ERICKSON

PROJECTS OF SIMILAR SCALE
Two detailed reports were commissioned by Erickson in early 2020 to evaluate the true sewer generation and water usage for their typical projects. These reports provide baseline data for the same product type being proposed for the Roseville site. Copies of these reports are provided as part of this memorandum.

In summary, the report provided this baseline data:

SEWER GENERATION (Per the GMB Report dated January 29, 2020) The report used real flow metering data from the Erickson Living Ashby Ponds Senior Living project in Ashburn, Virginia to determine typical sanitary sewer flow rate generation for future Erickson projects. Per Section 3.3 – Wastewater Calculations, the result of the report was a Daily Sewer Flow of 81 gallons per day, per resident. The average daily Extraneous Flow Rate would equate to 6 gpd per person. Extraneous Flow, as the report defines, would include groundwater infiltration, and rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow. Therefore, we can assume that a value of 87 gallons per day, per resident would be the equivalent of Peak Wet weather Flow (PWWF). Using the total number of projected residents (1,800 Residents) for the full buildout of the Roseville site, the approximate total sewer generation would be 87 gpd/resident x 1,800 residents, or 156,600 gallons per day at full buildout.

WATER USAGE (Per the Aqua San Report dated January 7, 2020) The report details actual water usage (using approximately 2 years of water bill data) for the Erickson Wind Crest project located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. The result of the report was an estimate of total domestic water usage of approximately 72.5 gallons per capita per day. Using the total number of projected residents (1,800 Residents) for the full buildout of the Roseville site, the approximate total domestic water usage generation would be 130,500 gallons per day.

Attachment 3

Page 5 ends

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916 858 5800

CONCLUSION
A summary of sewer and water demand for the proposed project is below:

Using the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment and Sewer Analysis as a comparative baseline, it is projected that the Erickson Senior Living Project will have a lower overall water demand.

Additionally, using the Sierra Vista Specific Sewer Master Plan as a comparative baseline, it is projected that the Erickson Senior Living Project will have a lower sewer generation for a peak wet weather scenario.

Attachments:
· Erickson Living Sanitary Sewer Flow Metering Analysis – Ashby Ponds Project · Erickson Living Water Management Analysis – Wind Crest Project

SEWER GENERATION ADWF (GPD) PWWF (GPD)
Per Sierra Vista Specific Plan 57,645 368,691
Using Roseville Design Standards 56,200 342,820
Using Historical Erickson Meter Data 156,600*
*inclusive of groundwater infiltration, and rainfall-dependant infiltration and inflow

WATER DEMAND
Per Sierra Vista Specific Plan WSA
Using Historical Erickson Meter Data
Difference

TOTAL DEMAND (GPD)
-25,380
130,500
155,880
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Flow Meter 2
Flow Meter 1
FIGURE 1: FLOW METER LOCATIONS
Attachment 3
Size (") Material Flow Depth (")
Incoming 12 PVC 1
Incoming
Incoming
Outgoing 12 PVC 1

METER SITE INFORMATION FIELD LOG
PROJECT: Ashburn, VA DATE: June 11, 2019

WEIR INFORMATION
LENGTH:

BREADTH:
08' 07"
MH#:
0 Circular
Circular 08' 08"
JOB#: 19070
METER SITE: 1
GPS/COMMENTS: 39.031797, -77.457596
LOCATION: Cardinal Pond Terrace R.O.W.

Debris (") Shape MH Depth
0 LEVEL:

SURCHARGE INFORMATION
HEIGHT ABOVE WEIR:

OVERFLOW OCCURS AT:

SURCHARGE NONE EVIDENT: X
SURCHARGED MARKS TO:

SURCHARGE CURRENTLY TO:

FIGURE 2 - FLOW METER 1 SITE SHEET
Attachment 3
Size (") Material Flow Depth (")
Incoming 10 PVC 1.5
Incoming 6 PVC 0.125
Incoming
Outgoing 10 PVC 1.6 0
LEVEL:

SURCHARGE INFORMATION
HEIGHT ABOVE WEIR:

OVERFLOW OCCURS AT:

SURCHARGE NONE EVIDENT: X
SURCHARGED MARKS TO:

SURCHARGE CURRENTLY TO:

Circular 20' 06"
JOB#: 19070
METER SITE: 2
GPS/COMMENTS: 39.031294, -77.452787
LOCATION: Audubon Square R.O.W.

Debris (") Shape MH Depth
MH#:
0 0
Circular
Circular

METER SITE INFORMATION FIELD LOG
PROJECT: Ashburn, VA DATE: June 11, 2019

WEIR INFORMATION
LENGTH:

BREADTH:
20' 05"
20' 02"
FIGURE 3 - FLOW METER 2 SITE SHEET
Attachment 3
Table 1: Flow Meter 1 Daily Totals
Daily Summary
Date of Day of Daily Daily Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Reading the Week Flow (mgal) Rain (in) Rain Rate Surcharge Depth Depth Difference Depth Velocity Velocity Difference Velocity Flow Rate Flow Rate Difference Flow Rate (m/d/y) (SMTWTFS) Rate (mgd) Rate (in/day) (in/hr) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (fps) (fps) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 6/12/2019 Wednesday 0.084 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.72 2.23 1.51 1.01 0.60 9.46 8.86 3.76 0.009 0.614 0.605 0.084 6/13/2019 Thursday 0.078 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.68 1.45 0.76 1.02 0.00 6.68 6.68 3.45 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.078 6/14/2019 Friday 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.38 0.71 0.97 0.06 5.94 5.88 2.85 0.001 0.170 0.169 0.060 6/15/2019 Saturday 0.074 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 2.12 1.48 1.02 0.07 8.09 8.02 3.18 0.001 0.487 0.486 0.074 6/16/2019 Sunday 0.093 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 2.17 1.43 1.11 0.19 8.33 8.15 3.77 0.003 0.520 0.517 0.093 6/17/2019 Monday 0.106 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.73 2.42 1.69 1.12 1.06 9.21 8.15 4.18 0.015 0.675 0.660 0.106 6/18/2019 Tuesday 0.108 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 2.20 1.46 1.13 1.69 8.59 6.89 4.22 0.023 0.547 0.523 0.108 6/19/2019 Wednesday 0.128 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.24 1.49 1.20 0.81 8.57 7.76 4.63 0.011 0.561 0.550 0.128 6/20/2019 Thursday 0.136 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 2.31 1.48 1.23 2.89 8.76 5.87 4.74 0.047 0.601 0.554 0.136 6/21/2019 Friday 0.121 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 2.18 1.36 1.17 2.50 8.45 5.96 4.59 0.040 0.532 0.492 0.121 6/22/2019 Saturday 0.098 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.21 1.43 1.10 1.64 8.46 6.82 4.01 0.023 0.543 0.520 0.097 6/23/2019 Sunday 0.105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 2.24 1.49 1.10 2.11 8.79 6.67 4.24 0.031 0.577 0.546 0.105 6/24/2019 Monday 0.124 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.21 1.46 1.15 2.04 8.38 6.34 4.59 0.027 0.540 0.512 0.124 6/25/2019 Tuesday 0.140 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.24 1.49 1.21 1.47 8.22 6.75 4.85 0.019 0.538 0.519 0.140 6/26/2019 Wednesday 0.129 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 2.39 1.62 1.17 1.88 8.34 6.46 4.81 0.027 0.599 0.572 0.129 6/27/2019 Thursday 0.133 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.80 2.24 1.44 1.17 2.24 8.03 5.79 4.88 0.036 0.525 0.489 0.133 6/28/2019 Friday 0.130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.73 1.96 1.16 2.34 8.71 6.37 4.77 0.034 0.758 0.724 0.130 6/29/2019 Saturday 0.136 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.59 1.81 1.16 2.46 8.10 5.64 4.96 0.035 0.651 0.616 0.136 6/30/2019 Sunday 0.129 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 2.67 1.87 1.14 2.15 8.61 6.45 4.91 0.033 0.723 0.690 0.129 7/01/2019 Monday 0.126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 2.62 1.91 1.12 1.91 8.63 6.71 4.89 0.024 0.707 0.682 0.126 7/02/2019 Tuesday 0.128 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.72 2.43 1.71 1.13 2.19 8.49 6.30 4.79 0.030 0.623 0.593 0.128 7/03/2019 Wednesday 0.144 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 2.65 1.86 1.19 2.45 8.42 5.97 5.15 0.035 0.701 0.666 0.144 7/04/2019 Thursday 0.126 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.84 2.29 1.46 1.13 2.62 8.23 5.61 4.81 0.041 0.557 0.516 0.126 7/05/2019 Friday 0.152 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 2.73 1.92 1.21 2.90 8.69 5.79 5.39 0.047 0.754 0.707 0.152 7/06/2019 Saturday 0.135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 2.61 1.82 1.17 2.27 9.05 6.78 4.87 0.037 0.718 0.681 0.135 7/07/2019 Sunday 0.130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.56 1.78 1.15 2.18 8.58 6.40 4.89 0.031 0.678 0.648 0.130 7/08/2019 Monday 0.107 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.73 2.59 1.85 1.06 2.18 8.76 6.58 4.45 0.030 0.704 0.674 0.107 7/09/2019 Tuesday 0.120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 1.90 1.18 1.12 1.64 8.79 7.14 4.67 0.021 0.454 0.434 0.120 7/10/2019 Wednesday 0.129 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.54 1.78 1.16 2.46 8.82 6.36 4.83 0.036 0.657 0.621 0.129 7/11/2019 Thursday 0.111 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.72 2.48 1.76 1.09 1.78 8.50 6.72 4.39 0.025 0.634 0.608 0.111 7/12/2019 Friday 0.127 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.56 1.78 1.15 2.29 8.45 6.16 4.76 0.032 0.668 0.636 0.127 7/13/2019 Saturday 0.120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 2.54 1.83 1.11 1.97 8.68 6.71 4.67 0.025 0.674 0.649 0.120 7/14/2019 Sunday 0.120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 1.78 1.06 1.11 2.47 7.88 5.41 4.81 0.031 0.369 0.338 0.120 7/15/2019 Monday 0.117 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 2.39 1.69 1.10 1.88 9.23 7.35 4.71 0.022 0.618 0.596 0.117 7/16/2019 Tuesday 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 1.73 0.99 1.10 2.21 8.20 5.99 4.68 0.029 0.368 0.339 0.116 7/17/2019 Wednesday 0.111 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.68 1.48 0.80 1.05 2.62 7.25 4.62 4.88 0.034 0.238 0.204 0.110 7/18/2019 Thursday 0.113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.52 1.85 1.09 1.78 8.50 6.72 4.59 0.023 0.650 0.626 0.113 7/19/2019 Friday 0.101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 1.73 1.06 1.04 1.86 8.10 6.24 4.44 0.020 0.364 0.343 0.101 7/20/2019 Saturday 0.105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 1.43 0.65 1.06 2.84 6.83 3.99 4.64 0.042 0.222 0.180 0.105 7/21/2019 Sunday 0.096 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.70 0.95 1.03 2.24 8.44 6.20 4.38 0.034 0.361 0.327 0.096 7/22/2019 Monday 0.104 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.37 1.70 1.06 2.20 8.16 5.96 4.37 0.025 0.563 0.539 0.104 7/23/2019 Tuesday 0.079 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.63 2.37 1.74 0.94 1.33 8.39 7.06 3.92 0.014 0.586 0.571 0.079 7/24/2019 Wednesday 0.075 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 1.79 1.15 0.93 2.09 8.40 6.31 3.92 0.022 0.388 0.366 0.075 7/25/2019 Thursday 0.092 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 2.26 1.60 1.00 1.67 8.88 7.21 4.17 0.020 0.548 0.528 0.092 7/26/2019 Friday 0.086 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.32 1.65 0.97 2.08 8.96 6.87 4.13 0.026 0.563 0.537 0.086 7/27/2019 Saturday 0.087 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 2.23 1.58 0.98 1.22 8.94 7.72 4.10 0.013 0.578 0.565 0.087 7/28/2019 Sunday 0.095 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.19 1.52 1.02 1.98 9.08 7.10 4.28 0.025 0.574 0.549 0.095 7/29/2019 Monday 0.107 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 2.23 1.53 1.08 1.71 8.51 6.80 4.48 0.022 0.535 0.514 0.107 7/30/2019 Tuesday 0.098 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.27 1.58 1.05 2.35 8.92 6.57 4.24 0.031 0.582 0.551 0.098 7/31/2019 Wednesday 0.080 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 2.20 1.55 0.97 1.28 8.58 7.30 3.88 0.016 0.515 0.499 0.080 8/01/2019 Thursday 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 2.25 1.63 1.02 1.40 7.99 6.59 4.11 0.016 0.527 0.511 0.090 8/02/2019 Friday 0.081 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 2.11 1.46 0.96 1.24 8.37 7.12 3.95 0.017 0.492 0.476 0.081 8/03/2019 Saturday 0.081 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 2.00 1.36 0.98 2.36 8.02 5.66 3.92 0.029 0.446 0.417 0.081 8/04/2019 Sunday 0.080 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.06 1.39 0.96 1.37 8.46 7.09 3.95 0.016 0.492 0.477 0.080 8/05/2019 Monday 0.084 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.96 1.33 0.98 1.39 8.52 7.12 3.99 0.015 0.461 0.446 0.084 Ashby Ponds
Table 1: Flow Meter 1 Daily Totals

