Agenda — Roseville City Council, September 20, 2023 (part 5 of 8)

November 2022
Roseville
Roseville
Roseville
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
The prime contractor shall obtain the State's approval for their training program before they start work involving the classification covered by the program.

The prime contractor shall provide training in the construction crafts, not in clerk-typist or secretarial-type positions. Training is allowed in lower level management positions such as office engineers, estimators, and timekeepers if the training is oriented toward construction applications. Training is allowed in the laborer classification if significant and meaningful training is provided and approved by the division office. Off-site training is allowed if the training is an integral part of an approved training program and does not make up a significant part of the overall training.

The City/County of reimburses the prime contractor 80 cents per hour of training given an employee on thiscontract under an approved training program:

1. For on-site training

2. For off-site training if the apprentice or trainee is currently employed on a Federal-aid project and prime contractor does at least one of the following:
a. Contribute to the cost of the training
b. Provide the instruction to the apprentice or trainee c. Pay the apprentice's or trainee's wages during the off-site training period

3. If the prime contractor complies with this section.

Each apprentice or trainee must:

1. Begin training on the project as soon as feasible after the start of work involving the apprentice's or trainee's skill

2. Remain on the project as long as training opportunities exist in the apprentice's or trainee's work classification or until the apprentice or trainee has completed the training program The prime contractor shall furnish the apprentice or trainee with a copy of the program that the prime contractor will comply with in providing the training.

15. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT AND

SERVICES
In response to significant national security concerns, the agency shall check the prohibited vendor list before making any telecommunications and video surveillance purchase because recipients and subrecipients of federal funds are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
• Procure or obtain;
• Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
• Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

The prohibited vendors (and their subsidiaries or affiliates) are:
• Huawei Technologies Company;
• ZTE Corporation;
• Hytera Communications Corporation;
• Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company;
• Dahua Technology Company; and
• Subsidiaries or affiliates of the above-mentioned companies.

In implementing the prohibition, the agency administering loan, grant, or subsidy programs shall prioritize available funding and technical support to assist affected businesses, institutions and organizations as is reasonably necessary for those affected entities to transition from covered communications equipment and services, to procure replacement equipment and services, and to ensure that communications service to users and customers is sustained.

The contractors should furnish telecommunications and video surveillance equipment with a certificate of compliance. The certificate must state telecommunications and video surveillance equipment was not procured or obtained from manufacturers identified in the above list.

Page 29 of 29 ends

November 2022
Roseville
EXHIBIT “B”
Federal Minimum Wage Rates
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/161/37
"General Decision Number: CA20230007 07/28/2023
Superseded General Decision Number: CA20220007
State: California
Construction Types: Building, Heavy (Heavy and Dredging) and Highway
Counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Marin, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo and Yuba Counties in California.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (excluding Amador County only); DREDGING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include hopper dredge work); HEAVY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include water well drilling); AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Note: Contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act are generally required to pay at least the applicable minimum wage rate required under Executive Order 14026 or Executive Order 13658.

Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the Executive Orders is available at
http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date
0 01/06/2023
1 01/13/2023
2 01/20/2023
3 02/03/2023
4 03/03/2023
5 03/10/2023
6 03/17/2023
7 03/31/2023
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 2/37
8 04/07/2023
9 04/14/2023
10 04/21/2023
11 04/28/2023
12 05/05/2023
13 06/02/2023
14 06/23/2023
15 06/30/2023
16 07/14/2023
17 07/28/2023
ASBE0016-001 02/01/2023
AREA 1: MARIN, NAPA, SAN BENITO, SAN FRANCISCO, SOLANO, &

SONOMA COUNTIES
AREA 2: ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN,

MODOC, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA,

SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHEMA, TRINITY, YOLO, & YUBA COUNTIES Rates Fringes
Asbestos Workers/Insulator
(Includes the application of
all insulating materials,
Protective Coverings,
Coatings, and Finishes to all
types of mechanical systems)
Area 1......................$ 80.91 23.82
Area 2......................$ 62.26 23.82
---------------------------------------------------------------- ASBE0016-007 01/01/2021
AREA 1 : ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN,

LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA,

SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SOLANO, SONOMA, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO & YUBA COUNTIES
AREA 2: MARIN & NAPA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Asbestos Removal
worker/hazardous material
handler (Includes
preparation, wetting,
stripping, removal,
scrapping, vacuuming, bagging
and disposing of all
insulation materials from
mechanical systems, whether
they contain asbestos or not)
AREA 1......................$ 30.45 10.60
AREA 2......................$ 36.53 9.27
---------------------------------------------------------------- BOIL0549-002 01/01/2021
Rates Fringes

BOILERMAKER
(1) Marin & Solano Counties.$ 49.62 41.27
(2) Remaining Counties......$ 45.60 38.99
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0003-001 08/01/2022
Rates Fringes
MARBLE FINISHER..................$ 39.20 18.31
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0003-004 05/01/2022
AREA 1: ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN,

LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA,

SIERRA, SUTTER, TEHAMA, YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
AREA 2: MARIN, NAPA, SISKIYOU, SOLANO, SONOMA AND TRINITY 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 3/37

COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

BRICKLAYER
AREA 1......................$ 49.32 22.65
AREA 2......................$ 53.69 26.03
SPECIALTY PAY:
(A) Underground work such as tunnel work, sewer work,
manholes, catch basins, sewer pipes and telephone conduit shall be paid $1.25 per hour above the regular rate. Work in direct contact with raw sewage shall receive $1.25 per hour in addition to the above.
(B) Operating a saw or grinder shall receive $1.25 per hour above the regular rate.
(C) Gunite nozzle person shall receive $1.25 per hour above the regular rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0003-008 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
TERRAZZO FINISHER................$ 41.93 18.98
TERRAZZO WORKER/SETTER...........$ 56.84 27.53
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0003-010 04/01/2022
Rates Fringes

TILE FINISHER
Area 1......................$ 31.12 16.11
Area 2......................$ 30.90 17.87
Area 3......................$ 33.86 17.74
Area 4......................$ 31.89 17.18
Tile Layer
Area 1......................$ 51.02 19.35
Area 2......................$ 50.66 20.77
Area 3......................$ 55.41 20.87
Area 4......................$ 52.28 20.79
AREA 1: Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Sutter, Tehema, Yolo, Yuba
AREA 2: Alpine, Amador
AREA 3: Marin, Napa, Solano, Siskiyou
AREA 4: Sonoma
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0003-014 08/01/2022
Rates Fringes
MARBLE MASON.....................$ 56.98 28.54
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0034-001 07/01/2021
Rates Fringes
Diver
Assistant Tender, ROV
Tender/Technician...........$ 54.10 34.69
Diver standby...............$ 60.51 34.69
Diver Tender................$ 59.51 34.69
Diver wet...................$ 103.62 34.69
Manifold Operator (mixed
gas)........................$ 64.51 34.69
Manifold Operator (Standby).$ 59.51 34.69
DEPTH PAY (Surface Diving):
050 to 100 ft $2.00 per foot
101 to 150 ft $3.00 per foot
151 to 220 ft $4.00 per foot
221 ft.-deeper $5.00 per foot
SATURATION DIVING:
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 4/37
The standby rate shall apply until saturation starts. The saturation diving rate applies when divers are under
pressure continuously until work task and decompression are complete. The diver rate shall be paid for all saturation hours.

DIVING IN ENCLOSURES:

Where it is necessary for Divers to enter pipes or tunnels, or other enclosures where there is no vertical ascent, the following premium shall be paid: Distance traveled from entrance 26 feet to 300 feet: $1.00 per foot. When it is necessary for a diver to enter any pipe, tunnel or other enclosure less than 48"" in height, the premium will be $1.00 per foot.

WORK IN COMBINATION OF CLASSIFICATIONS:

Employees working in any combination of classifications within the diving crew (except dive supervisor) in a shift are paid in the classification with the highest rate for that shift.
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0034-003 07/01/2021
Rates Fringes
Piledriver.......................$ 54.10 34.69
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0035-001 08/01/2020
AREA 1: MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO & SONOMA
AREA 3: SACRAMENTO, WESTERN EL DORADO (Territory west of an including highway 49 and the territory inside the city limits of Placerville), WESTERN PLACER (Territory west of and
including highway 49), & YOLO
AREA 4: ALPINE, BUTTE, COLUSA, EASTERN EL DORADO, GLENN,

LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA, EASTERN PLACER, PLUMAS, SHASTA, SIERRA,

SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, & YUBA
Rates Fringes
Drywall Installers/Lathers:

Area 1......................$ 52.65 31.26
Area 3......................$ 47.27 31.26
Area 4......................$ 45.92 31.26
Drywall Stocker/Scrapper
Area 1......................$ 26.33 18.22
Area 3......................$ 23.64 18.22
Area 4......................$ 22.97 18.22
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0035-009 07/01/2020
Marin County
Rates Fringes

CARPENTER
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 52.65 30.82
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 52.80 30.82
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 52.65 30.82
Millwright..................$ 52.75 32.41
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0035-010 07/01/2020
AREA 1: Marin, Napa, Solano & Sonoma Counties
AREA 2: Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz
AREA 3: Alpine, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 5/37
Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo & Yuba counties
Rates Fringes
Modular Furniture Installer
Area 1
Installer..................$ 28.76 22.53
Lead Installer.............$ 32.21 23.03
Master Installer...........$ 36.43 23.03
Area 2
Installer..................$ 26.11 22.53
Lead Installer.............$ 29.08 23.03
Master Installer...........$ 32.71 23.03
Area 3
Installer..................$ 25.16 22.53
Lead Installer.............$ 27.96 23.03
Master Installer...........$ 31.38 23.03
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0046-001 07/01/2021
El Dorado (West), Placer (West), Sacramento and Yolo Counties Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 54.85 31.49
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 49.12 31.49
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 48.97 31.49
Millwright..................$ 51.47 33.08
Footnote: Placer County (West) includes territory West of and including Highway 49 and El Dorado County (West) includes territory West of and including Highway 49 and territory inside the city limits of Placerville.
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0046-002 07/01/2021
Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado (East), Nevada, Placer (East), Sierra, Sutter and Yuba Counties
Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 54.85 31.49
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 47.77 31.49
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 47.62 31.49
Millwright..................$ 50.12 33.08
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0152-003 07/01/2020
Amador County
Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 52.65 30.82
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 45.57 30.82
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 45.42 30.82
Millwright..................$ 47.92 32.41
---------------------------------------------------------------- 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 6/37
CARP0180-001 07/01/2021
Solano County
Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 54.85 31.49
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 55.00 31.49
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 54.85 31.49
Millwright..................$ 54.95 33.08
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0751-001 07/01/2021
Napa and Sonoma Counties
Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 54.85 31.49
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 55.00 31.49
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 54.85 31.49
Millwright..................$ 54.95 33.08
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP1599-001 07/01/2020
Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity Counties
Rates Fringes
Carpenters
Bridge Builder/Highway
Carpenter...................$ 52.65 30.82
Hardwood Floorlayer,
Shingler, Power Saw
Operator, Steel Scaffold &
Steel Shoring Erector, Saw
Filer.......................$ 45.57 30.82
Journeyman Carpenter........$ 45.42 30.82
Millwright..................$ 47.92 32.41
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0180-001 06/01/2023

NAPA AND SOLANO COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
CABLE SPLICER....................$ 63.07 3%+26.88
ELECTRICIAN......................$ 56.06 3%+26.88
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0180-003 12/01/2022

NAPA AND SOLANO COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Sound & Communications
Installer...................$ 46.64 25.30
Technician..................$ 53.64 25.51

SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES-
SOUND & VOICE TRANSMISSION (Music, Intercom, Nurse Call, Telephone); FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS [excluding fire alarm work when installed in raceways (including wire and cable
pulling) and when performed on new or major remodel
building projects or jobs],
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/167/37

TELEVISION & VIDEO SYSTEMS, SECURITY SYSTEMS, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS that transmit or receive information and/or control systems that are intrinsic to the above.

EXCLUDES-
Excludes all other data systems or multiple systems which include control function or power supply; excludes
installation of raceway systems, line voltage work,
industrial work, life-safety systems (all buildings having floors located more than 75' above the lowest floor level having building access); excludes energy management
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0340-002 02/01/2018

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN,

NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, TRINITY, YOLO, YUBA COUNTIES Rates Fringes
Communications System
Sound & Communications
Installer...................$ 29.35 3%+15.35
Sound & Communications
Technician..................$ 33.75 3%+15.35

SCOPE OF WORK
Includes the installation testing, service and maintenance, of the following systems which utilize the transmission and/or transference of voice, sound, vision and digital for commercial, education, security and entertainment purposes for the following TV monitoring and surveillance,
background-foreground music, intercom and telephone
interconnect, inventory control systems, microwave
transmission, multi-media, multiplex, nurse call system, radio page, school intercom and sound, burglar alarms, and low voltage master clock systems.

A. SOUND AND VOICE TRANSMISSION/TRANSFERENCE SYSTEMS
Background foreground music Intercom and telephone
interconnect systems, Telephone systems, Nurse call
systems, Radio page systems, School intercom and sound
systems, Burglar alarm systems, Low voltage master clock systems, Multi-media/multiplex systems, Sound and musical entertainment systems, RF systems, Antennas and Wave Guide.

B. FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS
Installation, wire pulling and testing
C. TELEVISION AND VIDEO SYSTEMS Television monitoring and surveillance systems, Video security systems, Video
entertainment systems, Video educational systems, Microwave transmission systems, CATV and CCTV
D. SECURITY SYSTEMS Perimeter security systems
Vibration sensor systems Card access systems Access
control systems Sonar/infrared monitoring equipment
E. COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS THAT TRANSMIT OR RECEIVE

INFORMATION AND/OR CONTROL SYSTEMS THAT ARE INTRINSIC TO THE ABOVE LISTED SYSTEMS SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) PCM (Pulse Code Modulation)
Inventory Control Systems Digital Data Systems
Broadband and Baseband and Carriers Point of Sale
Systems VSAT Data Systems Data Communication
Systems RF and Remote Control Systems Fiber Optic
Data Systems WORK EXCLUDED Raceway systems are not covered (excluding Ladder-Rack for the purpose of the above listed systems). Chases and/or nipples (not to exceed 10 feet) may be installed on open wiring systems. Energy management systems. SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) when not intrinsic to the above listed systems (in the
scope). Fire alarm systems when installed in raceways
(including wire and cable pulling) shall be performed at the electrician wage rate, when either of the following two 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 8/37
(2) conditions apply:

1. The project involves new or major remodel building trades construction.

2. The conductors for the fire alarm system are installed in conduit.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0340-003 08/01/2022
ALPINE (West of Sierra Mt. Watershed), AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO (West of Sierra Mt. Watershed), GLENN, LASSEN, NEVADA (West of Sierra Mt. Watershed), PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA (West of Sierra Mt. Watershed), SUTTER, TEHAMA,

TRINITY, YOLO & YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN
Remaining area..............$ 45.06 34.09
Sierra Army Depot, Herlong..$ 48.83 18.54
Tunnel work.................$ 41.01 18.54
CABLE SPLICER: Receives 110% of the Electrician basic hourly rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0401-005 01/01/2022
ALPINE (east of the main watershed divide), EL DORADO (east of the main watershed divide), NEVADA (east of the main
watershed), PLACER (east of the main watershed divide) and SIERRA (east of the main watershed divide) COUNTIES:

Rates Fringes
ELECTRICIAN......................$ 42.50 20.95
ZONE RATE:
70-90 miles - $8.00 per hour
91+ miles - $10.00 per hour
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0551-004 06/01/2023

MARIN AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
ELECTRICIAN......................$ 56.92 30.16
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0551-005 12/01/2022

MARIN & SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Sound & Communications
Installer...................$ 46.64 25.30
Technician..................$ 53.64 25.65

TELEVISION & VIDEO SYSTEMS, SECURITY SYSTEMS, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS that transmit or receive information and/or control systems that are intrinsic to the above.

EXCLUDES-
Excludes all other data systems or multiple systems which include control function or power supply; excludes
installation of raceway systems, line voltage work,
industrial work, life-safety systems (all buildings having 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 9/37
floors located more than 75' above the lowest floor level having building access); excludes energy management
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0659-006 01/01/2023
DEL NORTE, MODOC and SISKIYOU COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
ELECTRICIAN......................$ 43.97 19.26
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0659-008 02/01/2023

DEL NORTE, MODOC & SISKIYOU COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Line Construction
(1) Cable Splicer...........$ 67.80 4.5%+22.15
(2) Lineman, Pole Sprayer,
Heavy Line Equipment Man....$ 60.54 4.5%+22.15
(3) Tree Trimmer............$ 37.84 4.5%+14.30
(4) Line Equipment Man......$ 53.82 4.5%+19.40
(5) Powdermen,
Jackhammermen...............$ 40.37 4.5%+14.30
(6) Groundman...............$ 33.37 4.5%+14.30
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC1245-004 06/01/2022

ALL COUNTIES EXCEPT DEL NORTE, MODOC & SISKIYOU
Rates Fringes

LINE CONSTRUCTION
(1) Lineman; Cable splicer..$ 64.40 22.58
(2) Equipment specialist
(operates crawler
tractors, commercial motor
vehicles, backhoes,
trenchers, cranes (50 tons
and below), overhead &
underground distribution
line equipment)...........$ 50.00 21.30
(3) Groundman...............$ 38.23 20.89
(4) Powderman...............$ 51.87 18.79
HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, M.L. King Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Day
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEV0008-001 01/01/2023
Rates Fringes
ELEVATOR MECHANIC................$ 77.61 37.335+a+b
FOOTNOTE:
a. PAID VACATION: Employer contributes 8% of regular hourly rate as vacation pay credit for employees with more than 5 years of service, and 6% for 6 months to 5 years of service. b. PAID HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGI0003-008 08/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Dredging: (DREDGING:

CLAMSHELL & DIPPER DREDGING;
HYDRAULIC SUCTION DREDGING:)
AREA 1:
(1) Leverman...............$ 55.15 35.46
(2) Dredge Dozer; Heavy
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 10/37
duty repairman.............$ 50.19 35.46
(3) Booster Pump
Operator; Deck
Engineer; Deck mate;
Dredge Tender; Winch
Operator...................$ 49.07 35.46
(4) Bargeman; Deckhand;
Fireman; Leveehand; Oiler..$ 45.77 35.46
AREA 2:
(1) Leverman...............$ 57.15 35.46
(2) Dredge Dozer; Heavy
duty repairman.............$ 52.19 35.46
(3) Booster Pump
Operator; Deck
Engineer; Deck mate;
Dredge Tender; Winch
Operator...................$ 51.07 35.46
(4) Bargeman; Deckhand;
Fireman; Leveehand; Oiler..$ 47.77 35.46

AREA DESCRIPTIONS
AREA 1: ALAMEDA,BUTTE, CONTRA COSTA, KINGS, MARIN, MERCED,

NAPA, SACRAMENTO, SAN BENITO, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN JOAQUIN,

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA, SANTA CRUZ, SOLANO, STANISLAUS,

SUTTER, YOLO, AND YUBA COUNTIES
AREA 2: MODOC COUNTY
THE REMAINGING COUNTIES ARE SPLIT BETWEEN AREA 1 AND AREA 2 AS NOTED BELOW:

ALPINE COUNTY:

Area 1: Northernmost part
Area 2: Remainder
CALAVERAS COUNTY:

Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern part
COLUSA COUNTY:

Area 1: Eastern part
Area 2: Remainder
ELDORADO COUNTY:

Area 1: North Central part
Area 2: Remainder
FRESNO COUNTY:

Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern part
GLENN COUNTY:

Area 1: Eastern part
Area 2: Remainder
LASSEN COUNTY:

Area 1: Western part along the Southern portion of border with Shasta County
Area 2: Remainder
MADERA COUNTY:

Area 1: Except Eastern part
Area 2: Eastern part

MARIPOSA COUNTY
Area 1: Except Eastern part
Area 2: Eastern part

MONTERREY COUNTY
Area 1: Except Southwestern part
Area 2: Southwestern part
NEVADA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northern portion along the border of Sierra County
Area 2: Remainder
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 11/37
PLACER COUNTY:

Area 1: Al but the Central portion
Area 2: Remainder
PLUMAS COUNTY:

Area 1: Western portion
Area 2: Remainder
SHASTA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northeastern corner
Area 2: Remainder
SIERRA COUNTY:

Area 1: Western part
Area 2: Remainder
SISKIYOU COUNTY:

Area 1: Central part
Area 2: Remainder
SONOMA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northwestern corner
Area 2: Remainder
TEHAMA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Western border with Mendocino & Trinity Counties
Area 2: Remainder
TRINITY COUNTY:

Area 1: East Central part and the Northeastern border with Shasta County
Area 2: Remainder
TUOLUMNE COUNTY:

Area 1: Except Eastern part
Area 2: Eastern part
---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGI0003-019 06/29/2020

SEE AREA DESCRIPTIONS BELOW
Rates Fringes
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(LANDSCAPE WORK ONLY)
GROUP 1
AREA 1.....................$ 39.95 30.28
AREA 2.....................$ 41.95 30.28
GROUP 2
AREA 1.....................$ 36.35 30.28
AREA 2.....................$ 38.35 30.28
GROUP 3
AREA 1.....................$ 31.74 30.28
AREA 2.....................$ 33.74 30.28
GROUP DESCRIPTIONS:

GROUP 1: Landscape Finish Grade Operator: All finish grade work regardless of equipment used, and all equipment with a rating more than 65 HP.

GROUP 2: Landscape Operator up to 65 HP: All equipment with a manufacturer's rating of 65 HP or less except equipment covered by Group 1 or Group 3. The following equipment
shall be included except when used for finish work as long as manufacturer's rating is 65 HP or less: A-Frame and
Winch Truck, Backhoe, Forklift, Hydragraphic Seeder
Machine, Roller, Rubber-Tired and Track Earthmoving
Equipment, Skiploader, Straw Blowers, and Trencher 31 HP up to 65 HP.

GROUP 3: Landscae Utility Operator: Small Rubber-Tired
Tractor, Trencher Under 31 HP.

AREA DESCRIPTIONS:
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 12/37
AREA 1: ALAMEDA, BUTTE, CONTRA COSTA, KINGS, MARIN, MERCED,

NAPA, SACRAMENTO, SAN BENITO, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN JOAQUIN,

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA, SANTA CRUZ, SOLANO, STANISLAUS,

SUTTER, YOLO, AND YUBA COUNTIES
AREA 2 - MODOC COUNTY
THE REMAINING COUNTIES ARE SPLIT BETWEEN AREA 1 AND AREA 2 AS NOTED BELOW:

ALPINE COUNTY:

Area 1: Northernmost part
Area 2: Remainder
CALAVERAS COUNTY:

Area 1: Except Eastern part
Area 2: Eastern part
COLUSA COUNTY:

Area 1: Eastern part
Area 2: Remainder
DEL NORTE COUNTY:

Area 1: Extreme Southwestern corner
Area 2: Remainder
ELDORADO COUNTY:

Area 1: North Central part
Area 2: Remainder

FRESNO COUNTY
Area 1: Except Eastern part
Area 2: Eastern part
GLENN COUNTY:

Area 1: Eastern part
Area 2: Remainder
HUMBOLDT COUNTY:

Area 1: Except Eastern and Southwestern parts
Area 2: Remainder
LAKE COUNTY:

Area 1: Southern part
Area 2: Remainder
LASSEN COUNTY:

Area 1: Western part along the Southern portion of border with Shasta County
Area 2: Remainder

MADERA COUNTY
Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern part

MARIPOSA COUNTY
Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern part
MENDOCINO COUNTY:

Area 1: Central and Southeastern parts
Area 2: Remainder

MONTEREY COUNTY
Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Southwestern part
NEVADA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northern portion along the border of Sierra County
Area 2: Remainder
PLACER COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Central portion
Area 2: Remainder
PLUMAS COUNTY:

Area 1: Western portion
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 13/37
Area 2: Remainder
SHASTA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northeastern corner
Area 2: Remainder
SIERRA COUNTY:

Area 1: Western part
Area 2: Remainder
SISKIYOU COUNTY:

Area 1: Central part
Area 2: Remainder
SONOMA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Northwestern corner
Area 2: Reaminder
TEHAMA COUNTY:

Area 1: All but the Western border with mendocino & Trinity Counties
Area 2: Remainder
TRINITY COUNTY:

Area 1: East Central part and the Northeaster border with Shasta County
Area 2: Remainder
TULARE COUNTY;
Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern part
TUOLUMNE COUNTY:

Area 1: Remainder
Area 2: Eastern Part
---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGI0003-038 06/28/2023
""AREA 1"" WAGE RATES ARE LISTED BELOW
""AREA 2"" RECEIVES AN ADDITIONAL $2.00 PER HOUR ABOVE AREA 1 RATES.