Page 1 of 2 ends

Attachment 3
Date of Day of Daily Daily Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Reading the Week Flow (mgal) Rain (in) Rain Rate Surcharge Depth Depth Difference Depth Velocity Velocity Difference Velocity Flow Rate Flow Rate Difference Flow Rate (m/d/y) (SMTWTFS) Rate (mgd) Rate (in/day) (in/hr) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (fps) (fps) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 8/06/2019 Tuesday 0.082 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 2.17 1.55 0.97 2.30 8.65 6.35 3.95 0.024 0.542 0.518 0.082 8/07/2019 Wednesday 0.087 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.66 2.13 1.47 1.00 1.05 8.32 7.27 4.06 0.012 0.471 0.459 0.087 8/08/2019 Thursday 0.094 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 2.16 1.50 1.02 1.80 8.13 6.33 4.23 0.023 0.462 0.440 0.094 8/09/2019 Friday 0.089 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.11 1.43 1.00 2.08 7.96 5.88 4.13 0.026 0.477 0.450 0.089 8/10/2019 Saturday 0.086 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 2.06 1.42 0.98 1.54 8.30 6.76 4.13 0.019 0.483 0.464 0.086 8/11/2019 Sunday 0.083 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 2.16 1.53 0.97 2.36 8.55 6.19 4.04 0.027 0.532 0.505 0.083 8/12/2019 Monday 0.092 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.15 1.48 1.01 1.94 8.33 6.40 4.22 0.022 0.514 0.492 0.092 Totals: 6.578 5.06
Maximum: 0.152 0.00 0.00 0.84 2.73 1.96 1.23 2.90 9.46 8.86 5.39 0.047 0.758 0.724 0.152 Minimum: 0.060 0.62 1.38 0.65 0.93 0.00 5.94 3.99 2.85 0.000 0.170 0.169 0.060 Average: 0.106 0.71 2.21 1.50 1.07 1.83 8.40 6.56 4.38 0.025 0.539 0.514 0.106 106,103 gpd (Partial days excluded.)
Ashby Ponds
Table 1: Flow Meter 1 Daily Totals

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attachment 3
Table 2: Flow Meter 2 Daily Totals
Daily Summary
Date of Day of Daily Daily Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Reading the Week Flow (mgal) Rain (in) Rain Rate Surcharge Depth Depth Difference Depth Velocity Velocity Difference Velocity Flow Rate Flow Rate Difference Flow Rate (m/d/y) (SMTWTFS) Rate (mgd) Rate (in/day) (in/hr) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (fps) (fps) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 6/12/2019 Wednesday 0.026 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.27 1.90 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.071 0.068 0.026 6/13/2019 Thursday 0.073 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.43 4.07 3.64 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.214 0.211 0.073 6/14/2019 Friday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 2.42 2.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.080 0.077 0.027 6/15/2019 Saturday 0.026 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.31 1.94 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.073 0.071 0.026 6/16/2019 Sunday 0.025 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 2.41 2.10 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.079 0.078 0.025 6/17/2019 Monday 0.048 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.35 4.79 4.43 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.291 0.289 0.048 6/18/2019 Tuesday 0.037 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 3.21 2.77 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.136 0.133 0.037 6/19/2019 Wednesday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 2.27 1.73 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 0.071 0.066 0.027 6/20/2019 Thursday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.39 2.01 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.078 0.076 0.030 6/21/2019 Friday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.46 2.09 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.082 0.080 0.027 6/22/2019 Saturday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.20 1.77 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.066 0.063 0.027 6/23/2019 Sunday 0.024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.28 1.97 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.071 0.070 0.024 6/24/2019 Monday 0.027 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.50 2.11 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.084 0.082 0.027 6/25/2019 Tuesday 0.042 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.91 2.47 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.113 0.110 0.042 6/26/2019 Wednesday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.32 1.88 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.073 0.070 0.028 6/27/2019 Thursday 0.028 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.50 2.34 1.84 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.075 0.071 0.028 6/28/2019 Friday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.30 1.94 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.072 0.070 0.030 6/29/2019 Saturday 0.026 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.35 2.42 2.06 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.080 0.077 0.026 6/30/2019 Sunday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.30 1.92 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.072 0.070 0.027 7/01/2019 Monday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.30 1.93 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.072 0.070 0.027 7/02/2019 Tuesday 0.027 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.35 2.33 1.97 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.074 0.072 0.027 7/03/2019 Wednesday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.46 2.09 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.082 0.080 0.028 7/04/2019 Thursday 0.025 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.49 2.05 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.084 0.081 0.025 7/05/2019 Friday 0.026 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 2.35 2.01 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.076 0.074 0.026 7/06/2019 Saturday 0.045 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 3.73 3.33 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.182 0.179 0.045 7/07/2019 Sunday 0.034 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 2.62 2.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 0.093 0.087 0.034 7/08/2019 Monday 0.103 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.54 4.14 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.264 0.261 0.104 7/09/2019 Tuesday 0.037 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.62 2.17 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.092 0.089 0.037 7/10/2019 Wednesday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 2.28 1.97 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.071 0.070 0.027 7/11/2019 Thursday 0.053 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.36 3.27 2.91 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.141 0.139 0.053 7/12/2019 Friday 0.034 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 2.78 2.21 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 0.103 0.098 0.034 7/13/2019 Saturday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.35 2.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.075 0.073 0.028 7/14/2019 Sunday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.44 2.05 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.081 0.078 0.027 7/15/2019 Monday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 2.53 2.16 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.087 0.085 0.028 7/16/2019 Tuesday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 2.50 1.95 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 0.085 0.080 0.030 7/17/2019 Wednesday 0.026 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41 2.31 1.90 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.073 0.070 0.026 7/18/2019 Thursday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.84 2.45 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.108 0.106 0.029 7/19/2019 Friday 0.027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.26 1.89 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.070 0.068 0.027 7/20/2019 Saturday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.54 2.20 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.088 0.086 0.028 7/21/2019 Sunday 0.026 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.16 1.77 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.064 0.062 0.026 7/22/2019 Monday 0.027 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.45 2.08 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.082 0.079 0.027 7/23/2019 Tuesday 0.031 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.39 3.19 2.80 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.135 0.132 0.031 7/24/2019 Wednesday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.58 2.21 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.090 0.088 0.029 7/25/2019 Thursday 0.031 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 2.69 2.34 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.097 0.095 0.031 7/26/2019 Friday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.37 2.01 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.077 0.075 0.030 7/27/2019 Saturday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.34 1.97 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.075 0.073 0.028 7/28/2019 Sunday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.41 2.04 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.079 0.077 0.028 7/29/2019 Monday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 2.65 2.25 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.095 0.092 0.029 7/30/2019 Tuesday 0.028 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.42 2.06 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.080 0.077 0.028 7/31/2019 Wednesday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.62 2.20 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.093 0.090 0.030 8/01/2019 Thursday 0.031 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 2.97 2.52 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.118 0.114 0.031 8/02/2019 Friday 0.032 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 3.16 2.57 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 0.133 0.127 0.032 8/03/2019 Saturday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.40 2.03 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.078 0.076 0.028 8/04/2019 Sunday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 2.58 2.23 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.090 0.088 0.029 8/05/2019 Monday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 3.49 3.09 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.160 0.157 0.029 Ashby Ponds
Table 2: Flow Meter 2 Daily Totals

Page 1 of 2 ends

Attachment 3
Date of Day of Daily Daily Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Minimum Maximum Min - Max Average Reading the Week Flow (mgal) Rain (in) Rain Rate Surcharge Depth Depth Difference Depth Velocity Velocity Difference Velocity Flow Rate Flow Rate Difference Flow Rate (m/d/y) (SMTWTFS) Rate (mgd) Rate (in/day) (in/hr) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (fps) (fps) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 8/06/2019 Tuesday 0.035 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 2.47 1.97 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.083 0.079 0.035 8/07/2019 Wednesday 0.031 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.39 4.69 4.30 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.280 0.277 0.031 8/08/2019 Thursday 0.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 2.44 2.23 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.081 0.080 0.030 8/09/2019 Friday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 2.48 2.09 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.083 0.081 0.029 8/10/2019 Saturday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.61 2.19 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.092 0.089 0.028 8/11/2019 Sunday 0.028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.48 2.17 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.084 0.082 0.028 8/12/2019 Monday 0.029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 2.46 2.20 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.082 0.081 0.029 Totals: 1.973 5.06
Maximum: 0.103 0.00 0.00 0.62 4.79 4.43 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 0.291 0.289 0.104 Minimum: 0.024 0.22 2.16 1.73 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.064 0.062 0.024 Average: 0.032 0.40 2.67 2.28 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.100 0.098 0.032 31,824 gpd (Partial days excluded.)
Ashby Ponds
Table 2: Flow Meter 2 Daily Totals

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
1 Water Management and Analysis Report
Neighborhood 3 at Wind Crest
3235 Mill Vista Road
Highlands Ranch, CO 80219
By:

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
2 January 7, 2020
Redwood-ERC Littleton, LLC
C/O Mr. David A. Berrien
701 Maiden Choice Lane
Baltimore, MD 21228
RE: Water Management and Analysis for Wind Crest Neighborhood 3 Dear Mr. Berrien,
First, thank you and the Redwood-ERC Littleton, LLC team for providing AquaSan Network, Inc. (AquaSan) the opportunity to assist the Wind Crest Neighborhood 3 development with water management. This project will be an important addition to the Highlands Ranch community by providing much-needed affordable senior housing and services. AquaSan is pleased to be of assistance to this project by analyzing empirical data regarding annual water consumption, water end uses and peak water demands, while also providing information on how the Wind Crest Neighborhood 3 development can be efficient and proactive in the management of our community’s valuable water resources.

AquaSan’s report is an assimilation of data collected in response to the Centennial Water and Sanitation District’s (CWSD) letter dated June 7, 2004 stating, “as planning information becomes available for the remaining portions of the property, please contact us so that we may determine how the proposed development will impact the level of water and sewer service available for this planning area”, and on-going discussions CWSD and Highlands Ranch Metro District (HRMD).

The outline for this report is as follows:
- Project Synopsis
- Water Management Review
- Domestic Analysis
- Water Meter Sizing and Demand Profiling
- Predictive Analytics
- Centennial Water and Sanitation District and Highlands Ranch Metro District - Conclusion
- Exhibit A
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
3 Project Synopsis
Executive Summary
Through AquaSan’s research, empirical analysis and custom water management program proposed for the Wind Crest Neighborhood 3 development located at 3235 Mill Vista Road in Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (hereinafter referred to as “Neighborhood 3” or “Project”), the Project’s water and wastewater demands can be greatly reduced from their historical levels. These water savings are based upon AquaSan’s 35+ years of experience in water use research, review of water end use studies, recently collected water use data on similar senior living facilities, statistical analysis and implementation of the below described water management program. Under this process, AquaSan is able to determine the amount of water required to properly service Neighborhood 3 and provide facility savings for CWSD. As it is presented in this report, the following evidence supports AquaSan’s conclusions: (1) developments that properly manage their water supplies will have a much smaller impact on the demand placed on CWSD’s utility systems; (2) Neighborhood 3’s water demands are considerably different and should not be considered akin to multifamily or single family residences by the serving utility.

Project Description
According to the information provided to AquaSan, Neighborhood 3 will consist of five senior residential buildings and one Commons building. These building layouts are described below in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Building Layouts at Neighborhood 3
Building Name Unit Count Commercial Description
Commons 3.0 30 Market, conference center, restaurant and spa
Residential 3.1 111 NA
Residential 3.2 111 Restaurant
Residential 3.3 104 Restaurant
Residential 3.4 110 Restaurant
Residential 3.5 110 NA
If this description of Neighborhood 3 is incorrect, please notify AquaSan immediately as the water management program and recommendations are specifically designed to serve these intended uses. It should also be noted that irrigation demands are not analyzed for the Project, as Wind Crest has previously dedicated the water required to irrigate the entire Wind Crest development as part of an earlier agreement.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
4 24%
20%
3% 19%
17%
1%
12%
4%
End Uses of Water in Residential Buildings
Toilet Shower Bath Faucet Clothes Washer Dishwasher Leak Other Water Management Review
End Uses of Water and Water Management Program
A very important part of AquaSan’s water analysis is accounting for and verifying the water savings through empirical water data collection. This empirical data results in the development of a personalized conservation program crafted for Neighborhood 3 that utilizes the best management practices available in today’s water technology, fixture and appliance market.

In reviewing water demands of residential buildings, the data collected from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Research Foundation’s 2016 Residential End Uses of Water: Version 2 study,1 in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2 detail the end uses of water by percentage for different building applications. As it pertains to Neighborhood 3, the disaggregation of residential end uses can be seen below in Figure 2:

Figure 2: End Uses of Water in Residential Buildings
1 DeOreo, William B., et al. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2: Executive Report. Water Research Foundation, 2016. 2 https://www.epa.gov/watersense/homes Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
5 With this collective information about the end uses of water in residential applications, AquaSan can identify the most efficacious conservation practices to reduce Neighborhood 3’s water demands through implementation of the following water management program:

Residential

1. Water closets are tank type and have a maximum of 1.00 gallon per reduced flush and 1.28 gallons per full flush.

2. Lavatories have a maximum flow rate of 0.50 GPM or equivalent high efficiency faucet aerator.

3. Shower heads have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM and a minimum of 1.70 GPM at 40 psi.

4. Kitchen sinks have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM or equivalent high efficiency faucet aerator.

5. Dishwashers have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM, with a maximum of 4.00 gallons per normal cycle.

6. Clothes washers have a maximum flow rate of 3.50 GPM and are certified Tier 2 by Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE).