SEE AREA DEFINITIONS BELOW
Rates Fringes
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(AREA 1:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 60.72 31.03
GROUP 2.....................$ 59.19 31.03
GROUP 3.....................$ 57.71 31.03
GROUP 4.....................$ 56.33 31.03
GROUP 5.....................$ 55.06 31.03
GROUP 6.....................$ 53.74 31.03
GROUP 7.....................$ 52.60 31.03
GROUP 8.....................$ 51.46 31.03
GROUP 8-A...................$ 49.25 31.03
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Cranes and Attachments -
AREA 1:)
GROUP 1
Cranes.....................$ 52.30 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.79 31.15
Truck crane oiler..........$ 46.08 31.15
GROUP 2
Cranes.....................$ 50.54 31.15
Oiler......................$ 42.83 31.15
Truck crane oiler..........$ 45.07 31.15
GROUP 3
Cranes.....................$ 48.80 31.15
Hydraulic..................$ 44.44 31.15
Oiler......................$ 42.55 31.15
Truck crane oiler..........$ 44.83 31.15
GROUP 4
Cranes.....................$ 45.76 31.15
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 14/37
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Piledriving - AREA 1:)
GROUP 1
Lifting devices............$ 52.64 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.38 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.66 31.15
GROUP 2
Lifting devices............$ 50.82 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.11 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.41 31.15
GROUP 3
Lifting devices............$ 49.14 31.15
Oiler......................$ 42.89 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.12 31.15
GROUP 4
Lifting devices............$ 47.37 31.15
GROUP 5
Lifting devices............$ 44.73 31.15
GROUP 6
Lifting devices............$ 42.50 31.15
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Steel Erection - AREA 1:)
GROUP 1
Cranes.....................$ 53.27 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.72 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.95 31.15
GROUP 2
Cranes.....................$ 51.50 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.45 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.73 31.15
GROUP 3
Cranes.....................$ 50.02 31.15
Hydraulic..................$ 45.07 31.15
Oiler......................$ 43.23 31.15
Truck Crane Oiler..........$ 45.46 31.15
GROUP 4
Cranes.....................$ 48.00 31.15
GROUP 5
Cranes.....................$ 46.70 31.15
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Tunnel and Underground Work
- AREA 1:)
SHAFTS, STOPES, RAISES:

GROUP 1....................$ 56.82 31.03
GROUP 1-A..................$ 49.99 31.15
GROUP 1A...................$ 59.29 31.03
GROUP 2....................$ 55.56 31.03
GROUP 3....................$ 54.23 31.03
GROUP 4....................$ 53.09 31.03
GROUP 5....................$ 51.95 31.03
UNDERGROUND:

GROUP 1....................$ 47.42 31.15
GROUP 1-A..................$ 49.89 31.15
GROUP 2....................$ 46.16 31.15
GROUP 3....................$ 44.83 31.15
GROUP 4....................$ 43.69 31.15
GROUP 5....................$ 42.55 31.15
FOOTNOTE: Work suspended by ropes or cables, or work on a Yo-Yo Cat: $.60 per hour additional.

POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Operator of helicopter (when used in erection work); Hydraulic excavator, 7 cu. yds. and over; Power shovels, over 7 cu. yds.

GROUP 2: Highline cableway; Hydraulic excavator, 3-1/2 cu. yds. up to 7 cu. yds.; Licensed construction work boat
operator, on site; Power blade operator (finish); Power shovels, over 1 cu. yd. up to and including 7 cu. yds.
m.r.c.

GROUP 3: Asphalt milling machine; Cable backhoe; Combination backhoe and loader over 3/4 cu. yds.; Continuous flight tie back machine assistant to engineer or mechanic; Crane
mounted continuous flight tie back machine, tonnage to
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 15/37
apply; Crane mounted drill attachment, tonnage to apply; Dozer, slope brd; Gradall; Hydraulic excavator, up to 3 1/2 cu. yds.; Loader 4 cu. yds. and over; Long reach excavator; Multiple engine scraper (when used as push pull); Power shovels, up to and including 1 cu. yd.; Pre-stress wire wrapping machine; Side boom cat, 572 or larger; Track
loader 4 cu. yds. and over; Wheel excavator (up to and
including 750 cu. yds. per hour)
GROUP 4: Asphalt plant engineer/box person; Chicago boom; Combination backhoe and loader up to and including 3/4 cu. yd.; Concrete batch plant (wet or dry); Dozer and/or push cat; Pull- type elevating loader; Gradesetter, grade
checker (GPS, mechanical or otherwise); Grooving and
grinding machine; Heading shield operator; Heavy-duty
drilling equipment, Hughes, LDH, Watson 3000 or similar; Heavy-duty repairperson and/or welder; Lime spreader;
Loader under 4 cu. yds.; Lubrication and service engineer (mobile and grease rack); Mechanical finishers or spreader machine (asphalt, Barber-Greene and similar); Miller
Formless M-9000 slope paver or similar; Portable crushing and screening plants; Power blade support; Roller operator, asphalt; Rubber-tired scraper, self-loading (paddle-wheels, etc.); Rubber- tired earthmoving equipment (scrapers); Slip form paver (concrete); Small tractor with drag; Soil
stabilizer (P & H or equal); Spider plow and spider puller; Tubex pile rig; Unlicensed constuction work boat operator, on site; Timber skidder; Track loader up to 4 yds.;
Tractor-drawn scraper; Tractor, compressor drill
combination; Welder; Woods-Mixer (and other similar Pugmill equipment)
GROUP 5: Cast-in-place pipe laying machine; Combination slusher and motor operator; Concrete conveyor or concrete pump, truck or equipment mounted; Concrete conveyor,
building site; Concrete pump or pumpcrete gun; Drilling equipment, Watson 2000, Texoma 700 or similar; Drilling and boring machinery, horizontal (not to apply to waterliners, wagon drills or jackhammers); Concrete mixer/all; Person and/or material hoist; Mechanical finishers (concrete)
(Clary, Johnson, Bidwell Bridge Deck or similar types); Mechanical burm, curb and/or curb and gutter machine,
concrete or asphalt); Mine or shaft hoist; Portable
crusher; Power jumbo operator (setting slip-forms, etc., in tunnels); Screed (automatic or manual); Self-propelled
compactor with dozer; Tractor with boom D6 or smaller;
Trenching machine, maximum digging capacity over 5 ft.
depth; Vermeer T-600B rock cutter or similar
GROUP 6: Armor-Coater (or similar); Ballast jack tamper; Boom- type backfilling machine; Assistant plant engineer; Bridge and/or gantry crane; Chemical grouting machine,
truck-mounted; Chip spreading machine operator; Concrete saw (self-propelled unit on streets, highways, airports and canals); Deck engineer; Drilling equipment Texoma 600,
Hughes 200 Series or similar up to and including 30 ft. m.r.c.; Drill doctor; Helicopter radio operator;
Hydro-hammer or similar; Line master; Skidsteer loader, Bobcat larger than 743 series or similar (with
attachments); Locomotive; Lull hi-lift or similar; Oiler, truck mounted equipment; Pavement breaker, truck-mounted, with compressor combination; Paving fabric installation and/or laying machine; Pipe bending machine (pipelines
only); Pipe wrapping machine (tractor propelled and
supported); Screed (except asphaltic concrete paving);
Self- propelled pipeline wrapping machine; Tractor;
Self-loading chipper; Concrete barrier moving machine
GROUP 7: Ballast regulator; Boom truck or dual-purpose
A-frame truck, non-rotating - under 15 tons; Cary lift or similar; Combination slurry mixer and/or cleaner; Drilling equipment, 20 ft. and under m.r.c.; Firetender (hot plant); Grouting machine operator; Highline cableway signalperson; Stationary belt loader (Kolman or similar); Lift slab
machine (Vagtborg and similar types); Maginnes internal full slab vibrator; Material hoist (1 drum); Mechanical trench shield; Pavement breaker with or without compressor combination); Pipe cleaning machine (tractor propelled and 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 16/37
supported); Post driver; Roller (except asphalt); Chip
Seal; Self-propelled automatically applied concrete curing mahcine (on streets, highways, airports and canals);
Self-propelled compactor (without dozer); Signalperson; Slip-form pumps (lifting device for concrete forms); Tie spacer; Tower mobile; Trenching machine, maximum digging capacity up to and including 5 ft. depth; Truck- type loader GROUP 8: Bit sharpener; Boiler tender; Box operator;
Brakeperson; Combination mixer and compressor
(shotcrete/gunite); Compressor operator; Deckhand; Fire tender; Forklift (under 20 ft.); Generator;
Gunite/shotcrete equipment operator; Hydraulic monitor; Ken seal machine (or similar); Mixermobile; Oiler; Pump
operator; Refrigeration plant; Reservoir-debris tug (self- propelled floating); Ross Carrier (construction site);
Rotomist operator; Self-propelled tape machine; Shuttlecar; Self-propelled power sweeper operator (includes vacuum
sweeper); Slusher operator; Surface heater; Switchperson; Tar pot firetender; Tugger hoist, single drum; Vacuum
cooling plant; Welding machine (powered other than by
electricity)
GROUP 8-A: Elevator operator; Skidsteer loader-Bobcat 743 series or smaller, and similar (without attachments); Mini excavator under 25 H.P. (backhoe-trencher); Tub grinder wood chipper
----------------------------------------------------------

ALL CRANES AND ATTACHMENTS
GROUP 1: Clamshell and dragline over 7 cu. yds.; Crane, over 100 tons; Derrick, over 100 tons; Derrick barge
pedestal-mounted, over 100 tons; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device, over 100 tons
GROUP 2: Clamshell and dragline over 1 cu. yd. up to and including 7 cu. yds.; Crane, over 45 tons up to and
including 100 tons; Derrick barge, 100 tons and under;
Self-propelled boom-type lifting device, over 45 tons;
Tower crane
GROUP 3: Clamshell and dragline up to and including 1 cu. yd.; Cranes 45 tons and under; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device 45 tons and under;
GROUP 4: Boom Truck or dual purpose A-frame truck,
non-rotating over 15 tons; Truck-mounted rotating
telescopic boom type lifting device, Manitex or similar (boom truck) over 15 tons; Truck-mounted rotating
telescopic boom type lifting device, Manitex or similar (boom truck) - under 15 tons;
-----------------------------------------------------------