7. Mop service and utility sinks have a maximum flow rate of 2.50 GPM.

8. Hot water is available within 10 seconds to any fixture.

9. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) on each water meter that provides real-time water flow monitoring at no more than 5-minute intervals, advanced leak detection and shutoff system.

10. All water using fixtures and/or aerators have an equal or better rating than ENERGY STAR and/or WaterSense.

Commercial

1. Water closets are tank type or flushometer-valve and have a maximum of 1.00 gallon per reduced flush and

1.28 gallons per full flush with water sensor shutoff.

2. Urinals have a maximum of 0.125 gallons per flush with water sensor shutoff.

3. Lavatories have a maximum flow rate of 0.50 GPM or equivalent high efficiency faucet aerator and water sensor shutoff.

4. Shower heads have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM and a minimum of 1.70 GPM at 40 psi.

5. Kitchen sinks have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM or equivalent high efficiency faucet aerator.

6. Pre-rinse spray valves have a maximum flow rate of 1.00 GPM.

7. Dishwashers have a maximum flow rate of 2.00 GPM, with a maximum of 4.00 gallons per normal cycle.

8. Clothes washers have a maximum flow rate of 3.50 GPM and are certified Tier 2 by Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE).

9. Mop service and utility sinks have a maximum flow rate of 2.50 GPM.

10. Hot water is available within 10 seconds to any fixture.

11. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) on each water meter that provides real-time water flow monitoring at no more than 5-minute intervals, advanced leak detection and shutoff system.

12. Steam cookers, ice machines and freezers are air cooled.

13. All water using fixtures and/or aerators have an equal or better rating than ENERGY STAR and/or WaterSense.

14. Cooling towers must operate at greater than 6 cycles of concentration and be operated by a conductivity controller.

Landscape

1. All landscape irrigation is supplied by non-potable water sources.

2. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) on irrigation water meter that meets “Smart Irrigation Controllers” as defined by the Irrigation Association.

3. Installation of environmental sensors that coordinate irrigation system usage during dry and wet weather.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
6 Using the above fixtures and management practices (see Exhibit A for several examples), Neighborhood 3 will benefit from a significant reduction in indoor potable water consumption by a minimum of 25% from standard fixtures and practices as demonstrated by the gallons/capita/day (GCD) values in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Standard Indoor Water Usage Compared AquaSan’s Efficient Indoor Water Usage Fixture Standard Usage (GCD)3 AquaSan Efficient Usage (GCD) Water Closet 14.06 8.90
Shower 11.72 10.80
Bath 1.76 1.50
Faucet 11.13 8.60
Clothes Washer 9.96 8.50
Dishwasher 0.59 0.40
Leak 7.03 1.20
Other 2.34 2.00
Total 58.60 41.90
GCD Reduction (58.26 – 41.90)/58.60 * 100% = 28.50%
3 DeOreo, William B., et al. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2: Executive Report. Water Research Foundation, 2016.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
7 Domestic Analysis
Residential Domestic Usage
In order to determine accurate residential domestic water usage rates for Neighborhood 3 using the prescribed water management program, AquaSan applied the efficient usage benchmark of 41.90 GCD to each senior living unit using their historical occupancy of rate of 1.1 persons per unit. Based on these data, AquaSan can determine baseline domestic water usage for Neighborhood 3, which is shown below in Figure 4:

Figure 4: Residential Domestic Water Usage Projection for Neighborhood 3 Residence Type Unit Count Capita GCD Annual Consumption (Gal)
Annual Consumption
(Acre-Feet)
Commons 3.0 30 33 41.90 504,686 1.55
Residential 3.1 111 122 41.90 1,867,336 5.73
Residential 3.2 111 122 41.90 1,867,336 5.73
Residential 3.3 104 114 41.90 1,749,576 5.37
Residential 3.4 110 121 41.90 1,850,514 5.68
Residential 3.5 110 121 41.90 1,850,514 5.68
Total 576 634 NA 9,689,962 29.74
Commercial Domestic Usage
Commercial domestic demand is a more difficult metric to measure as water usage varies significantly based on the type of commercial building. In order to determine representative measurements for commercial domestic water usage, AquaSan collected water consumption bills from Wind Crest buildings with similar end uses. As it pertains to Neighborhood 3, the Parry Landing building at Wind Crest possessed nearly identical end uses with its residential units and full service restaurant/pub, office space, spa and salon. The monthly water bills for Parry Landing are shown below in Figure 5:

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
8 Figure 5: Monthly Domestic Water Usage at Parry Landing Month Total Gallons Gal/Day Gal/Day/Unit GCD
August 172,000 5,548.39 74.98 59.98
September 170,000 5,312.50 71.79 57.43
October 167,000 5,387.10 72.80 58.24
November 228,000 8,142.86 110.04 88.03
December 267,000 8,343.75 112.75 90.20
January 262,000 8,451.61 114.21 91.37
February 214,000 7,925.93 107.11 85.69
March 302,000 8,882.35 120.03 96.03
April 217,000 8,037.04 108.61 86.89
May 286,000 9,225.81 124.67 99.74
June 291,000 9,093.75 122.89 98.31
July 207,000 7,137.93 96.46 77.17
Average 226,769 7,491 101.23 82.42
The above table demonstrates a total average consumption of 82.42 GCD. When compared to the average residential domestic consumption of 58.60 GCD as determined by the AWWA, commercial usage at Wind Crest adds approximately 25.82 GCD to the total water demand. Using the empirical data obtained from the water bills and the efficiency of a water management program, AquaSan is now able to accurately project the total annual water usage for Neighborhood 3.

Total Domestic Usage
Figure 6 below shows the additional 25.82 GCD usage for the Neighborhood 3 buildings that have commercial applications; however, AquaSan also includes a 15% contingency factor to allow flexibility in design changes or temporary increased unit density, resulting in an annual water consumption that totals 47.19 acre-feet:

Figure 6: Total Domestic Water Usage Projection for Neighborhood 3 Residence Type Unit Count Capita GCD (+ commercial
and 15% cont.)
Annual Consumption
(Gal)
Annual Consumption
(Acre-Feet)
Commons 3.0 30 33 77.88 938,041 2.88
Residential 3.1 111 122 48.19 2,147,437 6.59
Residential 3.2 111 122 77.88 3,470,750 10.65
Residential 3.3 104 114 77.88 3,251,874 9.98
Residential 3.4 110 121 77.88 3,439,482 10.56
Residential 3.5 110 121 48.19 2,128,091 6.53
Total 576 634 NA 15,375,673 47.19
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
9 Domestic Usage Data Validation
In order to validate the domestic annual water rates projected for Neighborhood 3 above, AquaSan reviewed nearly two years of water bills at the current Wind Crest buildings. The water usage recorded, along with descriptions of the commercial areas served, are detailed below in Figure 7:

Figure 7: Domestic Water Usage Validation Buildings at Wind Crest Residence Type Unit Count Capita Commercial Description Average Gal/Day GCD CB 1.0 Clubhouse NA NA
Kitchen and dining areas;
wellness area; employee lounge,
salon; fitness center;
convenience store and market
10,676 NA
CB 2.0 Highline
Overlook 30 33
Stage and stadium seating; full
service restaurant and pub area;
community and meeting areas
2,132 64.61
RB 1.1 Cottonwood
Ct & RB 1.2
Bluespruce Ridge
270 297 None 14,206 47.83
RB 1.3 Evergreen
Crossing RB 1.4
Aspen Terrace
309 340 None 19,051 56.05
RB 2.1 McHenry's
Crossing
102 112 Kitchen and dining areas; public
use areas; café and café bar 9,866 87.93
RB 2.2 Parry's
Landing 74 81
Full service restaurant and pub
area; employee lounge;
commercial office and
reception; laundry facilities; spa
and salon
7,491 82.42
RB 2.3 Longs Ridge 99 109 Kitchen and dining areas;
classroom; creative arts 5,343 49.06
Mill Vista Lodge 80 88 Various commercial amenities 6,903 78.44 - Observed Average GCD for Residential Buildings: (47.83 GCD + 56.05 GCD) / 2 = 51.94 GCD - Observed Average GCD for Residential/Commercial Buildings: (64.61 GCD + 87.93 GCD + 82.42 GCD + 49.06 GCD + 78.44 GCD) / 5 = 72.49 GCD
AquaSan’s projection of 48.19 GCD and 77.88 GCD (weighted average of 73.13 GCD) for the residential and the residential/commercial buildings compares very similarly to the observed usage at Wind Crest of 51.95 GCD and

72.49 GCD (weighted average of 71.36 GCD). It should also be noted that the current Wind Crest buildings do not conform to AquaSan’s water management program; therefore, the Neighborhood 3 projections appear conservative when considering the potential water savings from implementation of such plan. Associating actual water usage data from Wind Crest with AquaSan’s projections for Neighborhood 3 validates the correctness of the values used for determining the new Project’s water consumption.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
10 Water Meter Sizing and Demand Profiling
AWWA Meter Sizing Methodology
One of the key considerations of sizing water meters is that the meter must be sized to meet the peak continuous and instantaneous water demands of the building. Another way of expressing this concept is that the water meter can reach or exceed its continuous design capacity of the meter less than 1% of the time (displayed as the 99th percentile flow), but never the instantaneous or “intermittent” demand capacity of the meter (displayed as the maximum flow). Currently, the AWWA M22 Manual recognizes two methods for determining these demands and corresponding meter sizes: the Fixture Value method and the Demand Profiling method.

Although the Fixture Value method has been predominantly used for its convenience since the 1940s, when Roy Hunter first developed the “Hunter Curve,” it bases its calculations on large contingencies that overestimate peak demands. As such, the AWWA has placed greater emphasis on developing techniques that are better suited to project peak demands in new developments, such as the Demand Profiling method. 4 The M22 Manual states,
“Demand profiles generated from existing accurate water meters are uniquely valuable, because a water meter represents the most precise means to measure potable water use…Flow recorders have been used to size meters since the 1930s, and although the technology has changed a great deal since then, recorders remain the most accurate meter sizing methodology when an accurate meter exists from which to record.

Alternative methods to gauge water use, such as pipe size or fixture count, do not provide the actual usage patterns that are essential for determining the ideal meter type and size.”5 As referenced above, the most accurate water meter sizes are determined using the Demand Profiling method, which collects high resolution empirical water demand data using flow recorders, also known as “data loggers.” This process of sizing water services, however, is much more time consuming and requires years of data collection that AquaSan has amassed over decades of monitoring efforts. Using our proprietary data, AquaSan employed the AWWA endorsed Demand Profiling method to determine accurate water meter sizes for the Neighborhood 3 buildings by collecting flow trace data that identified peak water demands and overall usage from similar Wind Crest buildings. These flow traces were acquired using data loggers that were attached to the buildings’ water meters and set to record water flow through the meters at the recommended 10-second interval resolution. Once the monitoring periods were complete, the data from the loggers were reviewed for accuracy by comparing the actual meter reads and then input into AquaSan’s software for statistical analysis. In addition to the flow data, information was also obtained from site visits, water billing statements, fixture reviews and information exchanges with the building managers on the occupancy and water use patterns of the buildings. These empirical data were matched with Neighborhood 3’s end uses and used in conjunction with AquaSan’s research and analytics to form the basis for our peak water demand projections.

Empirical Data Collection
Figure 8A displays the basic information about each of the three properties AquaSan selected as being the most akin to the Neighborhood 3 buildings, to include the Fixture Values and water meters used in each building. 4 Mayer, Peter W., et al. Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters. 3rd ed., American Water Works Association, 2014. Page 30. 5 Mayer, Peter W., et al. Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters. 3rd ed., American Water Works Association, 2014. Pages 13-14.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
11 Figure 8A: Data Logging Information from Monitored Properties in Comparison with Neighborhood 3 Building Name Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
Neighborhood 3
Commons
Neighborhood 3
Residences
Total Units 30 102 74 30 104 – 111
Occupied Units 30 98 73 Projected
30 Projected
104 – 111
Percent Occupancy 100.00% 96.08% 98.65% Projected
100.00%
Projected
100.00%
Commercial Areas Conference, stage,
restaurant/pub Cafeteria, café Restaurant/pub,
office, spa, salon
Conference,
restaurant, market,
spa
Restaurant
Fixture Value (M22) 883 2,506 1,878 900 2,500 – 2,800
Meter Make / Model Sensus Omi C2 Sensus Omi C2 Sensus Omi C2 NA NA Meter
Size (in) 3” 3” 3” Projected2”
Projected
2”
Peak Continuous
Flow (GPM) 14.00 30.05 22.80 Projected18.43
Projected

37.11 – 39.61
Peak Intermittent
Flow (GPM) 36.00 38.64 32.00 Projected54.94
Projected

69.48 – 74.16
Peak Continuous and Intermittent Demands
The first level of analysis involved is examination of the overall daily and hourly peak continuous and intermittent flows in gallons per minute (GPM). These flow profiles are important from the standpoint of comparing values across different buildings, as well as estimating the peak water demands and designing a water management program that would be effective in reducing these demands depending on their occurrence. Figures 8B – 8E show a summary of these daily and hourly demands at each building in table and graph form:

Figure 8B: Overall Daily Peak Continuous & Intermittent Flows in GPM Day Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
- 99th GPM Max GPM 99th GPM Max GPM 99th GPM Max GPM
Sunday 9.00 18.00 24.47 32.20 16.00 32.00
Monday 11.14 21.00 22.54 32.20 17.53 30.00
Tuesday 13.50 24.00 19.32 25.76 16.00 30.00
Wednesday 9.00 24.00 22.54 38.64 18.00 30.00
Thursday 10.80 36.00 19.32 25.76 18.00 24.00
Friday 9.00 18.00 27.37 38.64 18.00 24.00
Saturday 10.92 18.00 19.32 31.13 19.81 30.00
Peak Day 13.50 36.00 27.37 38.64 19.81 32.00
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
12 0.00