PILEDRIVERS
GROUP 1: Derrick barge pedestal mounted over 100 tons;
Clamshell over 7 cu. yds.; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device over 100 tons; Truck crane or crawler, land or barge mounted over 100 tons
GROUP 2: Derrick barge pedestal mounted 45 tons to and
including 100 tons; Clamshell up to and including 7 cu. yds.; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device over 45 tons; Truck crane or crawler, land or barge mounted, over 45 tons up to and including 100 tons; Fundex F-12 hydraulic pile rig GROUP 3: Derrick barge pedestal mounted under 45 tons; Self- propelled boom-type lifting device 45 tons and under;
Skid/scow piledriver, any tonnage; Truck crane or crawler, land or barge mounted 45 tons and under
GROUP 4: Assistant operator in lieu of assistant to engineer; Forklift, 10 tons and over; Heavy-duty repairperson/welder GROUP 5: Deck engineer
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 17/37
GROUP 6: Deckhand; Fire tender
-------------------------------------------------------------

STEEL ERECTORS
GROUP 1: Crane over 100 tons; Derrick over 100 tons; Self- propelled boom-type lifting device over 100 tons
GROUP 2: Crane over 45 tons to 100 tons; Derrick under 100 tons; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device over 45 tons to 100 tons; Tower crane
GROUP 3: Crane, 45 tons and under; Self-propelled boom-type lifting device, 45 tons and under
GROUP 4: Chicago boom; Forklift, 10 tons and over; Heavy-duty repair person/welder
GROUP 5: Boom cat
-------------------------------------------------------------- --

TUNNEL AND UNDERGROUND WORK
GROUP 1-A: Tunnel bore machine operator, 20' diameter or more

GROUP 1: Heading shield operator; Heavy-duty repairperson; Mucking machine (rubber tired, rail or track type); Raised bore operator (tunnels); Tunnel mole bore operator
GROUP 2: Combination slusher and motor operator; Concrete pump or pumpcrete gun; Power jumbo operator
GROUP 3: Drill doctor; Mine or shaft hoist
GROUP 4: Combination slurry mixer cleaner; Grouting Machine operator; Motorman
GROUP 5: Bit Sharpener; Brakeman; Combination mixer and compressor (gunite); Compressor operator; Oiler; Pump
operator; Slusher operator
----------------------------------------------------------- AREA DESCRIPTIONS:

POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS, CRANES AND ATTACHMENTS,TUNNEL AND UNDERGROUND [These areas do not apply to Piledrivers and Steel Erectors]
AREA 1: DEL NORTE, HUMBOLDT, LAKE, MENDOCINO
AREA 2 -NOTED BELOW
THE REMAINING COUNTIES ARE SPLIT BETWEEN AREA 1 AND AREA 2 AS NOTED BELOW:

DEL NORTE COUNTY:

Area 1: Extreme Southwest corner
Area 2: Remainder
HUMBOLDT COUNTY:

Area 1: Except Eastern and Southwestern parts
Area 2: Remainder
LAKE COUNTY:

Area 1: Southern part
Area 2: Remainder
MENDOCINO COUNTY:

Area 1: Central and Southeastern Parts
Area 2: Remainder
---------------------------------------------------------------- IRON0118-012 01/01/2023
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 18/37
ALPINE, LASSEN, MODOC, SISKIYOU and TRINITY COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
IRONWORKER.......................$ 41.00 33.70
---------------------------------------------------------------- IRON0118-013 01/01/2023

AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA,EL DORADO, GLENN,MARIN, NAPA, NEVADA,

PLACER,PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SOLANO, SONOMA, SUTTER, TEHAMA, YOLO and YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
IRONWORKER.......................$ 46.20 34.30
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0067-003 03/04/2023
AREA ""1"" - MARIN and NAPA COUNTIES
AREA ""2"" - ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE COLUSA EL DORADO, GLENN,

LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA,

SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SOLANO, SONOMA, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY,

YOLO, AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER (ASBESTOS/MOLD/LEAD

LABORER)
Marin and Napa Counties.....$ 35.25 27.09
Remaining Counties..........$ 34.25 27.09
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0067-005 06/27/2022
AREA ""A"" - ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND

SANTA CLARA COUNTIES
AREA ""B"" - ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, CALAVERAS, COLUSA, DEL

NORTE, EL DORADO, FRESNO, GLENN, HUMBOLDT, KINGS, LAKE, LASSEN,

MADERA, MARIPOSA, MENDOCINO, MERCED, MODOC, MONTEREY, NEVADA,

PLACER, PLUMAS, SANCREMENTO, SAN BENITO, SAN JOAQUIN, SANTA

CRUZ, SIERRA, SHASTA, SISKIYOU, STANISLAUS, TEHAMA, TRINITY,

TULARE, TUOLUMNE, YOLO AND YOUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER (TRAFFIC CONTROL/LANE

CLOSURE)
Escort Driver, Flag Person
Area A.....................$ 36.01 26.10
Area B.....................$ 35.01 26.10
Traffic Control Person I
Area A.....................$ 36.31 26.10
Area B.....................$ 35.31 26.10
Traffic Control Person II
Area A.....................$ 33.81 26.10
Area B.....................$ 32.81 26.10
TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSON I: Layout of traffic control, crash cushions, construction area and roadside signage.

TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSON II: Installation and removal of
temporary/permanent signs, markers, delineators and crash cushions.
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0185-002 07/01/2022

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC,

NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU,

SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 19/37

LABORER
Mason Tender-Brick..........$ 35.29 25.21
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0185-005 07/01/2021

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC,

NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU,

SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Tunnel and Shaft Laborers:

GROUP 1.....................$ 42.00 25.71
GROUP 2.....................$ 41.77 25.71
GROUP 3.....................$ 41.52 25.71
GROUP 4.....................$ 41.07 25.71
GROUP 5.....................$ 40.53 25.71
Shotcrete Specialist........$ 42.52 25.71

TUNNEL AND SHAFT CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Diamond driller; Groundmen; Gunite and shotcrete nozzlemen
GROUP 2: Rodmen; Shaft work & raise (below actual or
excavated ground level)
GROUP 3: Bit grinder; Blaster, driller, powdermen, heading; Cherry pickermen - where car is lifted; Concrete finisher in tunnel; Concrete screedman; Grout pumpman and potman; Gunite & shotcrete gunman & potman; Headermen; High
pressure nozzleman; Miner - tunnel, including top and
bottom man on shaft and raise work; Nipper; Nozzleman on slick line; Sandblaster - potman, Robotic Shotcrete Placer, Segment Erector, Tunnel Muck Hauler, Steel Form raiser and setter; Timberman, retimberman (wood or steel or substitute materials therefore); Tugger (for tunnel laborer work); Cable tender; Chuck tender; Powderman - primer house
GROUP 4: Vibrator operator, pavement breaker; Bull gang - muckers, trackmen; Concrete crew - includes rodding and spreading, Dumpmen (any method)
GROUP 5: Grout crew; Reboundman; Swamper/ Brakeman
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0185-006 06/25/2018

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC,

NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHIASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU,

SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO, YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER (CONSTRUCTION CRAFT
LABORERS - AREA B:)
Construction Specialist
Group.......................$ 30.49 23.20
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.79 23.20
GROUP 1-a...................$ 30.01 23.20
GROUP 1-c...................$ 30.01 23.20
GROUP 1-e...................$ 30.34 23.20
GROUP 1-f...................$ 30.37 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.64 23.20
GROUP 3.....................$ 29.54 23.20
GROUP 4.....................$ 23.23 23.20
See groups 1-b and 1-d under laborer classifications.

LABORER (GARDENERS,

HORTICULTURAL & LANDSCAPE
LABORERS - AREA B:)
(1) New Construction........$ 29.54 23.20
(2) Establishment Warranty
Period......................$ 23.23 23.20
LABORER (GUNITE - AREA B:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.75 22.31
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.25 22.31
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 20/37
GROUP 3.....................$ 28.66 22.31
GROUP 4.....................$ 28.54 22.31
LABORER (WRECKING - AREA B:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.79 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.64 23.20
FOOTNOTES:

Laborers working off or with or from bos'n chairs, swinging scaffolds, belts shall receive $0.25 per hour above the applicable wage rate. This shall not apply to workers
entitled to receive the wage rate set forth in Group 1-a below.
---------------------------------------------------------

LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST GROUP: Asphalt ironer and raker; Chainsaw; Laser beam in connection with laborers' work; Cast-in- place manhole form setter; Pressure pipelayer; Davis trencher - 300 or similar type (and all small
trenchers); Blaster; Diamond driller; Multiple unit drill; Hydraulic drill
GROUP 1: Asphalt spreader boxes (all types); Barko, Wacker and similar type tampers; Buggymobile; Caulker, bander, pipewrapper, conduit layer, plastic pipelayer; Certified hazardous waste worker including Leade Abatement;
Compactors of all types; Concrete and magnesite mixer, 1/2 yd. and under; Concrete pan work; Concrete sander; Concrete saw; Cribber and/or shoring; Cut granite curb setter;
Dri-pak-it machine; Faller, logloader and bucker; Form
raiser, slip forms; Green cutter; Headerboard, Hubsetter, aligner, by any method; High pressure blow pipe (1-1/2"" or over, 100 lbs. pressure/over); Hydro seeder and similar type; Jackhammer operator; Jacking of pipe over 12 inches; Jackson and similar type compactor; Kettle tender, pot and worker applying asphalt, lay-kold, creosote, lime, caustic and similar type materials (applying means applying,
dipping or handling of such materials); Lagging, sheeting, whaling, bracing, trenchjacking, lagging hammer; Magnesite, epoxyresin, fiberglass, mastic worker (wet or dry); No
joint pipe and stripping of same, including repair of
voids; Pavement breaker and spader, including tool grinder; Perma curb; Pipelayer (including grade checking in
connection with pipelaying); Precast-manhole setter;
Pressure pipe tester; Post hole digger, air, gas and
electric; Power broom sweeper; Power tampers of all types (except as shown in Group 2); Ram set gun and stud gun; Riprap stonepaver and rock-slinger, including placing of sacked concrete and/or sand (wet or dry) and gabions and similar type; Rotary scarifier or multiple head concrete chipping scarifier; Roto and Ditch Witch; Rototiller;
Sandblaster, pot, gun, nozzle operators; Signalling and rigging; Tank cleaner; Tree climber; Turbo blaster;
Vibrascreed, bull float in connection with laborers' work; Vibrator; Hazardous waste worker (lead removal); Asbestos and mold removal worker
GROUP 1-a: Joy drill model TWM-2A; Gardner-Denver model DH143 and similar type drills; Track driller; Jack leg driller; Wagon driller; Mechanical drillers, all types regardless of type or method of power; Mechanical pipe layers, all types regardless of type or method of power; Blaster and powder; All work of loading, placing and blasting of all powder and explosives of whatever type regardless of method used for such loading and placing; High scalers (including drilling of same); Tree topper; Bit grinder
GROUP 1-b: Sewer cleaners shall receive $4.00 per day above Group 1 wage rates. ""Sewer cleaner"" means any worker who handles or comes in contact with raw sewage in small
diameter sewers. Those who work inside recently active, large diameter sewers, and all recently active sewer
manholes shal receive $5.00 per day above Group 1 wage
rates.
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 21/37
GROUP 1-c: Burning and welding in connection with laborers' work; Synthetic thermoplastics and similar type welding GROUP 1-d: Maintenance and repair track and road beds. All employees performing work covered herein shall receive $ .25 per hour above their regular rate for all work
performed on underground structures not specifically
covered herein. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to work below ground level in open cut. It shall
apply to cut and cover work of subway construction after the temporary cover has been placed.

GROUP 1-e: Work on and/or in bell hole footings and shafts thereof, and work on and in deep footings. (A deep footing is a hole 15 feet or more in depth.) In the event the
depth of the footing is unknown at the commencement of
excavation, and the final depth exceeds 15 feet, the deep footing wage rate would apply to all employees for each and every day worked on or in the excavation of the footing from the date of inception.