5.00 10.00

15.00 20.00

25.00 30.00

35.00 40.00

45.00 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday GPM
Day
Daily Peak Continuous and Intermittent Demands
Highline Overlook 99th Highline Overlook Max McHenry's Crossing 99th McHenry's Crossing Max Parry Landing 99th Parry Landing Max Figure 8C: Overall Daily Peak Continuous & Intermittent Flows in GPM Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
13 Figure 8D: Overall Hourly Peak Continuous & Intermittent Flows in GPM Hour Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
- 99th GPM Max GPM 99th GPM Max GPM 99th GPM Max GPM
0 2.00 6.00 5.37 12.88 6.00 12.00
1 2.00 6.00 4.83 9.66 6.00 12.00
2 2.00 6.00 4.83 6.44 5.00 12.00
3 2.00 6.00 6.44 12.88 6.00 12.00
4 4.00 6.00 8.05 12.88 6.00 12.00
5 5.25 12.00 12.88 19.32 6.86 18.00
6 7.50 14.00 19.32 25.76 12.00 18.00
7 12.00 18.00 24.47 32.20 18.00 30.00
8 12.01 21.00 30.05 32.20 22.80 32.00
9 14.00 36.00 25.76 32.20 21.00 30.00
10 12.00 24.00 20.86 25.76 21.00 30.00
11 12.00 18.00 19.32 25.76 17.00 24.00
12 12.00 18.00 19.32 32.20 15.00 18.00
13 7.20 18.00 32.20 38.64 12.00 24.00
14 10.50 18.00 22.54 32.20 12.00 18.00
15 9.00 18.00 22.54 38.64 12.00 24.00
16 8.00 18.00 19.60 25.76 12.00 18.00
17 6.00 18.00 19.32 32.20 12.00 24.00
18 6.00 12.00 19.32 25.76 12.00 18.00
19 6.00 14.00 18.40 25.76 12.00 18.00
20 6.00 18.00 15.03 19.32 12.00 18.00
21 6.00 12.00 16.10 19.32 12.00 18.00
22 4.50 7.50 12.15 15.03 12.00 18.00
23 3.00 6.00 7.73 9.66 8.00 12.00
Peak Hour 14.00 36.00 30.05 38.64 22.80 32.00
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
14 0.00

5.00 10.00

15.00 20.00

25.00 30.00

35.00 40.00

45.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 GPM
Hour
Hourly Peak Continuous and Intermittent Demands
Highline Overlook 99th Highline Overlook Max McHenry's Crossing 99th McHenry's Crossing Max Parry Landing 99th Parry Landing Max Figure 8E: Overall Hourly Peak Continuous & Intermittent Flows in GPM Figures 8A – 8D demonstrate that cross referencing the peak flows in the daily and hourly time frames ensures that the most accurate and maximum peak water uses are identified for meter sizing. These recorded peak demand numbers are approaching the information needed for sizing the water meters at the Neighborhood 3 buildings, but they are still incomplete without accounting for the risk analysis simulations described in the next section.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
15 Predictive Analytics
Monte Carlo Simulation
In order to verify the possibility of water flows exceeding the observed values for the three properties monitored, a statistical projection analysis tool, known as a Monte Carlo Simulation, was performed on each building’s peak data. The purpose of a Monte Carlo Simulation is to model the probability of results (in this case, peak GPM values) while accounting for risk and uncertainty in the recorded values. Before the simulations were conducted, the daily peak flow rates were disaggregated from the data and tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk Test (alpha =

0.05). Once AquaSan concluded that the data were normally distributed, the simulations were conducted with 100,000 iterations of randomly generated numbers following each building’s specific flow parameters. If the data from a building were not normally distributed, the peak demands were calculated with an additional 10% increase to account for right tailed skewness. The results of these statistical tests and simulations are displayed below in Figures 9A and 9B:

Figure 9A: Monte Carlo Simulation Results for Peak Continuous Flow Statistical Measurement Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
Mean (GPM) 10.48 22.13 17.62
Standard
Dev (GPM) 1.65 3.08 1.32
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statistic 0.84 0.87 0.89
Associated p-value 0.12 0.20 0.28
Distribution Factor No No No
Simulated Peak Continuous Flow
(GPM) 18.43 34.97 23.44
Figure 9B: Monte Carlo Simulation Results for Peak Intermittent Flow Statistical Measurement Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
Mean (GPM) 22.71 32.20 28.57
Standard
Dev (GPM) 6.45 5.27 3.21
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statistic 0.77 0.87 0.75
Associated p-value 0.03 0.23 0.02
Distribution Factor Yes (+10%) No Yes (+10%)
Simulated Peak Intermittent Flow
(GPM) 54.94 63.39 48.77
As derivative from the tables above, The Monte Carlo Simulations are useful in providing an overarching representation of possible peak demands when using risk generated flow data derived from the mean and standard deviation. Using the results generated from these simulations, as well as the initial recorded data, AquaSan is now able to confidently project the peak water demands at the Neighborhood 3 buildings.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
16 Neighborhood 3 Peak Demand Projections
AquaSan’s simulated peak demand projections for the Neighborhood 3 buildings are established by formulating peak demands as they correspond to the number of occupied units for each property. These values are expressed as a ratio of continuous and intermittent peak demands to occupied units and are displayed below in Figure 10.

AquaSan uses the values established from the Monte Carlo Simulations to project the uppermost limits of these ratios to ensure flows will not exceed the recommended meter requirements:

Figure 10: Simulated Peak Demands from Monitored Properties Building Name Highline Overlook
30 Units
McHenry’s Crossing
102 Units
Parry Landing
74 Units
Total Units 30 102 74
Occupied Units 30 98 73
Percent Occupancy 100.00% 96.08% 98.65%
Simulated Peak Continuous
Demand (GPM) 18.43 34.97 23.44
Peak Continuous Demand per
Unit (GPM/Unit) 6.14x10-1 3.57x10-1 3.21x10-1
Simulated Peak Intermittent
Demand (GPM) 54.94 63.39 48.77
Peak Intermittent Demand per
Unit (GPM/Unit) 1.83 6.47x10-1 6.68x10-1
Of the three properties monitored, the maximum peak continuous and intermittent demands per unit equated to

6.14x10-1 GPM/unit and 1.83 GPM/unit respectively for the commercial building and 3.57x10-1 GPM/unit and

6.68x10-1 GPM /unit respectively for the residential buildings. Applying these values to the appropriate building layouts in Neighborhood 3 results in AquaSan’s peak demand projections as calculated below in Figure 11:

Figure 11: Simulated Peak Demands from Monitored Properties Residence Type Unit Count Peak Continuous Demand (GPM) Peak Intermittent Demand (GPM)
Commons 3.0 30 18.43 54.94
Residential 3.1 111 39.61 74.16
Residential 3.2 111 39.61 74.16
Residential 3.3 104 37.11 69.48
Residential 3.4 110 39.25 73.49
Residential 3.5 110 39.25 73.49
According to Table 6-1 in the AWWA M22 Manual, a 2” Turbine Class II water meter is required to have a high normal flow rate (continuous capacity) of at least 160 GPM and a maximum flow rate (intermittent capacity) of at least 190 GPM,6 though most meter manufactures exceed these demand requirements – for example, a 2” Badger 6 Mayer, Peter W., et al. Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters. 3rd ed., American Water Works Association, 2014. Page 70.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
17 Recordall Turbo water meter has a continuous capacity of 200 GPM and an intermittent capacity of 310 GPM. 7 Based on these water meter standards and the calculated peak demands above, it is evident that a 2” water meter will fully meet all of the water demands for each building in Neighborhood 3. However, it should be noted that most municipality engineering standards restrict continuous velocities to 10 feet per second, which results in a continuous demand capacity of 97.90 GPM for a 2” water meter; the maximum continuous flow rate calculations for each Neighborhood 3 building also fall within this standard. 7 https://www.badgermeter.com/resources/7a583d27-65f0-4d0b-ae86- 76768ebd932b/recordall%20turbo%20series%20meters%20-%20models%20160%20200%20450%201000%202000%203500%205500%206200%20product%20data%20sheet%20rts-ds-00320-en.pdf/ Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
18 Centennial Water and Sanitation District and Highlands Ranch Metro District Overview
CWSD/HRMD are the serving authorities for water resources and tap fees associated with Neighborhood 3. In CWSD’s letter dated June 7, 2004, they indicated that “the total of 546 SFEs for the entire planning will be reduced by the impact of the Erickson CRCC project. As planning information becomes available for the remaining portions of the property, please contact us so that we may determine how the proposed development will impact the level of water and sewer service available for this planning area [emphasis added].” This letter invited the Wind Crest team to collect and share information with CWSD/HRMD to determine the level of impact caused by the proposed Neighborhood 3 buildings on CWSD/HRMD’s water and sewer system.

Presumably, if the empirical data demonstrated more water being used than anticipated in the letter, CWSD/HRMD would require increased water dedication or charge additional impact fees to offset the water and capacity needed for the Project. Conversely, if the empirical analysis showed less water or capacity being used, a reduction in impact fees would be assessed.

Fee and Usage Analysis
In their letter dated June 22, 2017, HRMD indicated that Neighborhood 3 will be assessed as a residential development based on their description of Wind Crest’s Residential building 2.4. Presently, CWSD/HRMD has three separate fees for residential units: tap fees, meter fees and system development fees. Tap fees, which were recently reviewed to include multifamily developments, are $7,690/unit for SFEs and $5,510/unit for multifamily units (these values do not include any water transfer agreement costs). This fee structure assumes that multifamily units will use approximately 71.65% of the water and sewer capacity that a single family home uses. Meter fees, on the other hand, are based on the size of the water meter that serves a building, while system development fees incorporate a per acre usage of the site.

According to Centennial’s Financial Report for 2016 shared with Wind Crest, CWSD expects an average SFE to use 291 gallons/day or approximately 0.33 acre-feet annually. Subsequently, a multifamily unit would use 71.65% of an SFE according to CWSD/HRMD’s fee schedule, which is 208.50 gallons/day or approximately 0.23 acre-feet annually. This includes irrigation water, which Erickson, as mentioned earlier, has already been provided to CWSD/HRMD for the Wind Crest development.

As presently calculated, the Wind Crest Community would be required to allocate 464.30 acre-feet of water annually based on the complete buildout of 1,988 units under CWSD/HRMD’s multifamily usage of 0.23 acrefeet/unit. To date, Wind Crest has purchased tap fees for 1,164 multifamily units, which equates to 271.85 acrefeet. Drawing upon both projected implementation of aggressive water management practices and empirical data collection from Wind Crest’s existing facilities, AquaSan has demonstrated that senior housing units at Wind Crest will use a weighted average of 73.13 gallons/day or approximately 0.08 acre-feet annually, which also includes commercial usage. Based on these data, the entire Wind Crest Community comprised of 1,988 senior living units is projected to use only 162.85 acre-feet annually, which is significantly less than the 271.85 acre-feet paid to date, as well as the 464.20 acre-feet a multifamily development would use according to CWSD/HRMD.

Proposal
Based upon AquaSan’s empirical data collection and the values established above, it is concluded that Neighborhood 3’s water demand of 47.19 acre-feet will be more than sufficiently served by Wind Crest’s surplus of Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
19 water that was purchased during earlier phases. The foregoing analysis indicates that the appropriate fee structure for senior living facilities should instead reflect potable consumption of 73.13 gallons/unit/day, or approximately 35% of CWSD/HRMD’s current multifamily usage and 25% of their SFE usage. The corresponding fees associated with these consumption values are shown below in Figure 12:

Figure 12: Water Fee Cost Analysis
Residence Type Unit Count
CWSD/HRMD’s
Multifamily Cost
per Unit
CWSD/HRMD’s
Total Cost
Senior Living
Cost per Unit at
35% Usage of
Multifamily
Senior Living
Total Cost Cost Difference
Phases 1-2 1,412 $5,150 $7,271,800 $1,806 $2,550,518 $4,721,282 Neighborhood 3 576 $5,150 $2,966,400 $1,806 $1,040,438 $1,925,962 Total 1,988 $5,150 $10,238,200 $1,806 $3,590,956 $6,647,244 Figure 12 demonstrates that applying the current fee schedule to Neighborhood 3 would result in an overpayment of $1,925,962, which does not include the water (a) already purchased at Wind Crest under CWSD/HRMD’s multifamily rates and (b) separately purchased and dedicated for irrigation.

The usage values determined for Neighborhood 3 find additional support in studies and policies from other jurisdictions as well. For instance, a study conducted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection shows the mean water use per capita in elderly retirement communities was 63 GCD or 70 gallons/day/unit at 1.1 persons per unit.8 It is noted that this study reflects buildings without modern water conservation appliances, fixtures and non-potable irrigation, thus suggesting that Neighborhood 3’s usage projection is a conservative estimate. These findings are further reinforced by the percentages used by other municipalities in the Denver region for “senior housing,” such as the cities of Westminster (35%), Louisville (30%), and East Cherry Creek Valley (25%), along with other municipalities across the nation.9

Although there is general recognition that senior living facilities’ water usage differs from that of single family and multifamily dwelling units, neither CWSD nor HRMD currently employs a separate rate schedule for senior living facilities. AquaSan’s review indicates that Section 9.12, “Special Situations,” of HRMD’s Rules and Regulations provides a mechanism to address use classifications with unique demands that can be proven through empirical analysis, though Erickson has been advised that this authority will depend upon CWSD’s decisions regarding fee schedules.

In recognition of the risk to CWSD/HRMD associated with adopting an adjusted SFE schedule, AquaSan further proposes the adoption of a penalty rate for water used in excess of the predicted usage. This penalty rate would be set at a level commensurate with the capital value, to CWSD/HRMD, of the water. Although AquaSan does not presently have the information required to calculate that value, the penalty rate would likely form a multiple of CWSD/HRMD’s now-highest billing rate per SFE.

On the basis of the above, AquaSan concludes that this proposal, if pursued, will align CWSD/HRMD’s fee schedule with both the projected demands from Neighborhood 3 and the best water management practices adopted in nearby jurisdictions.
8 http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water_regulating_and_discharges/subsurface/2006designmanual/completesec_3.pdf 9 Senior living tap fee reduction also observed in cities in Ohio, Washington, Florida and Virginia when compared to single-family homes.

Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
20 Conclusion
In summary, this report is the denouement of the details from AquaSan’s previous reports, which provides clear evidence of the benefits of efficiently managed water assets of the Wind Crest Neighborhood 3 development. Not only will this Project make better use of the community’s water resources, it will avoid expensive acquisition and construction of new water rights and infrastructure by fully utilizing the existing infrastructure. If implemented successfully, Redwood-ERC Littleton, LLC and CWSD/HRMD should promote their success in conservation for the entire Denver Metropolitan area and demonstrate the efficacy of avoiding excessive uses of water.

Mr. Berrien, thank you again for this opportunity to work with you and the Redwood-ERC Littleton, LLC team regarding water management for your Project. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional clarification regarding the information contained herein. Also, please recall that pursuant to our agreement, this report and the information contained herein is confidential.

Sincerely,
AquaSan Network, Inc.

Carmine Iadarola
President
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
21 Exhibit A
Product Resources

1. Examples of WaterSense Approved Fixtures: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/product-search

2. Examples of ENERGY STAR Approved Appliances: https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/

3. Examples of CEE Approved Appliances: https://library.cee1.org/content/qualifying-product-listsresidential-clothes-washers

4. Examples of Irrigation Smart Controllers:
https://www.irrigation.org/IA/FileUploads/IA/Certification/SmartTechnologies_Final.pdf References
Literature

1. DeOreo, William, et al. Analysis of Water Use in New Single-Family Homes. Salt Lake City Corporation and US EPA, 2011.

2. DeOreo, William, et al. Analysis of Water Use Patterns in Multi-Family Residences. Irvine Ranch Water District, 2008.

3. DeOreo, William, et al. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2: Executive Report. Water Research Foundation, 2016.

4. Hunter, Roy B. Building Materials and Structures, Methods of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems.

National Bureau of Standards Report BMS 65, 1940.

5. American Water Works Association, Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters, M22, 2004. 2014.

6. Mayer, Peter W., et al. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation, 1999.

7. Dziegielewski, Benedykt, et al. Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works, 2000.

8. The Brendle Group, INC., et al. Benchmarking Task Force Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Water Conservations, Colorado Waterwise Council, 2007.

Websites

1. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/homes

2. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial-buildings
Attachment 3
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80246
TEL: 303 437 4063 1834559.4
22 3. http://www.iapmo.org/media/5275/3-hoffman-institutional-commercial-and-industrial-ici.pdf

4. https://www.irrigation.org/SWAT

5. https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/best-management-practice-10-cooling-tower-management

6. http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water_regulating_and_discharges/subsurface/2006designmanual/com pletesec_3.pdf

7. https://www.badgermeter.com/resources/7a583d27-65f0-4d0b-ae86- 76768ebd932b/recordall%20turbo%20series%20meters%20-
%20models%20160%20200%20450%201000%202000%203500%205500%206200%20product%20data%2 0sheet%20rts-ds-00320-en.pdf/
Attachment 3
(916) 79-POWER • (916) 784-3797 • FAX • (916) 774-5220 TDD • www.roseville.ca.us/electric Roseville Electric Utility
2090 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747-9704
Reliable Energy. Dependable Service.

Project: Erickson Senior Living
Baseline Rd at Westbrook Blvd
Roseville, CA 95747
SVSP Parcels KT41A & KT-41B
Electrical Capacity Study Findings
Roseville Electric (RE) is able to provide the requested electrical capacity to the Erickson Senior Living (ESL) project site contingent on infrastructure upgrades. Project development will be split into two phases per ESL’s proposed site layout. Phase 1 development will primarily occur on parcel KT-41A with a designed load of 8.2MW and require the completion of several planned infrastructure segments prior to development. The segments are in varying stages of planning/construction and could potentially be completed by other developers prior to ESL development. However, if the improvements are not completed by others before the completion of the first building in Phase 1, it will be the responsibility of ESL to complete. Phase 2 will primarily occur on parcel KT-41B with an additional designed load of 11.1MW. This will require the extension of an existing 12kV underground circuit approximately 2000ft to the project location. A preliminary breakdown of responsibilities include:

Erickson Senior Living
 Obtain any necessary easements and complete designs per RE standards.  Bore/trench and install all required conduit to project site.  Install any necessary pull-boxes, junction boxes, switch vaults, capacitor pads, and transformer pads
Roseville Electric
 Procure and install 12kV cable, switches, transformers, and capacitors  Estimated cost for all Roseville Electric work: $1.9M Planned Infrastructure Required to Support Serving Erickson Project Site # Length (ft) Start Location End Location Estimated Cost 1 7800 Baseline/Fiddyment Baseline/Westbrook $600,000
2 500 Sierra Vista Sub Earl Rush/Westbrook $50,000
3 3000 Earl Rush Drive Santucci/Vista Grande $250,000
4 4000 Sierra Vista Sub Westbrook/Vista Grande $300,000 5 2000 Sierra Vista Sub Westbrook/Vista Grande $150,000 6 3900 Blue Oaks Westbrook $300,000
Required Infrastructure for Phase 2
7 2000 Santucci/Vista Grande Sierra Village $200,000
Attachment 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. 23-

ADOPTING A THIRD AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC RELATIVE TO THE

SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

SECTION 2. Prior to considering the proposed Third Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the 11th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

1. The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations of the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

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

4. The Third Amendment to 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 Third Amendment to the Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into saidAmendment.

SECTION 4. The Third Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and KV Sierra Vista, 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 Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
When Recorded Mail to:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE

THIRD AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PARCELS KT-41A AND KT-41B

THIRD AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
This Third Amendment of Development Agreement is entered into this ________ day of ______________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“City”) and KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC, a California limited liability company (“KV Sierra Vista” or “Landowner”), pursuant to Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.

RECITALS:

A. Baseline P&R, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Baseline P&R”) and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the City Council of City on May 19, 2010 and recorded on June 18, 2010, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2010-0045892-00.

B. Baseline P&R and City entered into the Development Agreement relative to the development within a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “SVSP”), as is more precisely defined in Exhibits “A” and “B” of the Development Agreement (the “Property”). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement.

C. On June 24, 2015, Baseline P&R assigned its interested in the Development Agreement to KV Sierra Vista, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Development Agreement recorded in the Official Records of Placer County, California on June 24, 2015, as Document No. 2015-0053572-00.

D. On April 6, 2022, Sierra Vista Communities, LLC, a California limited liability company and City entered into the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, which amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County, California on May 18, 2022 as Document No. 2022- 0042163-00.

E. On May 11, 2022, KV Sierra Vista and City entered into the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, which amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County, California on June 23, 2022 as Document No. 2022-0051689-00.

F. This Third Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Third Amendment”) affects certain portions of the Property known as SVSP Parcels KT-41A and KT-41B, as described in Exhibits “A” and “B” (“the Third Amendment Property”), attached to this Third Amendment and shall run with the land.

G. Concurrent with its consideration of this Third Amendment, the City is processing a Major Project Permit Stage 1 and Stage 2 approval for purposes of developing the Third Amendment Property.

H. This Third Amendment is authorized by Section 1.4 of the Development Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The following sections and exhibits of the Development Agreement are hereby amended as follows:
a. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The following entries are added to the Table of Contents (pages ii and iii) in their entirety:
“2.9 Continuing Care Retirement Community”
”3.11.8 Electric Service for Parcels ESL Project”
b. NEW SECTION 2.9 Section 2.9 (Continuing Care Retirement Community) is added in its entirety to read:
“2.9 Continuing Care Retirement Community. Landowner intends to develop SVSP Parcels KT-41A and KT-41B with a continuing care retirement community (“CCRC”) consisting of approximately two million+ square foot campus of multiple buildings with approximately 1,200 independent living units, 200 assisted living/memory care suites, 40 skilled nursing rooms, dining options, medical facilities, recreational amenities, administrative space, parking areas, and landscaping (“ESL Project”). A description of ESL Project operations is contained in Exhibit LL.

The ESL Project will be developed in multiple phases as summarized in Exhibit “MM”. A 5,175+ square foot single-story marketing center will be constructed first (“Marketing Center”). The Marketing Center will be used as a business office for marketing activities. In a later phase of the ESL Project, the Marketing Center will be removed.

The CCRC independent living units and assisted living/memory care suites shall be licensed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 1569 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly and the skilled nursing facility shall be licensed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 1250 et seq., as may be amended from time to time.

2.9.1. Affordable Housing Contribution. Landowner shall pay to the City a contribution of $1.50 per habitable square foot for the habitable portions of the independent living units (“AH Contribution”). The AH Contribution shall be paid to the City at building permit issuance for the independent living units in each building(s). No AH Contribution shall be due for the assisted living/memory care units, skilled nursing rooms, amenity food service, or administrative areas. The proceeds from the AH Contribution collected pursuant to this Section 2.9.1 shall be deposited in the City’s affordable housing trust fund and used solely to subsidize the production of new regulated affordable housing.”
c. NEW SECTION 3.11.8. Section 3.11.8 (Electric Service for ESL Project) is added in its entirety to read:
`“3.11.8. Electric Service for ESL Project. City estimates that the ESL Project buildout will demand approximately 19.3 megavolt amperes (“MVA”). Projected electric demands for buildout of the ESL Project exceed the electric demand planned for Parcels KT-41A and KT-41B in the SVSP. To the extent that the ESL Project design exceeds the 19.3 MVA electric demand estimate, Landowner shall fund City’s reevaluation of the electric infrastructure necessary to provide electric service to the ESL Project, to the satisfaction of the Electric Utility Director.

The electric infrastructure required to serve the ESL Project buildout consists of seven segments shown and listed in Exhibit “NN” and Exhibit “OO”.  None of the off-site infrastructure in Exhibits “NN” and “OO” shall be required for the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the ESL Project Phase 1 “Marketing Center” listed in Exhibit “MM” as long as the panel size does not exceed 600 amps at 480 volts.
 Segments 1 through 6 in Exhibits “NN” and “OO” are required to serve the ESL Project not later than issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the first ESL Project building (shown in Exhibit “MM”), excluding the Marketing Center, up to an ESL Project cumulative electric panel size of 11,500 amps at 480 volts (“Trigger 1”). To the extent that segments 1 through 6 have not been constructed by Trigger 1, Landowner, at Landowner’s expense, shall construct segments 1 through 6.  Segment 7 in Exhibits “NN” and “OO” is required to serve the ESL Project not later than the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the first building in the ESL Project that exceeds a cumulative electric panel size of 11,500 amps at 480 volts. (“Trigger 2”). To the extent that segment 7 has not been constructed by Trigger 2, Landowner, at Landowner’s expense, shall construct segment 7.
 If, at any time, ESL Project demand exceeds the cumulative electric panel size of 27,100 amps at 480 volts, re-evaluation of electric service will be required to serve the unbuilt portions of the ESL Project, at Landowner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Electric Utility Director. Any additional upgrades identified shall be the responsibility of the Landowner.

Landowner’s construction of 12kV electric distribution facilities shall include boring, trenching, construction and installation of all underground conduits, concrete pads, pull boxes, junction boxes, switch vaults, capacitator pads, transformer pads, and appurtenances. Improvement plans for the facilities are subject to City review and approval in accordance with the Roseville Electric Specifications for Commercial Construction.

When Landowner completes construction of the 12KV electric distribution facilities, City shall, at Landowner’s expense, procure and install all electrical equipment, such as 12KV cable, pad-mount switchgear, transformers, and capacitator bank.

Landowner shall fund City’s work on the improvements prior to commencement of the work.

The ESL Project Marketing Center constructed in ESL Project Phase 1 as shown on Exhibit “MM” shall be exempt from the electric infrastructure requirements for Trigger 1 and Trigger 2. City agrees that the Marketing Center improvements shall be fed by temporary electric facilities, if necessary.

As listed in Exhibit “OO”, improvements constructed by Landowner for segments 1 through 5 shall be eligible for fee credits and/or reimbursements from the SVSP Fee Program, consistent with Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Improvements in segment 6 constructed by Landowner shall be entitled to reimbursement from the City’s Traffic Mitigation Fee (“City TMF Fund”) no earlier than ten years from the effective date of this Amendment. If insufficient funds are available to reimburse Landowner, City shall make payments to the extent funds are available. Landowner shall not be entitled to any fee credits and/or reimbursements for any portion of the segment 7 electric improvements.
d. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are added in their entirety:
“Exhibit LL Operating Plan
Exhibit MM ESL Conceptual Phasing
Exhibit NN Electric Infrastructure Required for ESL Project Exhibit OO Electric Infrastructure Segments”

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has found and determined that this Third Amendment of the Development Agreement is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

3. AMENDMENT LIMITED TO THIRD AMENDMENT PROPERTY. This Third Amendment is limited to and applies only to development of the Third Amendment Property and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to development of any other property within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, including without limitation, any other portion of the Property.