GROUP 1-f: Wire winding machine in connection with guniting or shot crete
GROUP 2: Asphalt shoveler; Cement dumper and handling dry cement or gypsum; Choke-setter and rigger (clearing work); Concrete bucket dumper and chute; Concrete chipping and grinding; Concrete laborer (wet or dry); Driller tender, chuck tender, nipper; Guinea chaser (stake), grout crew; High pressure nozzle, adductor; Hydraulic monitor (over 100 lbs. pressure); Loading and unloading, carrying and hauling of all rods and materials for use in reinforcing concrete construction; Pittsburgh chipper and similar type brush shredders; Sloper; Single foot, hand-held, pneumatic
tamper; All pneumatic, air, gas and electric tools not
listed in Groups 1 through 1-f; Jacking of pipe - under 12 inches
GROUP 3: Construction laborers, including bridge and general laborer; Dump, load spotter; Flag person; Fire watcher; Fence erector; Guardrail erector; Gardener, horticultural and landscape laborer; Jetting; Limber, brush loader and piler; Pavement marker (button setter); Maintenance, repair track and road beds; Streetcar and railroad construction track laborer; Temporary air and water lines, Victaulic or similar; Tool room attendant (jobsite only)
GROUP 4: Final clean-up work of debris, grounds and building including but not limited to: street cleaner; cleaning and washing windows; brick cleaner (jobsite only); material cleaner (jobsite only). The classification ""material
cleaner"" is to be utilized under the following conditions:

A: at demolition site for the salvage of the material.

B: at the conclusion of a job where the material is to be salvaged and stocked to be reused on another job.

C: for the cleaning of salvage material at the jobsite or temporary jobsite yard.

The material cleaner classification should not be used in the performance of ""form stripping, cleaning and oiling and moving to the next point of erection"".
--------------------------------------------------------

GUNITE LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Structural Nozzleman
GROUP 2: Nozzleman, Gunman, Potman, Groundman
GROUP 3: Reboundman
GROUP 4: Gunite laborer
----------------------------------------------------------

WRECKING WORK LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 22/37
GROUP 1: Skilled wrecker (removing and salvaging of sash, windows and materials)
GROUP 2: Semi-skilled wrecker (salvaging of other building materials)
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0185-008 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Plasterer tender.................$ 38.02 28.25
Work on a swing stage scaffold: $1.00 per hour additional. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0261-002 06/28/2021

MARIN COUNTY
Rates Fringes

LABORER (TRAFFIC CONTROL/LANE

CLOSURE)
Escort Driver, Flag Person..$ 34.48 26.21
Traffic Control Person I....$ 34.78 26.21
Traffic Control Person II...$ 32.28 26.21
TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSON I: Layout of traffic control, crash cushions, construction area and roadside signage.

MARIN COUNTY
Rates Fringes
Tunnel and Shaft Laborers:

MARIN COUNTY
Rates Fringes

LABORER
Mason Tender-Brick..........$ 36.54 25.21
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0261-010 06/25/2018

MARIN COUNTY
Rates Fringes

LABORER (CONSTRUCTION CRAFT
LABORERS - AREA A:)
Construction Specialist
Group.......................$ 31.49 23.20
GROUP 1.....................$ 30.79 23.20
GROUP 1-a...................$ 31.01 23.20
GROUP 1-c...................$ 30.84 23.20
GROUP 1-e...................$ 31.34 23.20
GROUP 1-f...................$ 31.37 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 30.64 23.20
GROUP 3.....................$ 30.54 23.20
GROUP 4.....................$ 24.23 23.20
See groups 1-b and 1-d under laborer classifications.

LABORER (GARDENERS,

HORTICULTURAL & LANDSCAPE
LABORERS - AREA A:)
(1) New Construction........$ 30.54 23.20
(2) Establishment Warranty
Period......................$ 24.23 23.20
LABORER (GUNITE - AREA A:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 30.75 22.31
GROUP 2.....................$ 30.25 22.31
GROUP 3.....................$ 29.66 22.31
GROUP 4.....................$ 29.54 22.31
LABORER (WRECKING - AREA A:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 30.79 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 30.64 23.20
FOOTNOTES:

LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST GROUP: Asphalt ironer and raker; Chainsaw; Laser beam in connection with laborers' work; Cast-in- place manhole form setter; Pressure pipelayer; Davis trencher - 300 or similar type (and all small
trenchers); Blaster; Diamond driller; Multiple unit drill; Hydraulic drill
GROUP 1: Asphalt spreader boxes (all types); Barko, Wacker and similar type tampers; Buggymobile; Caulker, bander, pipewrapper, conduit layer, plastic pipelayer; Certified hazardous waste worker including Leade Abatement;
Compactors of all types; Concrete and magnesite mixer, 1/2 yd. and under; Concrete pan work; Concrete sander; Concrete saw; Cribber and/or shoring; Cut granite curb setter;
Dri-pak-it machine; Faller, logloader and bucker; Form
raiser, slip forms; Green cutter; Headerboard, Hubsetter, aligner, by any method; High pressure blow pipe (1-1/2"" or over, 100 lbs. pressure/over); Hydro seeder and similar type; Jackhammer operator; Jacking of pipe over 12 inches; Jackson and similar type compactor; Kettle tender, pot and worker applying asphalt, lay-kold, creosote, lime, caustic and similar type materials (applying means applying,
dipping or handling of such materials); Lagging, sheeting, whaling, bracing, trenchjacking, lagging hammer; Magnesite, epoxyresin, fiberglass, mastic worker (wet or dry); No
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 24/37
joint pipe and stripping of same, including repair of
voids; Pavement breaker and spader, including tool grinder; Perma curb; Pipelayer (including grade checking in
connection with pipelaying); Precast-manhole setter;
Pressure pipe tester; Post hole digger, air, gas and
electric; Power broom sweeper; Power tampers of all types (except as shown in Group 2); Ram set gun and stud gun; Riprap stonepaver and rock-slinger, including placing of sacked concrete and/or sand (wet or dry) and gabions and similar type; Rotary scarifier or multiple head concrete chipping scarifier; Roto and Ditch Witch; Rototiller;
Sandblaster, pot, gun, nozzle operators; Signalling and rigging; Tank cleaner; Tree climber; Turbo blaster;
Vibrascreed, bull float in connection with laborers' work; Vibrator; Hazardous waste worker (lead removal); Asbestos and mold removal worker
GROUP 1-a: Joy drill model TWM-2A; Gardner-Denver model DH143 and similar type drills; Track driller; Jack leg driller; Wagon driller; Mechanical drillers, all types regardless of type or method of power; Mechanical pipe layers, all types regardless of type or method of power; Blaster and powder; All work of loading, placing and blasting of all powder and explosives of whatever type regardless of method used for such loading and placing; High scalers (including drilling of same); Tree topper; Bit grinder
GROUP 1-b: Sewer cleaners shall receive $4.00 per day above Group 1 wage rates. ""Sewer cleaner"" means any worker who handles or comes in contact with raw sewage in small
diameter sewers. Those who work inside recently active, large diameter sewers, and all recently active sewer
manholes shal receive $5.00 per day above Group 1 wage
rates.

GROUP 1-c: Burning and welding in connection with laborers' work; Synthetic thermoplastics and similar type welding GROUP 1-d: Maintenance and repair track and road beds. All employees performing work covered herein shall receive $ .25 per hour above their regular rate for all work
performed on underground structures not specifically
covered herein. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to work below ground level in open cut. It shall
apply to cut and cover work of subway construction after the temporary cover has been placed.

GROUP 1-f: Wire winding machine in connection with guniting or shot crete
GROUP 2: Asphalt shoveler; Cement dumper and handling dry cement or gypsum; Choke-setter and rigger (clearing work); Concrete bucket dumper and chute; Concrete chipping and grinding; Concrete laborer (wet or dry); Driller tender, chuck tender, nipper; Guinea chaser (stake), grout crew; High pressure nozzle, adductor; Hydraulic monitor (over 100 lbs. pressure); Loading and unloading, carrying and hauling of all rods and materials for use in reinforcing concrete construction; Pittsburgh chipper and similar type brush shredders; Sloper; Single foot, hand-held, pneumatic
tamper; All pneumatic, air, gas and electric tools not
listed in Groups 1 through 1-f; Jacking of pipe - under 12 inches
GROUP 3: Construction laborers, including bridge and general laborer; Dump, load spotter; Flag person; Fire watcher; Fence erector; Guardrail erector; Gardener, horticultural and landscape laborer; Jetting; Limber, brush loader and piler; Pavement marker (button setter); Maintenance, repair 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 25/37
track and road beds; Streetcar and railroad construction track laborer; Temporary air and water lines, Victaulic or similar; Tool room attendant (jobsite only)
GROUP 4: Final clean-up work of debris, grounds and building including but not limited to: street cleaner; cleaning and washing windows; brick cleaner (jobsite only); material cleaner (jobsite only). The classification ""material
cleaner"" is to be utilized under the following conditions:

A: at demolition site for the salvage of the material.

B: at the conclusion of a job where the material is to be salvaged and stocked to be reused on another job.

C: for the cleaning of salvage material at the jobsite or temporary jobsite yard.

WRECKING WORK LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Skilled wrecker (removing and salvaging of sash, windows and materials)
GROUP 2: Semi-skilled wrecker (salvaging of other building materials)
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0261-015 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Plasterer tender.................$ 38.02 28.25
Work on a swing stage scaffold: $1.00 per hour additional. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0324-004 06/28/2021

NAPA, SOLANO, AND SONOMA, COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER (TRAFFIC CONTROL/LANE

CLOSURE)
Escort Driver, Flag Person..$ 33.48 26.21
Traffic Control Person I....$ 33.78 26.21
Traffic Control Person II...$ 31.28 26.21
TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSON I: Layout of traffic control, crash cushions, construction area and roadside signage.

NAPA, SOLANO, AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Tunnel and Shaft Laborers:

GROUP 1.....................$ 37.82 24.11
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 26/37
GROUP 2.....................$ 37.59 24.11
GROUP 3.....................$ 37.34 24.11
GROUP 4.....................$ 36.89 24.11
GROUP 5.....................$ 36.35 24.11
Shotcrete Specialist........$ 38.34 24.11

SOLANO AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER
Mason Tender-Brick..........$ 35.84 25.91
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0324-013 06/25/2018

NAPA, SOLANO, AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

LABORER (CONSTRUCTION CRAFT
LABORERS - AREA B:)
Construction Specialist
Group.......................$ 30.49 23.20
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.79 23.20
GROUP 1-a...................$ 30.01 23.20
GROUP 1-c...................$ 29.84 23.20
GROUP 1-e...................$ 30.34 23.20
GROUP 1-f...................$ 29.37 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.64 23.20
GROUP 3.....................$ 29.54 23.20
GROUP 4.....................$ 23.23 23.20
See groups 1-b and 1-d under laborer classifications.

LABORER (GARDENERS,

HORTICULTURAL & LANDSCAPE
LABORERS - AREA B:)
(1) New Construction........$ 29.54 23.20
(2) Establishment Warranty
Period......................$ 23.23 23.20
LABORER (GUNITE - AREA B:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.75 22.31
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.25 22.31
GROUP 3.....................$ 28.66 22.31
GROUP 4.....................$ 28.54 22.31
LABORER (WRECKING - AREA B:)
GROUP 1.....................$ 29.79 23.20
GROUP 2.....................$ 29.64 23.20
FOOTNOTES:

Laborers working off or with or from bos'n chairs, swinging 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 27/37
scaffolds, belts shall receive $0.25 per hour above the applicable wage rate. This shall not apply to workers
entitled to receive the wage rate set forth in Group 1-a below.
---------------------------------------------------------

GROUP 1-c: Burning and welding in connection with laborers' work; Synthetic thermoplastics and similar type welding GROUP 1-d: Maintenance and repair track and road beds. All employees performing work covered herein shall receive $ .25 per hour above their regular rate for all work
performed on underground structures not specifically
covered herein. This paragraph shall not be construed to 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 28/37
apply to work below ground level in open cut. It shall
apply to cut and cover work of subway construction after the temporary cover has been placed.