4. AMENDMENT. This Third Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement, except as specified herein. In the event of any conflict, the language of this Third Amendment shall be controlling in all events or circumstances. As amended hereby, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect.

5. FORM OF AMENDMENT. This Third Amendment is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Third Amendment in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. _________, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the _____ day of ________________, 2023.

Exhibit A
Third Amendment Property Legal Description
Exhibit B
Third Amendment Property Legal Description

EXHIBIT LL
Erickson Senior Living Roseville
Operations Information
Erickson Senior Living, LLC proposes Erickson Senior Living (Erickson Roseville), a continuing care retirement community, on a 55-acre site north of Baseline Road in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. The Erickson Senior Living community will provide continuing care services for the changing needs of Roseville residents as they age. The following describes the operating characteristics of the Erickson Senior Living (Erickson Roseville) community.

Erickson Senior Living
Erickson Senior Living has been a provider of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) since 1983. Today, Erickson’s network of 22 CCRCs in eleven states makes it the fifth-largest provider in the country. Over 28,000 residents live in an Erickson community where more than 14,000 employees serve them. The Roseville location will be Erickson’s first community in California.

Erickson Roseville Community Description
Location. Erickson Roseville is planned on a 55.6+-acre rectangular site north of Baseline Road and south of Sierra Village Drive between Santucci Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard. The site consists of APNs 499-010-074-000 and 499-010-075-000 and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcels KT41A and KT-41B. The site address is 6000 Baseline Road, Roseville.

Proposed Community Care Retirement Community. Erickson proposes a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) with independent living, assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and other advanced care services.

A CCRC provides its senior residents with care and hospitality services for the rest of their lives with a financial structure designed to deliver care efficiently as they age and their needs change. In their late 70s and early 80s, residents enter a CCRC to access on-site dining, recreational, social, housekeeping and transportation activities, monitoring, and hands-on care when their health needs increase.

Proposed Uses. Erickson Roseville will be self-contained and include approximately 2.1 million square feet of continuing care uses designed to meet the daily needs of seniors. One to six-story buildings will be arranged on a campus with water-efficient landscaping, outdoor plazas, seating areas, courtyards, and indoor and outdoor amenities.

The following uses are proposed:
 Continuing Care Facility
o Up to 200 beds of assisted living/memory care
o Up to 40 beds of skilled nursing
o 1,200+ independent living units
 Casual indoor and outdoor dining options, private dining  Medical services, including exam rooms and pharmacy
 Amenities such as concierge, library, day spa/salon, and theater  Indoor activity spaces for wellness activities, arts, classes, games, clubs, meetings, social gatherings  Active recreation amenities include a fitness center, swimming pool, putting green, bocce courts, and pickleball courts.
 Passive recreation spaces include walking paths, gardens, outdoor seating, lounge areas with fire pits, roof decks, amphitheater seating, and a dog park.

Dining. The community will feature six dining venues at full buildout. Dining options include restaurants and bars ranging from casual bistro to fine dining. Dining venues will be for the use of residents and their guests. Dining venues will not be open to the general public.

Medical Services. On-site medical services will be administered by Erickson Health Medical Group, one of the nation’s largest integrated healthcare systems for seniors. Residents will receive medical care and attention with same-day appointments, telehealth, and home visits from on-site medical staff (doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and technicians). On-site health and wellness facilities will include exam, treatment rooms, pharmacy services, and facilities for routine, preventive, and sick care.

Activity and Recreation Programming. Erickson Roseville will offer extensive activity and recreational programming, including the following:
 Restaurants/bars
 Outdoor dining/kitchen
 Fitness center
 Indoor pool and spa
 Indoor sport and pickleball court
 Library
 Games/card rooms
 Creative arts rooms
 Yoga studio
 Wood/hobby shop
 Classrooms
 Movie theatre
 Auditorium
 Resident concierge suite
 Resident gardens
 Dog park
 Putting green
 Bocce courts
 Fire pits
 Walking trails
Hours of Operation. Erickson Roseville will be capable of providing resident care and supervision 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Staffing. At full buildout, Erickson Roseville will employ approximately 600-700 full- and parttime positions. Employees will include administrative staff, caregivers, medical staff, and food service and facilities staff. Employees of Erickson Roseville will have access to the on-site Employee Health and Wellness Center.

Access. The primary entrance to the community will be from a gated entrance on Baseline Road.

The Baseline entry includes a staffed entry kiosk. Additional gated entrances are planned on Westbrook Boulevard and Sierra Village Drive. Deliveries and employees will access the site from the Sierra Village Drive entry. Pedestrians may access the site from all sides via pedestrian gates.

Parking. Approximately 1,850 parking spaces will be provided in surface or first-floor parking lots.

A portion of the parking spaces will be carport covered.

Most residents will bring a vehicle when they move into the facility. Resident parking will be assigned, and guest spaces will be proximate to each building. Each phase will identify employee and visitor parking areas.

Park and Ride Lot. A park-and-ride lot with fifty (50) vehicle parking spaces is planned on the west side of the site with direct vehicular access to Santucci Boulevard. The park and ride lot will be separated from the Erickson Roseville parking by an open-view fence.

Transit. Erickson Roseville will provide a shuttle service to transport residents to off-site appointments. The shuttle will provide routine service to local shopping, restaurants, medical facilities, and other destinations. The in-house transit service will provide residents with a convenient and sustainable way to travel. In addition, Roseville Transit bus service will serve the site at bus stops on Santucci Boulevard Baseline Road.

Deliveries. Erickson Roseville will receive food and supply deliveries from the Sierra Village Drive entry.

Security and Emergency Services. Erickson Roseville will include 24-hour security and emergency services staff able to respond immediately to any on-site concern. Modern electronic security systems (cameras, alarms, resident tracking, personal resident alert pendants) will provide building and resident security.

Residents. Residents are restricted to seniors 62 and older; the average resident age at move-in is 78.

Resident Fees. Residents pay a substantial (six-figure) one-time community entrance fee, usually funded by selling their homes. In addition, residents pay a monthly care fee covering most living expenses (meal plan, utilities, amenities, local transportation, security, and maintenance). Personal care and nursing care are generally available at market rates. Nearly all the initial entrance fees will be returned when a resident departs the community. None of the units is available for monthly rental or purchase. Additional care and services are available based on assessments and needs.

Medical Emergencies
The on-site Erickson Health Medical Group with experienced senior care providers is available to residents for medical needs. In addition, Erickson Roseville will employ emergency medical responders as the first level of emergency services for residents. Erickson’s philosophy is to provide an integrated healthcare model to minimize the need for hospital emergency rooms to care for its residents.

The community’s Security and Emergency Services department will respond and provide aid to any resident needing assistance. Residents in distress may alert the community’s Emergency Medical Responders by pulling cords in their unit or by pressing the alert pendant on their person.

Upon receipt of an emergency call, security dispatch will deploy resources based upon established protocols to respond and investigate the situation, report their findings, and either address minor, non-critical issues on-site with the assistance of on-site physicians or escalate to a 911 response. 911 will be activated in situations that warrant the response of advanced life support resources (i.e., unresponsive, cardiac arrest, chest pain, trouble breathing, etc.). Erickson’s typical response time to any emergency in the community is four minutes or less.

If conditions warrant, a resident may be taken directly to the on-site medical center for further evaluation and treatment. Staff healthcare providers are available for same-day appointments at Erickson communities. If further assessment and treatment are determined appropriate by providers, a resident may be admitted directly into the on-site skilled nursing care unit for further evaluation.

Regulation of CCRCs in California
A CCRC typically provides its senior residents with care and hospitality services for the rest of their lives, with a financial structure designed to deliver care efficiently as they age and their needs change. Residents, often in their early 80s or late 70s, enter a CCRC to access on-site dining, transportation, recreational and social activities, assistance, and hands-on care when their health needs increase. A CCRC is generally comprised of the following:
 Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE)
o Independent Living
o Assisted Living
o Memory Care
 Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF)
In California, the Health and Safety Code regulates CCRCs. All facilities in a CCRC must be licensed as either a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the Health and Safety Code §§1569 et seq. or as a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) under Health and Safety Code §§1250 et seq. [See Health and Safety Code §1771.5]. All 1,200 independent living units and all 200 assisted living/memory care suites at Erickson Senior Living Roseville will be licensed as an RCFE.

Facilities usually include licensed residential units in which resident care needs are monitored, but ongoing hands-on care is optional. The facilities include assisted living and memory care suites, where personal care is provided routinely, and 24-hour skilled nursing beds, where more intensive, physician-directed care is administered.

Contracts for providing care and services to CCRC residents are comprehensively regulated by Health and Safety Code §§1770 et seq. (the Continuing Care Contracts law) and all contracts must be approved by the California Department of Social Services (DSS) before use. [See Health and Safety Code §1787(b)]. Such contracts describe in detail all the services and care available to residents.

Required Services
As a condition of licensure, RCFEs must provide residents, when needed, with the following “basic services” (in return for the monthly fee or an extra charge): personal assistance and care; regular observation of physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning; supervision; planned activities; food service; and arrangements for obtaining incidental medical and dental care. (Health and Safety Code §1569.312; 22 Cal. Code Regs. §§87464(f), 87466, 87465, 87101(b)(2)). Health and Safety Code §1569.312 mandates that RCFEs provide residents with the following services, as needed:
(a) Care and supervision as defined in Section 1569.2.
(b) Assistance with instrumental activities of daily living in the combinations which meet the needs of the residents.
(c) Helping residents gain access to appropriate supportive services in the community. (d) Being aware of the residents’ general whereabouts, although the resident may travel independently in the community.
(e) Monitoring the activities of the residents while they are under the supervision of the facility to ensure their general health, safety, and well-being. (f) Encouraging the residents to maintain and develop their maximum functional ability through participation in planned activities.

The mandated “[c]are and supervision” that the facility must provide to residents includes assistance as needed with activities of daily living (“ADLs”) such as dressing, feeding, grooming, bathing, toileting and other personal hygiene, mobility, money management, and taking prescribed medications. (Id., §§1569.312, 1569.2(b), (h); 22 Cal. Code Regs. §§87464(f), 87101(b)(2), (c)(2), 87466.) Furthermore, RCFEs must also make reasonable efforts to safeguard residents’ personal property. (Health and Safety Code §1569.152.)
In addition to monitoring residents’ health status and care needs, an RCFE may care for residents’ health conditions such as oxygen administration, catheter care, colostomy/ileostomy care, contractures, diabetes, enemas, suppositories and/or fecal impaction removal, bowel and bladder incontinence, injections, certain dermal ulcers, and wound care. (22 Cal. Code Regs. §87612.) The regulations impose additional duties on RCFEs to act if residents’ care needs change and they are no longer appropriately placed. The RCFE shall:
“. . . ensure that residents are regularly observed for changes in physical, mental, emotional and social functioning and that appropriate assistance is provided when such observation reveals unmet needs. When changes such as unusual weight gains or losses or deterioration of mental ability or a physical health condition are observed, the licensee shall ensure that such changes are documented and brought to the attention of the resident's physician and the resident's responsible person, if any.” (Id., §87466.) If the RCFE or the California Department of Social Services determines that the facility cannot meet the resident’s healthcare needs, the facility must immediately relocate the resident. (Id.,§§87637).

Erickson Roseville must stand ready to provide any and all the care and services mandated by the RCFE law and regulations whenever needed. Because residential and assisted living units have the same RCFE licensure, care can be provided in either the resident's living unit or the assisted living center. licensee shall ensure that such changes are documented and brought to the attention of the resident's physician and the resident's responsible person, if any.” (Id., §87466.) If the RCFE or the California Department of Social Services determines that the facility cannot meet the resident’s healthcare needs, the facility must immediately relocate the resident. (Id.,§§87637).

Exhibit MM
Erickson Senior Living
Conceptual Phasing
Phase Building Stories Units Beds Total SF
Phase 1
1 Marketing Center 1 0 0 5,175
1 RB 1.1 5 113 0 211,010
1 CB 1.0 1 . 0 14,720
1 RB 1.2 5 124 0 214,325
1 RB 1.3 6 117 0 184,075
Phase 1 Subtotal 354 0 629,305
Phase 2
2 RB 1.4 6 117 0 151,900
2 RB 1.5 6 117 0 198,409
Phase 2 Subtotal 234 0 350,309
Phase 3
3 Assisted Living 4 0 200 155,568
Phase 3 Subtotal 0 200 155,568
Phase 4
4 RB 2.1 5 113 0 185,526
4 CB 2.0 1 0 0 19,077
4 RB 2.2 6 117 0 194,440
4 RB 2.4 5 124 0 125,240
Phase 4 Subtotal 354 0 524,283
Phase 5
5 RB 2.3 6 141 0 277,240
5 RB 2.5 6 117 0 171,612
Phase 5 Subtotal 258 0 448,852
Phase 6
6 Skilled Nursing 1 0 40 27,262
Phase 6 Subtotal 0 40 27,262
Total 1,200 240 2,135,579
Exhibit NN
Electric Infrastructure Required for ESL Project
12kV Distribu�on Facili�es
Exhibit OO
Electric Infrastructure Segments
(Corresponds with Exhibit NN)
Segment Approx
Length
Segment Start Segment End Creditable/
Reimbursable
1 7,800 LF Baseline/Fiddyment Baseline/Westbrook SVSP Fee Program 2 500 LF Sierra Vista Substa�on Earl Rush/Westbrook SVSP Fee Program 3 3,000 LF Earl Rush Drive Santucci/Vista Grande SVSP Fee Program 4 4,000 LF Sierra Vista Substa�on Westbrook/Vista Grande SVSP Fee Program 5 2,000 LF Sierra Vista Substa�on Westbrook/Vista Grande SVSP Fee Program 6 3,900 LF Blue Oaks/Westpark Blue Oaks/Westbrook Capital Improvement Program Traffic Mi�ga�on Fee
7 2,000 LF Santucci/Vista Grande Santucci/Sierra Village None

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2859
File #: 0400-02 & 0400-06-02
Title: Infill Parcel 175 Rezone
Contact: Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/16/2023
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

1. Consider the Infill Parcel 175 – Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

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

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. A more detailed background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 2.

Background/Project Evaluation
The proposed project is located at 1100 Orlando Av., on approximately 1.23 acres within the Infill area of the City. The property is surrounded by Orlando Av. to the south and east, Auburn Bl. to the west, and an on-ramp to I-80 to the north. The current zoning designation of the site is Neighborhood Commercial (NC), with a land use designation of Community Commercial (CC).

The site is developed with an approximately 6,000 square foot building and several rail cars, as well as associated site improvements. The site has predominantly been used as a restaurant and nightclub since it was constructed in the late 1980’s with the Roseville Junction project (File # SR 86-63). In April of 2008, the property owners applied for a Zoning Interpretation (File # ZI000020) to allow operation of the nightclub use for the business known as “The Station”. The request and subsequent appeals were denied by City Council, as various modifications to the building throughout the years had invalidated the legal nonconforming status of the use. The site is currently vacant.

The proposed project will amend the zoning designation of approximately 1.23 acres of Infill Parcel 175 from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) to facilitate the construction of an approximately 4,542 square foot carwash facility with vacuum stalls, parking, and other site improvements.

Associated with this request was a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review Permit (DRP), which the Planning Commission unanimously approved at their June 22, 2023 meeting.

Per the Zoning Ordinance, approval of a CUP is required to allow a carwash facility in the CC zone. The DRP approved the proposed building and site design. Further discussion and exhibits for these entitlements are included in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2).

Summary Evaluation
The existing General Plan land use designation of the property is Community Commercial (CC), and the existing zoning designation of the property is Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The project site is not within a Specific Plan area. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the parcel from NC to CC to allow development of the proposed carwash facility with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

According to Section 19.12.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, the NC zone is intended to be applied to properties “in close proximity to residential areas providing for convenient retail and personal service facilities”. In comparison, the CC zone is intended to “serve the principal retail shopping needs of the entire community by providing areas for shopping centers, and other retail and service uses.”
Although the project site is currently zoned NC, the location is relatively isolated from the neighborhood to the east. The project site is bordered by Auburn Bl., a minor arterial roadway; Orlando Av., a collector roadway; and an on-ramp to Interstate 80 to the north. Pedestrian access to the site is limited due to the location of the freeway on-ramp, and pedestrian facilities along the northeast corner of the site are incomplete. Additionally, while there are two gas stations to the south and southwest of the project site that are within the NC zone, the commercial properties to the east of Orlando Av. are zoned CC and are located between the project site and a residential neighborhood. Modifying the zoning designation of the site would extend the existing CC zone district and create more consistency within the area. Based on the analysis provided in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Rezone.

Public Outreach
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. No comments were received.

A neighborhood meeting was held at the Maidu Community Center on February 15, 2023. Notices were sent to all neighbors within a 300 foot radius of the project site. No one attended the meeting. Staff communicated with one individual who received a notice, and discussed the history of the site. No concerns about the proposed carwash use were received. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on June 8, 2023, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. No comments were received.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City’s Planning Commission on June 22, 2023. The applicant addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested approval by the Commission. There was no public comment on the project. Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program and approve the CUP and DRP entitlements, as well as recommend that the City Council approve the requested Rezone.

FISCAL IMPACT
Application costs were borne by the applicant, and the project is required to pay all applicable impact fees. The project is not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released May 3, 2023 for a period of 20 days, ending on May 23, 2023. No comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental document were received during the public review period. As the project is located on an Infill parcel and is not within a Specific Plan area, mitigation measures to establish procedure in the event of inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural and tribal cultural resources are included with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prior to approval of the Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit entitlements, the Planning Commission adopted the IS/MND. The Planning Commission report and all exhibits are included in Attachment

2. CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Report andAttachments Ordinance-Rezone
Exhibit A - Rezone
CC ATTACHMENT 1 – Vicinity Map
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Prepared by: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1: Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review Permit – 1100 Orlando Av. – INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash – PL22-0316

REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Rezone to change the zoning designation of 1.23 acres of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC); a Conditional Use Permit to allow the carwash use in the CC zone; and a Design Review Permit for a 4,542 square foot automatic carwash facility with 21 vacuum spaces, nine (9) parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

Applicant- Kurt Wagenknecht, K12 Architects, Inc.

Owner – Jesse Angeles

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

1. Adopt the Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

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

3. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to two (2) conditions of approval; and

4. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact and approve the Design Review Permit subject to sixty-eight (68) conditions of approval.

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

BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located at 1100 Orlando Av., on approximately 1.23 acres within the Infill area of the City. The property is surrounded by Orlando Av. to the south and east, Auburn Bl. to the west, and an on-ramp to I-80 to the north (Figure 1). The current zoning designation of the site is Neighborhood Commercial (NC), with a land use designation of Community Commercial (CC).

The site is developed with an approximately 6,000 square foot building and several rail cars, as well as associated site improvements. The site has predominantly been used as a restaurant and nightclub since it was constructed in the late 1980’s with the Roseville Junction project (File # SR 86-63). In April of 2008, the property owners applied for a Zoning Interpretation (File # ZI-000020) to allow operation of the nightclub use for the business known as “The Station”. The request and subsequent appeals were denied by City Council, as various modifications to the building throughout the years had invalidated the legal nonconforming status of the use. The site is currently vacant.

The currently proposed project would allow an approximately 4,542 square foot automatic carwash facility with vacuum stalls, parking, and other site improvements. All existing structures would be removed from the site. Hours of operation for the proposed carwash are 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM, seven days a week. The proposed project requires a rezone from NC to CC to allow the proposed carwash use, as well as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review Permit (DRP) to evaluate the proposed project and design.

CC ATTACHMENT 2
INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 2 of 16
Figure 1: Project Location
EVALUATION – REZONE
Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

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

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan of the City of Roseville.

The existing General Plan land use designation of the property is Community Commercial (CC), and the existing zoning designation of the property is Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The project site is not within a Specific Plan area. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the parcel from NC to Community Commercial (CC) to allow development of the proposed carwash facility with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

The proposed zoning change is consistent with the General Plan land use for the site. The City of Roseville General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II-10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation. Both the NC and CC zone districts are considered implementing zones for the CC land use; however, the NC zone is generally more restrictive to reduce incompatibility between commercial and residential uses. According to Section 19.12.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, the NC zone is intended to be applied to properties “in close proximity to residential areas providing for convenient retail and personal service facilities”. In comparison, the CC zone is intended to INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 3 of 16
“serve the principal retail shopping needs of the entire community by providing areas for shopping centers, and other retail and service uses.”
Although the project site is currently zoned NC, the location is relatively isolated from the neighborhood to the east. The project site is bordered by Auburn Bl., a minor arterial roadway; Orlando Av., a collector roadway; and an on-ramp to Interstate 80 to the north. Pedestrian access to the site is limited due to the location of the freeway on-ramp, and pedestrian facilities along the northeast corner of the site are incomplete. Additionally, while there are two gas stations to the south and southwest of the project site that are within the NC zone, the commercial properties to the east of Orlando Av. are zoned CC and are located between the project site and a residential neighborhood. Modifying the zoning designation of the site would extend the existing CC zone district and create more consistency within the area. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed CC zone district is appropriate for the site.

EVALUATION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The evaluation of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will focus on the compatibility of the carwash facility with the surrounding land uses. As part of the compatibility evaluation, staff evaluated noise impacts and consistency with the findings listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The CUP allows the City to place operational conditions on the use which may be modified by the Planning Commission. Section 19.78.60 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires that three findings be made to approve a CUP. The three findings are listed below in bold, italicized text and are followed by an evaluation in relation to each finding.

1. The proposed use or development is consistent with the City of Roseville General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The land use and proposed zoning designation for the subject property is CC. The purpose of the CC land use category is to provide a broader range of goods and services to an expanded service area.

Primary uses within the CC land use category include retail stores and businesses selling a full range of goods and services. The project is located within an Infill area of the City, and is not subject to a Specific Plan; therefore, this evaluation is based on the General Plan land use designation and the zoning designation. The Zoning Ordinance states that carwash facilities are permitted in the CC zone upon approval of a CUP. Based on the General Plan definition for CC land use and the Zoning Ordinance provisions, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation with approval of the required CUP.

2. The proposed use or development conforms with all applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

As previously stated, the project proposes a rezone of the site from NC to CC. Carwash facilities are identified in the Zoning Ordinance as conditionally permitted uses, provided a CUP is approved. The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance definition for an automatic carwash and is therefore consistent with the Zoning Ordinance upon approval of the CUP.

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use or development is compatible with and shall not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the area, or be detrimental or injurious to public or private property or improvements.

The proposed project site is surrounded on all sides by roadways, with residential uses located to the east of Orlando Av. As automatic carwash facilities include several noise sources (i.e. vacuums, air dry blowers, vehicles stacking, and other equipment), City staff required the preparation of a site-specific noise study to evaluate the potential for conflicts with the City’s Noise Ordinance and potential impacts INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 4 of 16
to sensitive receptors. The City’s General Plan Noise Element identifies sensitive receptors as places where people normally sleep, such as residences, lodging, hospitals, and assisted living facilities—in this case, the nearest sensitive receptor is the residential subdivision to the east of Orlando Av.

An Environmental Noise Assessment was prepared by Saxelby Acoustics in March of 2023. According to General Plan Noise Element Table IX-3, an acceptable exterior noise level during daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) for stationary noise sources is 50dBA Leq, or an average sound level of 50 decibels, with a maximum allowable level of 70 dB. On page 7 of the noise study, included in Attachment 1 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A of this report), existing background noise levels were collected at various points throughout the site. The study found that the primary existing noise source on the project site is the traffic on Interstate 80 to the northwest of the project site., resulting in an average noise level at the eastern property line (adjacent to Orlando Av.) to be 65 dBA Leq at the lowest.

The study also measured ambient noise at the two nearest residential property lines, approximately 650 feet from the centerline of I-80, and 670 feet from the centerline of I-80. The Leq levels at these properties were found to be 61 and 60 dBA Leq, respectively.

Figure 2 – Project Noise Contours
The study evaluated several noise-generating components of the project, including the carwash dryers, semi-central vacuum producer, rooftop HVAC, and parking lot. The data used in the study relied on manufacturer’s data, as well as Saxelby Acoustics data from similar carwash operations. A model (SoundPLAN noise prediction model) incorporated the sound power levels for the proposed carwash tunnel, existing and proposed buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors, noise levels would not exceed 62 dBA Leq at the property line of the subject property. The study indicates that the most significant source of noise on the site would be vehicle circulation, rather than any mechanical equipment associated with the carwash use. Figure 2 of this report shows the project noise contours.

INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 5 of 16
Due to the shape of the subject parcel, the carwash tunnel and vacuum stations are oriented towards the east and south. The exit for the tunnel, where the air dryers are located, are on the east side of the tunnel, oriented towards Orlando Av. and Livoti Av. The vacuum stations are to the south of the tunnel, closer to Orlando Av. The nearest home is located on the east side of Orlando Av., approximately 175 feet from the property line of the proposed project site. As the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed noise standards at the property line and only operate during daytime hours, no mitigation measures are recommended; however, the project includes a CUP, which will include a condition of approval to limit operations to daylight hours (CUP Condition #2). At the time of staff report publication, no comments or concerns were received by staff regarding the proposed project. No impacts to health, safety, or welfare of persons working or residing in the area are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

EVALUATION – DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
The evaluation of the project is based on the applicable development standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the design standards of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with all applicable standards and found the project to be consistent with the pertinent requirements and guidelines. Section 19.78.060 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires that four findings be made to approve or conditionally approve a Design Review Permit (DRP).

The four findings are listed below in bold, italicized text, and are followed by an evaluation.

1. The project as approved preserves and accentuates the natural features of the property, such as open space, topography, trees, wetlands and water courses, provides adequate drainage for the project, and allows beneficial use to be made of the site for development.

The project site is currently developed with a vacant restaurant, comprised of a building and rail cars, as well as a parking area. The site does not retain natural features. The existing improvements will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. The project will direct all stormwater from the site into the storm drain system. Additionally, the project design has been reviewed by affected City Departments and will comply with City standards.

2. The project site design as approved provides open space; access; vehicle parking; vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation; pedestrian walks and links to alternative modes of transportation; loading areas; landscaping and irrigation; and lighting, which results in a safe, efficient, and harmonious development and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines, and the applicable Specific Plan and/or applicable Design Guidelines.