A: at demolition site for the salvage of the material.

B: at the conclusion of a job where the material is to be salvaged and stocked to be reused on another job.

C: for the cleaning of salvage material at the jobsite or temporary jobsite yard.

WRECKING WORK LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Skilled wrecker (removing and salvaging of sash, windows and materials)
GROUP 2: Semi-skilled wrecker (salvaging of other building materials)
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0324-019 07/01/2022
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 29/37
Rates Fringes
Plasterer tender.................$ 38.02 28.25
Work on a swing stage scaffold: $1.00 per hour additional. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0016-004 01/01/2023

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO & SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Painters:........................$ 47.42 27.28
PREMIUMS:

EXOTIC MATERIALS - $1.25 additional per hour.

SPRAY WORK: - $0.50 additional per hour.

INDUSTRIAL PAINTING - $0.25 additional per hour
[Work on industrial buildings used for the manufacture and processing of goods for sale or service; steel construction (bridges), stacks, towers, tanks, and similar structures] HIGH WORK:
over 50 feet - $2.00 per hour additional
100 to 180 feet - $4.00 per hour additional
Over 180 feet - $6.00 per houir additional
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0016-005 01/01/2023
ALPINE, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), GLENN, LASSEN (west of Hwy. 395, excluding Honey Lake); MARIN, MODOC, NAPA, NEVADA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), PLACER (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), SISKIYOU, SOLANO, SONOMA, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY,

YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
DRYWALL FINISHER/TAPER...........$ 53.03 28.84
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0016-007 01/01/2023
ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA. EL DORADO (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), GLENN, LASSEN (west of Highway 395,
excluding Honey Lake), MODOC, NEVADA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), PLACER (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO & YUBA

COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Painters:........................$ 38.23 22.05
SPRAY/SANDBLAST: $0.50 additional per hour.

EXOTIC MATERIALS: $1.25 additional per hour.

HIGH TIME: Over 50 ft above ground or water level $2.00 additional per hour. 100 to 180 ft above ground or water level $4.00 additional per hour. Over 180 ft above ground or water level $6.00 additional per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0016-008 01/01/2023

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SOFT FLOOR LAYER.................$ 55.25 32.63
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0169-004 01/01/2023
MARIN , NAPA & SONOMA COUNTIES; SOLANO COUNTY (west of a line 7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 30/37
defined as follows: Hwy. 80 corridor beginning at the City of Fairfield, including Travis Air Force Base and Suisun City; going north of Manakas Corner Rd., continue north on Suisun Valley Rd. to the Napa County line; Hwy. 80 corridor south on Grizzly Island Rd. to the Grizzly Island Management area) Rates Fringes
GLAZIER..........................$ 55.77 32.45
---------------------------------------------------------------- * PAIN0567-001 07/01/2022
EL DORADO COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); LASSEN COUNTY (east of Highway 395, beginning at Stacey and including Honey Lake); NEVADA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); PLACER COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); AND SIERRA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains)
Rates Fringes
Painters:

Brush and Roller............$ 33.15 14.29
Spray Painter & Paperhanger.$ 34.81 14.29
PREMIUMS:

Special Coatings (Brush), and Sandblasting = $0.50/hr
Special Coatings (Spray), and Steeplejack = $1.00/hr
Special Coating Spray Steel = $1.25/hr
Swing Stage = $2.00/hr
*A special coating is a coating that requires the mixing of 2 or more products.
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0567-007 07/01/2022
EL DORADO COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); LASSEN COUNTY (east of Highway 395, beginning at Stacey and including Honey Lake); NEVADA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); PLACER COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains) AND SIERRA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains) Rates Fringes
SOFT FLOOR LAYER.................$ 34.27 16.47
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0567-010 07/01/2022
EL DORADO COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); LASSEN COUNTY (east of Highway 395, beginning at Stacey and including Honey Lake); NEVADA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); PLACER COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); AND SIERRA COUNTY (east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains)
Rates Fringes
Drywall
(1) Taper...................$ 38.92 14.99
(2) Steeplejack - Taper,
over 40 ft with open space
below.......................$ 40.42 14.99
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0767-004 01/01/2023

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC,

NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SOLANO (Remainder), SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO, YUBA Rates Fringes
GLAZIER..........................$ 43.15 33.72
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 31/37
PAID HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

Employee required to wear a body harness shall receive $1.50 per hour above the basic hourly rate at any elevation.
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN1176-001 07/01/2022
HIGHWAY IMPR0VEMENT
Rates Fringes
Parking Lot Striping/Highway
Marking:

GROUP 1.....................$ 40.83 17.62
GROUP 2.....................$ 34.71 17.62
GROUP 3.....................$ 35.11 17.62

CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Striper: Layout and application of painted traffic stripes and marking; hot thermo plastic; tape, traffic
stripes and markings
GROUP 2: Gamecourt & Playground Installer
GROUP 3: Protective Coating, Pavement Sealing
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN1237-001 01/01/2023
ALPINE; COLUSA; EL DORADO (west of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains); GLENN; LASSEN (west of Highway 395, beginning at Stacey and including Honey Lake); MODOC; NEVADA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); PLACER (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); PLUMAS; SACRAMENTO; SHASTA; SIERRA (west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains); SISKIYOU; SUTTER; TEHAMA; TRINITY;

YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SOFT FLOOR LAYER.................$ 46.24 25.96
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAS0300-003 07/01/2018
Rates Fringes

PLASTERER
AREA 295: Alpine, Amador,
Butte, Colusa, El Dorado,
Glenn, Lassen, Modoc,
Nevada, Placer, Plumas,
Sacramento, Shasta,
Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano,
Sutter, Tehema, Trinity,
Yolo & Yuba Counties........$ 32.70 31.68
AREA 355: Marin.............$ 36.73 31.68
AREA 355: Napa & Sonoma
Counties....................$ 32.70 31.68
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAS0300-005 07/01/2016
Rates Fringes
CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 32.15 23.27
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0038-002 07/01/2022

MARIN AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
PLUMBER (Plumber,
Steamfitter, Refrigeration
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 32/37
Fitter)
(1) Work on wooden frame
structures 5 stories or
less excluding high-rise
buildings and commercial
work such as hospitals,
prisons, hotels, schools,
casinos, wastewater
treatment plants, and
resarch facilities as well
as refrigeration
pipefitting, service and
repair work - MARKET
RECOVERY RATE...............$ 69.70 46.38
(2) All other work - NEW
CONSTRUCTION RATE...........$ 82.00 48.18
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0038-006 07/01/2022

MARIN & SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Landscape/Irrigation Fitter
(Underground/Utility Fitter).....$ 69.70 33.15
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0228-001 01/01/2023

BUTTE, COLUSA, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC, PLUMAS, SHASTA, SIERRA,

SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY & YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
PLUMBER..........................$ 44.75 37.89
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0343-001 07/01/2022

NAPA AND SOLANO COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

PLUMBER/PIPEFITTER
Light Commercial............$ 30.85 20.40
All Other Work..............$ 58.00 40.48
DEFINITION OF LIGHT COMMERICIAL:

Work shall include strip shopping centers, office buildings, schools and other commercial structures which the total plumbing bid does not exceed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($250,000) and the total heating and cooling does not
exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000); or Any
projects bid in phases shall not qualify unless the total project is less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000) for the plumbing bid; and Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
($250,000) for the heating and cooling bid. Excluded are hospitals, jails, institutions and industrial projects, regardless size of the project
FOOTNOTES: While fitting galvanized material: $.75 per hour additional. Work from trusses, temporary staging,
unguarded structures 35' from the ground or water: $.75 per hour additional. Work from swinging scaffolds, boatswains chairs or similar devices: $.75 per hour additional.
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0350-001 08/01/2021
EL DORADO COUNTY (Lake Tahoe area only); NEVADA COUNTY (Lake Tahoe area only); AND PLACER COUNTY (Lake Tahoe area only) Rates Fringes
PLUMBER/PIPEFITTER...............$ 47.54 17.11
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0355-001 07/01/2022
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 33/37

ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC,

NAPA, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA,

SISKIYOU, SOLANO, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO, AND YUBA

COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Underground Utility Worker
/Landscape Fitter...........$ 32.22 17.55
---------------------------------------------------------------- * PLUM0442-003 07/01/2023
AMADOR (South of San Joaquin River) and ALPINE COUNTIES Rates Fringes
PLUMBER..........................$ 51.90 35.64
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0447-001 07/01/2023
AMADOR (north of San Joaquin River), EL DORADO (excluding Lake Tahoe area), NEVADA (excluding Lake Tahoe area); PLACER (excluding Lake Tahoe area), SACRAMENTO AND YOLO COUNTIES Rates Fringes

PLUMBER/PIPEFITTER
Journeyman..................$ 61.12 28.75
Light Commercial Work.......$ 36.23 17.72
---------------------------------------------------------------- ROOF0081-006 08/01/2022

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Roofer...........................$ 50.27 20.66
---------------------------------------------------------------- ROOF0081-007 08/01/2022

ALPINE, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN,LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA,

PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SUTTER,

TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO, AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Roofer...........................$ 43.13 19.71
---------------------------------------------------------------- SFCA0483-003 01/01/2023

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO AND SONOMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SPRINKLER FITTER (Fire
Sprinklers)......................$ 72.59 36.95
---------------------------------------------------------------- SFCA0669-003 04/01/2023

ALPINE, BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA,

PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SUTTER,

TEHAMA, TRINITY, YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SPRINKLER FITTER.................$ 46.46 27.39
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-006 06/29/2020

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO SONOMA & TRINITY COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Sheet Metal Worker
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 34/37
Mechanical Contracts
$200,000 or less............$ 55.92 45.29
All other work..............$ 64.06 46.83
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-009 07/01/2021

AMADOR, COLUSA, EL DORADO, NEVADA, PLACER, SACRAMENTO, SUTTER,

YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SHEET METAL WORKER...............$ 47.85 41.90
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-010 07/01/2020
AlPINE COUNTY
Rates Fringes
SHEET METAL WORKER...............$ 43.50 37.42
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-011 07/01/2020

BUTTE, COLUSA, EL DORADO, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC, NEVADA, PLACER,

PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHAMA,

YOLO AND YUBA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
Sheet Metal Worker (Metal
decking and siding only).........$ 44.45 35.55
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-014 07/01/2020

MARIN, NAPA, SOLANO, SONOMA AND TRINITY COUNTIES
Rates Fringes
SHEET METAL WORKER (Metal
Decking and Siding only).........$ 44.45 35.55
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0104-019 07/01/2020

BUTTE, GLENN, LASSEN, MODOC, PLUMAS, SHASTA, SIERRA, SISKIYOU

AND TEHAMA COUNTIES
Rates Fringes

SHEET METAL WORKER
Mechanical Jobs $200,000 &
under.......................$ 35.16 35.88
Mechanical Jobs over
$200,000....................$ 46.60 40.21
---------------------------------------------------------------- TEAM0094-001 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Truck drivers:

GROUP 1.....................$ 36.95 31.14
GROUP 2.....................$ 37.25 31.14
GROUP 3.....................$ 37.55 31.14
GROUP 4.....................$ 37.90 31.14
GROUP 5.....................$ 38.25 31.14
FOOTNOTES:

Articulated dump truck; Bulk cement spreader (with or without auger); Dumpcrete truck; Skid truck (debris box); Dry
pre-batch concrete mix trucks; Dumpster or similar type; Slurry truck: Use dump truck yardage rate.