Access and Circulation: The proposed project is located on Orlando Av., at the northeast intersection of Orlando Av. and Auburn Bl. The site has two driveways, one to the south (near the intersection of Auburn Bl. and Orlando Av.) and one towards the northeast end of the site. These existing driveways will be used by the proposed development; however; the southern driveway will be restricted to emergency vehicle access only. Sidewalks are constructed along the perimeter of the site, except for the northern property line, which is adjacent to the Interstate 80 on-ramp. Sidewalk facilities end to the north of the subject parcel. The stacking lane will begin on the north side of the carwash tunnel and split into three lanes, providing adequate space for waiting vehicles. Overflow traffic will not impact public right-of-way. Once users exit the carwash tunnel, they will have the option to enter the parking area with the vacuum spaces.

The site plan shows that an accessible path of travel will connect to the existing pedestrian facilities along the Orlando Av. frontage.

Parking: According to Section 19.26.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, automatic carwash facilities require one parking space per drying and vacuum area plus 100 linear feet in front of the carwash for stacking.

The project proposes 21 vacuum stall spaces and nine (9) open parking spaces. The entry area for the INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 6 of 16
carwash facility includes three stacking lanes of approximately 150 linear feet each, exceeding the minimum requirement. The proposed project provides adequate parking for the use, exceeding Zoning Ordinance standards.

Landscaping: The project includes landscaping around the perimeter of the site, with a larger landscape area along the Orlando Av. frontage. The Community Design Guidelines require 20 feet of landscaping along a street frontage unless otherwise specified; however, due to existing constraints and the unique shape of the parcel, the landscape planter along Orlando Av. averages 15 feet in depth and narrows to approximately 12 feet. Landscape planter widths around the perimeter of the site are between four (4) and six (6) feet deep, and include a mix of trees and shrubs that include species such as Chinese Pistache, Australian Willow, and Crape Myrtle trees. The landscape palate is consistent with the CDG.

Additionally, the CDG require that 50-percent of the paved parking areas be shaded by trees at 15-year maturity. The landscape plans indicate that 54-percent of the parking lot will be shaded. In addition to landscaping, the vacuum parking spaces will have canopy coverage to shade vehicles during vacuuming.

3. The building design, including the materials, colors, height, bulk, size, and relief, and the arrangement of the structures on the site, as approved, is harmonious with other development and buildings in the vicinity and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines, and the applicable Specific Plan and/or applicable design guidelines.

The proposed building includes variations in the rooflines, architectural treatments, colors, and materials, as recommended by the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The carwash tunnel building incorporates a variety of materials, including stucco, stacked stone, metal accents, and a standing seam metal roof.

The colors include grey tones for the stucco and stone, with a yellow as an accent color throughout. The tunnel opening is accented with a tower feature and the honeycomb detail to represent the business brand. The site also includes a knee wall to shield the vacuum area, which uses the same stacked stone as the main building. The colors, variety of materials, and overall design are consistent with the Community Design Guidelines.

Figure 3: Carwash Tunnel South Elevation

4. The design of the public services, as approved, including but not limited to, trash enclosures and service equipment, are located so as not to detract from the appearance of the site, and are screened appropriately and effectively using construction materials, colors, and landscaping that are harmonious with the site and the building designs.

Most of the equipment for the proposed use is housed within the building, which includes an equipment room. The project includes a new trash enclosure along the eastern frontage of the property. The INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 7 of 16
enclosure will include materials consistent with the main carwash building, and will be surrounded by landscaping on three sides. Therefore, the treatment of service areas is consistent with the CDG.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. No comments were received.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released May 3, 2023 for a period of 20 days, ending on May 23, 2023. No comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental document were received during the public review period. As the project is located on an Infill parcel and is not within a Specific Plan area, mitigation measures to establish procedure in the event of inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural and tribal cultural resources are included with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration, included as Exhibit A of this report.

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

1. Adopt the Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Recommend the City Council adopt the findings of fact and approve the Rezone.

3. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Conditional Use Permit – 1100 Orlando Av.– INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash– PL22-0316 subject to two (2) conditions of approval.

4. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Design Review Permit – 1100 Orlando Av.– INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash– PL22-0316 subject to sixty-eight (68) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE #PL22-0316

1. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits A-G and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

2. The hours of operation shall be as follows:
a) 8:00 AM until 9:00 PM (Monday through Sunday)
INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 8 of 16
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FILE #PL22-0316

1. This Design Review Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from June 22, 2023 and if not effectuated shall expire on June 22, 2025. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond June 22, 2026. (Planning)

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

3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

4. The project shall be addressed as 1200 Orlando Avenue. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s) to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for building/suite addressing. (Business Services)

5. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.

Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Finance)

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

7. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the rightof-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)

8. The approval of this project does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

9. Parking lot design shall conform to the City’s design standards, including the following minimum standards for parking stalls:
a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6-inch raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
b. Standard – 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact – 9 feet x 16 feet; Accessible – 14 feet x 18 feet (a 9-footwide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be Accessible van accessible – 17 feet x 18 feet (9-foot-wide parking area plus an 8-foot-wide loading area). (Planning)
c. An 'exterior routes of travel' site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross-slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signage, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:

INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 9 of 16
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B-208.2 of the CBC.
ii. Accessible Parking spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Chapter 11B of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Sections 11B-206 and 11B-208. (Building)

10. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Department to control onsite traffic movements. Parking lot striping and signage shall be maintained in a visible and legible manner. (Planning)

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

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

13. Any roof-mounted equipment and satellite dishes proposed shall be shown on the building plans.

The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning) INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 10 of 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to Development Services – Engineering Division prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)

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

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

22. Bike parking and clean air/carpool vehicle spaces shall be provided per the currently adopted California Green Building Standards or Transportation System Management Ordinance (R.M.C.

Chapter 11.33). Bike rack/locker design and designated vehicle parking space markings and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation. (Alternative Transportation, Building).

INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 11 of 16

23. The applicant shall provide a 35’ wide Type S driveway for the main access to the site on Orlando Avenue. An EVA with approved fire access gate shall also be provided, located just east of Auburn Boulevard along Orlando Avenue. (Engineering)

24. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. The storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner.

Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

Citywide Drainage Fee, Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF), Highway 65 Joint Partners Association (JPA), South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA), and City/County Fee. (Engineering)

30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility. Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

31. The applicant will need to submit civil improvement plans directly to Citrus Heights Water District for approval of the water system. (Engineering)

32. The applicant shall pay all applicable sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

33. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards and shall include:

INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 12 of 16
a. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. b. Sewer mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions of approval.
c. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather, 10-ton vehicle access unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Environmental Utilities)

34. The carwash must recycle 75% or more of the water used. Documentation of the wash process and recycled water utilized shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City prior to improvement plan approval. (Environmental Utilities)

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

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

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

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

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

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

40. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a. one (1) set of improvement plans
b. load calculations
c. electrical panel one-line drawings

41. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. Lighting within the parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot-candle, and 0.5 foot-candle of light, respectively. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant. (Planning, Police)

42. The parking lot shall have properly posted signs that state the use of the parking area is for the exclusive use of employees and customers of this project. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 22507.8, 22511.5, 22511.8, 22658(a), and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 11.20.110).

The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning, Police) INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 13 of 16

43. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E) DURING CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:

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

45. The following easements shall be provided by separate instrument and shown on the site plan, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric)

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

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

47. Inspection of the potable water supply system on new commercial/industrial/office projects shall be as follows:
a. The Environmental Utilities Inspector will inspect all potable water supply up to the downstream side of the backflow preventer.
b. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible for that portion of the water supply system from the backflow preventer to the building. The builder/contractor shall engage a qualified inspector to approve the installation of this portion of the water supply. The Building Division will require from the builder/contractor, a written document certifying that this portion of the potable water supply has been installed per improvement plans and in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. This certificate of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Division before a temporary occupancy or a building final is approved.
c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

48. All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Engineering) INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 14 of 16

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

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

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

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

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

54. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change of existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer's expense. (Electric)

55. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)

56. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. This can be accomplished in any of the following ways:
a. Locate the metered service panel on the outside of the building. b. Locate the metered service panel in a service room with a door that opens directly to the outside.

The developer will be required to provide a key to the door for placement in a lock box to be installed on the outside of the door. Any doors leading from the service room to other areas of the building shall be secured to prohibit unauthorized entry. (Electric)

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

58. Signs shown on the elevations are not approved as part of the Design Review Permit. A Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

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

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

61. The required width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and vertical clearances established by the Fire INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 15 of 16
Code shall be maintained at all times during construction. Closure of accesses for fire apparatus by gates, barricades and other devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

62. Temporary aboveground storage tanks may be used at construction sites for diesel fuel only and shall not exceed 1,000 gallon capacity. Tanks shall comply with all provisions found within the Fire Code.

A Fire Department Permit shall be obtained prior to tank installation. The permit shall expire after 90 days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

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

64. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of the gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)

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

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

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

68. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include the following:
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)
INFILL PCL 229 – Bee Shine Carwash; 1100 Orlando Av; PL22-0316 Planning Commission – June 22, 2023– Page 16 of 16
B:\Development Services\Planning Division\2023\PC\06-June 22\PL22-0316 Bee Shine Carwash\PL22-0316, 1100 Orlando, Bee Shine Carwash, 01 Staff Report.docx
Exhibits
A. Bee Shine Carwash Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B. Rezone
C. Site Plan and Details
D. Floor Plans
E. Elevations
F. Grading and Utility Plans
G. Preliminary Landscape Plans
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that, as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has prepared an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project referenced below. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review and comment.

Project Title/File#: INFILL PCL 175 – Bee Shine Car Wash, File #PL22-0316 Project Location: 1100 Orlando Avenue, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95661 (APN 471-060- 060-000)
Project Applicant: David Heumann, K12 Architects, Inc.; (916) 455-6500; 3090 Fite Circle, #104, Sacramento, CA 95827
Project Owner: Bethany Lee Angeles and Jesus Angeles; (916) 225-0551; 9441 Eagle Springs Court, Roseville, CA 95747
Project Planner: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner - City of Roseville; (916) 746-1347 Project Description:

The proposed project is a 4,542 square foot automated car wash facility with 21 vacuum stalls and nine (9) parking spaces. All interior planters, lighting, existing paving, and front curbs will be removed and replaced. New landscape planters will be added to the interior and property frontage. According to the project description, hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and there will be three (3) employees per shift. The project entitlements include a Rezone to change the zoning designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC), a Conditional Use Permit to allow the carwash use in the CC zone, and a Design Review Permit to review the site design.

The project site is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5
Document Review and Availability: The public review and comment period begins on May 3, 2023 and ends on May 23, 2023. The Mitigated Negative Declaration may be reviewed during normal business hours (8:00 am to 5:00 pm) at the Planning Division offices, located at 311 Vernon Street. It may also be viewed online at
http://www.roseville.ca.us/gov/development_services/planning/environmental_documents_n_pu blic_notices.asp. Written comments on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be submitted to Shelby Maples, Planning Division, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678, and must be received no later than 5:00 pm on May 23, 2023.

This project will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City’s Planning Commission. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated project entitlements. The tentative hearing date is June 8, 2023.

Dated: April 28, 2023
Mike Isom
Development Services Director
Publish: May 1, 2023

PC EXHIBIT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 175 – Bee Shine Car Wash, File #PL22-0316 Project Location: 1100 Orlando Avenue, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95661 (APN 471-060-060-000)
Project Applicant: David Heumann, K12 Architects, Inc.; (916) 455-6500; 3090 Fite Circle, #104, Sacramento, CA 95827
Property Owner: Bethany Lee Angeles and Jesus Angeles; (916) 225-0551; 9441 Eagle Springs Court, Roseville, CA 95747
Lead Agency Contact Person: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner - City of Roseville; (916) 746- 1347
Date: May 1, 2023
Project Description:

The proposed project is a new 4,542 square foot automatic carwash facility with 21 vacuum spaces and 9 parking spaces. The project entitlements include a Rezone to change the zoning designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC), a Conditional Use Permit to allow the carwash use in the CC zone, and a Design Review Permit to review the site design.

DECLARATION
The Planning Manager has determined that the above project will not have significant effects on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The determination is based on the attached initial study and the following findings:

A. The project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

B. The project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.

C. The project will not have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

D. The project will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

E. No substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

F. The project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures identified in the attached initial study.

G. This Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
Last Revised March 2019
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 175 – Bee Shine Car Wash, File #PL22-0316 Project Location: 1100 Orlando Avenue, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95661 (APN 471-060-060-000)
Project Description: The proposed project is a new 4,542 square foot automatic carwash facility with 21 vacuum spaces and 9 parking spaces.

The project entitlements include a Rezone to change the zoning designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to
Community Commercial (CC), a Conditional Use Permit to allow the carwash use in the CC zone, and a Design Review Permit to review the site design.

Project Applicant: David Heumann, K12 Architects, Inc.

Property Owner: Bethany Lee Angeles and Jesus Angeles
Lead Agency Contact: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1347 This initial study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the above described project application. The document relies on the 2035 General Plan EIR and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project. Where documents were submitted by consultants working for the applicant, City staff reviewed such documents in order to determine whether, based on their own professional judgment and expertise, staff found such documents to be credible and persuasive. Staff has only relied on documents that reflect their independent judgment, and has not accepted at face value representations made by consultants for the applicant.

This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

The initial study is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to prepare an EIR.

If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration shall be prepared. If in the course of analysis, the agency recognizes that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, but that by incorporating specific mitigation measures to which the applicant agrees, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant effect, a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.

INITIAL STUDY
May 1, 2023
INFILL PCL 175 – Bee Shine Car Wash – 1100 Orlando Av.

File #PL22-0316

Page 2 of 43 ends

Roseville City CouncilAugust 16, 2023

Roseville City Council
August 16, 2023