Heater planer; Asphalt burner; Scarifier burner; Industrial lift truck (mechanical tailgate); Utility and clean-up
truck: Use appropriate rate for the power unit or the
equipment utilized.
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 35/37

TRUCK DRIVER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Dump trucks, under 6 yds.; Single unit flat rack (2- axle unit); Nipper truck (when flat rack truck is used
appropriate flat rack shall apply); Concrete pump truck (when flat rack truck is used appropriate flat rack shall apply); Concrete pump machine; Fork lift and lift jitneys; Fuel and/or grease truck driver or fuel person; Snow buggy; Steam cleaning; Bus or personhaul driver; Escort or pilot car driver; Pickup truck; Teamster oiler/greaser and/or serviceperson; Hook tender (including loading and
unloading); Team driver; Tool room attendant (refineries) GROUP 2: Dump trucks, 6 yds. and under 8 yds.; Transit
mixers, through 10 yds.; Water trucks, under 7,000 gals.; Jetting trucks, under 7,000 gals.; Single-unit flat rack (3-axle unit); Highbed heavy duty transport; Scissor truck; Rubber-tired muck car (not self-loaded); Rubber-tired truck jumbo; Winch truck and ""A"" frame drivers; Combination winch truck with hoist; Road oil truck or bootperson;
Buggymobile; Ross, Hyster and similar straddle carriers; Small rubber-tired tractor
GROUP 3: Dump trucks, 8 yds. and including 24 yds.; Transit mixers, over 10 yds.; Water trucks, 7,000 gals. and over; Jetting trucks, 7,000 gals. and over; Vacuum trucks under 7500 gals. Trucks towing tilt bed or flat bed pull
trailers; Lowbed heavy duty transport; Heavy duty transport tiller person; Self- propelled street sweeper with
self-contained refuse bin; Boom truck - hydro-lift or
Swedish type extension or retracting crane; P.B. or similar type self-loading truck; Tire repairperson; Combination bootperson and road oiler; Dry distribution truck (A
bootperson when employed on such equipment, shall receive the rate specified for the classification of road oil
trucks or bootperson); Ammonia nitrate distributor, driver and mixer; Snow Go and/or plow
GROUP 4: Dump trucks, over 25 yds. and under 65 yds.; Water pulls - DW 10's, 20's, 21's and other similar equipment when pulling Aqua/pak or water tank trailers; Helicopter pilots (when transporting men and materials); Lowbedk Heavy Duty Transport up to including 7 axles; DW10's, 20's, 21's and other similar Cat type, Terra Cobra, LeTourneau Pulls, Tournorocker, Euclid and similar type equipment when
pulling fuel and/or grease tank trailers or other
miscellaneous trailers; Vacuum Trucks 7500 gals and over and truck repairman
GROUP 5: Dump trucks, 65 yds. and over; Holland hauler; Low bed Heavy Duty Transport over 7 axles
---------------------------------------------------------------- WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing
operation to which welding is incidental.
================================================================ Note: Executive Order (EO) 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2017. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must provide employees with 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work, up to 56 hours of paid sick leave each year.

Employees must be permitted to use paid sick leave for their own illness, injury or other health-related needs, including preventive care; to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is ill, injured, or has other health-related needs, including preventive care; or for reasons resulting from, or to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is a victim of, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 36/37
Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------- The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of ""identifiers"" that indicate whether the particular rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local), a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate (weighted union average rate).

Union Rate Identifiers
A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning with characters other than ""SU"" or ""UAVG"" denotes that the union classification and rate were prevailing for that classification in the survey. Example:

PLUM0198-005 07/01/2014. PLUM is an abbreviation identifier of the union which prevailed in the survey for this
classification, which in this example would be Plumbers. 0198 indicates the local union number or district council number where applicable, i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number, 005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing the wage determination. 07/01/2014 is the effective date of the most current negotiated rate, which in this example is July 1, 2014.

Union prevailing wage rates are updated to reflect all rate changes in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing this classification and rate.

Survey Rate Identifiers
Classifications listed under the ""SU"" identifier indicate that no one rate prevailed for this classification in the survey and the published rate is derived by computing a weighted average rate based on all the rates reported in the survey for that classification. As this weighted average rate includes all rates reported in the survey, it may include both union and non-union rates. Example: SULA2012-007 5/13/2014. SU indicates the rates are survey rates based on a weighted average
calculation of rates and are not majority rates. LA indicates the State of Louisiana. 2012 is the year of survey on which these classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 5/13/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

Survey wage rates are not updated and remain in effect until a new survey is conducted.

Union Average Rate Identifiers
Classification(s) listed under the UAVG identifier indicate that no single majority rate prevailed for those
classifications; however, 100% of the data reported for the classifications was union data. EXAMPLE: UAVG-OH-0010
08/29/2014. UAVG indicates that the rate is a weighted union average rate. OH indicates the state. The next number, 0010 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 08/29/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

A UAVG rate will be updated once a year, usually in January of each year, to reflect a weighted average of the current negotiated/CBA rate of the union locals from which the rate is based.
7/31/23, 1:31 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/CA20230007/16 37/37
----------------------------------------------------------------

WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS

1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be:
* an existing published wage determination
* a survey underlying a wage determination
* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on a wage determination matter
* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour National Office because National Office has responsibility for the Davis-Bacon survey program. If the response from this initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described in 2.) and 3.) should be followed.

With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:

Branch of Construction Wage Determinations
Wage and Hour Division
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an interested party (those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to:

Wage and Hour Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210
The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project description, area practice material, etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue.

3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:

Administrative Review Board
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final. ================================================================ END OF GENERAL DECISIO"

ORDINANCE NO. 6710

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2023-24, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Dry Creek Greenway East Phase 1 Trail project.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
ROsEffLLE REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT

CALI ORNIA
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Cathy Gosalvez, Associate Engineer PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Cathy Gosalvez, Associate Engineer FISCAL YEAR:

COUNCIL DATE (if applicable):

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: _P_u_b_
lic_W_o_
rk_ s/_ E_ n__,g,_in....;ee...;._
rin_,g.__ __________ ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2023-24
9/20/23

DESCRIPTION
6520 6587 84001 400022 333,821 Increase budget for project construction - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) obligated
6520 6587 84001 400022 2,526,000 Increase budget for project construction - 2026 CMAQ future obligation 6520 6587 84001 400022 3,576,736 Increase budget for project construction - 2027 CMAQ future obligation 6520 6587 84001 400022 3,827,965 Increase budget for project construction 6520 5080 84001 400022 200,000 Increase budget for staff time 6130 6587 84001 400022 163,570 Increase budget for project construction 6130 5080 84001 400022 6,430 Increase budget for staff time TOTAL 10,634,522

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET($) DESCRIPTION
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6520 4401 84001 400022 333,821 CMAQ Grant Funding-obligated, project CML-5182(058) 6520 4401 84001 400022 2,526,000 CMAQ Grant Funding-2026 future obligation 6520 4401 84001 400022 3,576,736 CMAQ Grant Funding-2027 future obligation 6520 4425 84001 400022 4,027,965 Local Transportation Fund TOTAL 10,464,522
NET ADJUSTMENT 110.000 I

FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET($)
I Adjustment

DESCRIPTION
Fund Account Center Project
6130 (170,000) Reduce Water Rehabilitation Fund balance TOTAL (170,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

The existing budget for 400022 - Dry Creek Greenway East Phase 1 Trail Project is $24,164,717. This budget adjustment is requested to increase the project budget by $10,634,522, for a revised project budget of $34,799,239.

This budget adjustment establishes funding for construction, construction management, environmental monitoring, material testing and staff time. The CMAQ grant funds include $333,821 of obligated funds and $6,102,736 of funds that are currently programmed for other projects that are in the process of being transferred, programmed, and awarded to this project {obligation anticipated Spring of 2024 and Spring of 2025).

In the unlik ely e�nt the anticipated CMAQ funds are not obligated to the project, staff will return to council with a recommended alternative funding source. //
��c
Rr
UE�PARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ DESIGNEE

POSTED BY
Rev/sod: June 24, 2019
8/30/20234:11 PM
fj � REQUIRED APPROVALS:
..-,)_ �
DATE r
DATE
BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

DATE
Digitally signed by Nancy
Nancy Rothlisberger !��li
sberger''"' .CI\.A [ ..(}7'00'

BUDGET MANAGER/ DESIGNEE

CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE
DATE
DATE

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2958
File #: 0300
Title: Roseville Municipal Code Ordinances Regarding Syringe Exchange Programs Contact: Travis Cochran 916-774-5325 [email protected] Troy Bergstrom 916-774-5010 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance adding Chapter 9.90, titled “Syringe Exchange Programs”, to Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code regarding syringe exchange programs and disposal of syringes and sharps. Simultaneously, staff further recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading a non-urgency ordinance adding Chapter 9.90, titled “Syringe Exchange Programs”, to Title 9 of the Municipal Code, also regarding syringe exchange programs and disposal of syringes and sharps.

BACKGROUND
In August 2023, the Roseville Police Department received a notification concerning an application received by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), submitted by Safer Alternatives through Networking & Education (SANE), seeking authorization to establish a syringe exchange program that would operate in a portion of Placer County, including within the City of Roseville.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 121349 et seq., CDPH may approve syringe exchange programs to provide sterile syringes and collect used syringes for people who inject drugs. Such approval may be granted by CDPH despite the objections of the local agencies in the area within which the program will operate. According to the CDPH, there are more than sixty syringe exchange programs operating in California.

While the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations provide some general parameters for operating a syringe exchange program approved by CDPH, such regulations are not exhaustive. Additionally, even though state law requires used syringes and sharps be disposed of in a very specific manner (e.g., being placed in a sharps container and transported to an authorized collection center), and prohibits the loose disposal of homegenerated syringe waste (e.g., syringes cannot be discarded in trash or recycling containers), certain individuals within the community continue to dispose of their used and potentially contaminated sharps and syringes in manners that increase the risk that others will come into contact with them. Such sharps and syringe waste represents a significant public health hazard for all community members and visitors, as well as to city staff, through unnecessary exposure and risk of injury due to improper disposal of syringes. Improper disposal of used syringes and sharps has been documented in parks, roads, sidewalks, trails and open spaces, parking lots, vacant buildings, and other areas throughout the City.

Upon review of the application submitted to CDPH by SANE, City staff noted several significant concerns with the proposed operation of the syringe exchange program. Notably, SANE’s application is generally lacking in information and specific details regarding its proposed operation, creating significant questions regarding SANE’s process for dispensing syringes and an overall lack of accountability for collection of used supplies, especially sharps and syringes.

SANE has offered “home delivery/pickup” to areas in southwest Placer County. However, detailed information regarding such delivery is lacking. There is no mention of a specific fixed location or whether “home delivery” requires delivery to a location with a mailing address, or alternatively, if “home delivery” is intended to cover any type of location whereby an individual requests delivery (e.g., a park, open space, parking garage or parking lot, etc.). Without specifics regarding a delivery location or a specific location for needle drop-off, the City cannot fully evaluate the impact to the community, nor can SANE or CDPH ensure the fidelity of the program if approved. This also raises significant concerns about the ability to collect used needles in a sanitary capacity that will effectively reduce harm to either the user or innocent citizen that may contact an improperly discarded syringe at a park, walking trail, or other public location.

The information provided for the return/exchange/collection of syringes, sharps, and other waste is equally deficient, and does not appear to be specific to ensure a consistent option for returning used syringes or a location where users can responsibly dispose of the syringes in the interest of public health. The application only mentions that users can arrange for pick-up during delivery hours or drop off sharps waste during office hours. However, both delivery and office hours are limited, there is no mention of where drop-off locations will be located, and there is no information about what plan SANE has to address individuals who want to discard used syringes outside of these two limited options. It is irresponsible and contrary to public health to assume that those in need of syringe exchange services will always plan ahead with requesting pick-up of used syringes or will make arrangements to ensure return of used syringes to fixed locations (which again, are not specified in the application).

Further, SANE does not appear to offer a specific plan to account for needle and syringe exchanges. The number of syringes delivered and collected should be scrupulously accounted for. Instead, SANE appears to rely on estimated numbers of syringes dropped off or collected, which provides little confidence from the public’s standpoint about overall program management and safety practices, and again, increases the risk of community members coming into contact with improperly disposed of used and potentially contaminated sharps, syringes, and other waste.

After evaluating SANE’s application, City staff developed comments identifying the many deficiencies with respect to SANE’s proposed plan and the negative impacts to public health and safety that may be created without additional regulation, like the proper disposal and/or collection of sharps, syringes, and other waste. These comments were submitted by Chief Bergstrom to CDPH on approximately September 4th and are included herewith for reference.

If SANE’s syringe exchange program is approved as currently proposed, there will be significant and immediate risks to the public’s health, safety, and welfare due to the increased improper disposal of sharps, syringes, and other corresponding waste that will occur in light of the influx of syringes being distributed, which SANE expects to be approximately 200,000 per year.

No provisions of the existing Roseville Municipal Code specifically address syringe exchange programs. Thus, the proposed Urgency Ordinance and non-urgency Ordinance before Council for consideration will make certain actions a public nuisance and regulate syringe exchange programs within the city to ensure that such programs operate in conformity with state law. Such Ordinances will also impose regulations to minimize the significant and imminent threats to public health and safety caused by improper disposal of used sharps and syringes and the congregation of persons who regularly inject drugs near schools, parks, playgrounds, and other sensitive locations. A brief summary of the regulations and restrictions to be imposed by Chapter 9.90 are set forth below:

All syringe exchange programs, except those specifically approved by CDPH pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, are prohibited.

Syringe exchange programs are prohibited from being operated within 600 feet of any public or private school, day care center, playground, public park, community center, or library, unless the services are provided on a private residential property.

Syringe exchange programs are prohibited from providing syringes to any participant unless it also gives the participant a proper sharps container or determines to a reasonable degree of certainty that the participant already has a sharps container available for proper disposal of sharps and syringes.

Syringe exchange programs are prohibited from providing syringes to any participant that is known to have improperly disposed of sharps or syringes previously provided to the participant.

Each sharp or syringe used to inject drugs must be disposed of and secured in a proper sharps container after its first use.

Disposal of sharps, syringes, and all corresponding waste must be consistent with state and local law, and discarding of sharps or syringes in any place or manner such that they may come into contact with any other person is prohibited.

City staff is aware of other local agencies that have adopted ordinances that completely ban operation of all syringe exchange programs, including those approved by CDPH under the California Health and Safety Code. At this time, city staff cannot recommend taking such action.

The California Health and Safety Code provides says that CDPH may authorize such programs “notwithstanding any other law”, which suggests that any local prohibition against all syringe exchange programs is preempted and would not be enforceable. Further, in October 2021, the applicable provisions of the California Code of Regulations were amended to specifically remove language that previously stated any approved program must be subject to all “local ordinances”.

This also suggests that local ordinances conflicting with syringe exchange programs operating under state law may be unenforceable.

On the other hand, it does not appear that the City is flatly prohibited from imposing some local regulations on a syringe exchange program, even if such program is approved by CDPH and operating under state law. Local regulations that supplement state law, so long as they are not in direct conflict, are permitted. Additionally, as a charter city, the City of Roseville has supremacy over all municipal affairs, and the City’s local regulations may prevail even if in conflict with state law so long as the regulation addresses local municipal issues and not those of statewide concern.

Here, the regulations being proposed through Chapter 9.90 have been drafted to supplement state law and impose additional requirements necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Staff believes that such regulations do not conflict with state law, and instead, it will be possible for approved programs to follow both state law and the City’s local regulations. Further, to the extent there is any possible conflict between state law and these regulations, such regulations are intended to specifically address municipal affairs and the local impacts created by the approval and operation of syringe exchange programs within the City. They do not completely prohibit syringe exchange programs operating under state law or impede the broader health concerns that such syringe exchange programs are intended to address. It should be noted, though, that this area of the law is unsettled, and no significant guidance has been provided by the courts or the legislature regarding the interrelation between state law and local ordinances addressing syringe exchange programs.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed Ordinances.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A – Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F – Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Travis Cochran, Deputy City Attorney
Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6717
RMC9.90 Ordinance - First Reading
Letter to CDPHre SANE Application
Public Comments ReceivedAfter Posting ofAgenda
Public Comments ReceivedAfter Posting ofAgenda 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6717

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ADDING CHAPTER 9.90 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS, AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 AS AN URGENCY MEASURE
WHEREAS, according to the California Department of Public Health, there are more than sixty (60) syringe exchange programs operating in California that provide sterile syringes to, and collect used syringes from, people who inject drugs; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 121349 et seq., provides that a syringe exchange program may be authorized to operate by the California Department of Public Health, even despite local objection; and
WHEREAS, since 2015, licensed pharmacies throughout California have been authorized to sell syringes to adults without a prescription with no limits on the number of syringes that may be sold; and
WHEREAS, California law allows a person eighteen (18) years of age and older to purchase and possess an unlimited number of syringes for personal use when acquired from a pharmacy, physician or authorized syringe exchange program; and WHEREAS, no provision of the Roseville Municipal Code specifically addresses syringe exchange programs; and
WHEREAS, while the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations provide some general parameters for operating a syringe exchange program, such regulations are not exhaustive; and
WHEREAS, absent sufficient local regulation, syringe exchange programs may operate in a manner that creates significant negative impacts on the public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, although the California Health and Safety Code requires that used syringes and other sharps be stored, transported, and disposed of in a specific manner, and prohibits the loose disposal of sharps, syringes and corresponding waste in trash or recycling contains, certain individuals within the community who inject drugs have and continue to improperly dispose of used and potentially contaminated sharps and syringes, which has direct and negative impacts on the public health and safety of the entire Roseville community and increases the risk of community members coming into contact with used and potentially contaminated sharps and syringes; and
WHEREAS, used and potentially contaminated sharps, syringes, and corresponding waste represent a significant public health hazard for all community members and visitors of the city, as well as to city staff, including but not limited to those in the police, fire, code enforcement, environmental utilities, electric utility, parks and recreation, public works, and 2 building departments and divisions through unnecessary exposure and risk of injury due to improper disposal of such sharps, syringes, and corresponding waste, which presents an imminent threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, additional local regulation of syringe exchange programs is necessary to minimize the significant and imminent threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community and to mitigate the demonstrated negative effects of syringe exchange programs, including but not limited to the improper disposal of sharps, syringes, and other corresponding waste, and the congregation of persons who regularly inject drugs near schools, parks, playgrounds, and other sensitive areas within the city; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the city’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Roseville has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, health and welfare of the city and its residents; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 38771 authorizes the city, through its legislative body, to declare actions and activities that constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is a charter city, incorporated under the laws of the State of California, and under Article I, Section 1.07 of the City Charter, the city has the power and authority to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs; and WHEREAS, Article 5, Sections 5.02 and 5.03 of the City Charter, authorize the city to enact ordinances, and further authorize the City to make ordinances effective immediately when such ordinances are necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety so long as adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than three councilmembers if three or four councilmembers are present, or by the affirmative vote of not less than four councilmembers if five councilmembers are present; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville desires to exercise its local powers and authorities to regulate syringe exchange programs within the city to ensure that such programs operate in conformity with state law, and to minimize the significant and imminent threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community caused by improper disposal of used sharps, syringes, and other corresponding waste, and the congregation of persons who regularly inject drugs near schools, parks, playgrounds, and other sensitive locations; and WHEREAS, based on the findings, above, the City Council of the City of Roseville has determined that there exists a threat to public health, safety and welfare if the City does not add Chapter 9.90 to Title 9 of the Municipal Code to regulate syringe exchange programs and the safe disposal of sharps and syringes within the city, and that such regulations fall within broad authorities of the city to enact ordinances and regulations for the public peace, health and welfare and to make and enforce regulations in respect to its municipal affairs; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
3 SECTION 1. Chapter 9.90 is hereby added to Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code to read as follows:

Chapter 9.90

SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Sections:

9.90.010 Purpose.

9.90.020 Definitions.

9.90.030 Unauthorized needle exchange programs—Prohibited.

9.90.040 Operation of syringe exchange programs—Restrictions and regulation.

9.90.050 Disposal of sharps.

9.90.060 Public nuisance declared.

9.90.070 Penalties for violations.

9.90.080 Conformance to law.

9.90.090 Severability.

9.90.010 Purpose.

The purpose and intent of this chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by regulating syringe exchange programs and providing for the safe disposal of sharps, syringes, and corresponding waste.

9.90.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section:

A. “Participant” means a person who uses syringe exchange services.

B. “Person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other entity of any nature.

C. “Sharps” means a device that has acute rigid corners, edges, or protuberances capable of cutting or piercing, including, but not limited to syringes, needles, and lancets.

D. “Sharps container” means a puncture-resistant plastic container with leak-resistant sides and bottom, and a tight fitting, puncture-resistant lid, meeting the standards of and receiving approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration as a medical device used for the collection of discarded medical needles, syringes, or other sharps.

E. “Staff” means anyone who provides syringe exchange services on behalf of a syringe exchange program.
4 F. “Syringe” means both the needle and syringe used to inject fluids into the body, referred to in California Health and Safety Code Section 121349, as may be amended from time to time, as a ‘hypodermic needle and syringe’.

G. “Syringe exchange program” means a program operating within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Roseville that acts as a point of access to health education and care for people who inject drugs, where hypodermic needles and syringes are dispensed, or where used hypodermic needles and syringes are collected pursuant to the authority of Chapter 18 of Part 4 of Division 105 of the California Health and Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time, such that persons participating in and/or operating such programs are exempted from criminal prosecution for acts related to the possession of hypodermic needles and syringes.

9.90.030 Unauthorized needle exchange programs—Prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 121349 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, it shall be unlawful for any person to own, manage, conduct, or operate any syringe exchange program on public and/or private property within the jurisdictional limits of the city.

9.90.040 Operation of syringe exchange programs—Restrictions and regulation.

A. No person may conduct or operate any syringe exchange program without approval of the California Department of Public Health pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 121349 et seq., and such approval must be maintained at all times during the operation of such syringe exchange program.

B. No person may conduct, operate, or engage in any syringe exchange program, including any staff providing syringe exchange services, or any participant receiving or using syringe exchange services, within a six hundred (600) foot radius of any public or private school, day care center, playground, public park, community center, or library, unless such syringe exchange services are provided on a private residential property having a valid street address.

C. No participant or other person receiving syringes through any syringe exchange program may give, sell, trade, or otherwise transfer any syringe(s) so received to any other person.

D. No person conducting or operating any syringe exchange program, including staff providing syringe exchange services, shall provide any syringe(s) to a participant unless a sharps container is also given to the participant at the time any syringes are provided, or it is determined to a reasonable degree of certainty that the participant possess or has access to a readily available sharps container that will allow for prompt disposal of used sharps and syringes immediately after use thereof.

E. No person conducting or operating any syringe exchange program, including staff providing syringe exchange services, shall provide any syringe(s) to any participant where such person or staff has actual or constructive notice that said participant has improperly disposed of 5 any syringes or other sharps previously provided through the syringe exchange program to the participant. For purposes of this paragraph, constructive notice shall be effected when, based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, a reasonable person would know that the subject participant has improperly disposed of any sharps of syringes previously provided to the participant through the syringe exchange program.

F. No person conducting or operating any syringe exchange program, including staff providing syringe exchange services, shall provide any syringe(s) to any participant under the age of eighteen (18) without a parent or guardian present.

9.90.50 Disposal of sharps.

A. Each syringe or sharps used in any way for the injection of a substance into the body shall be disposed of and secured in a sharps container immediately after its first use.

B. All disposal of sharps and sharps containers shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 118275 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, and Roseville Municipal Code Section 9.12.150, as may be amended from time to time.

C. It shall be unlawful for any participant or person to leave any used sharps or syringe in any location, place, or manner such that the sharps or syringe is able to come into contact with any other person.

D. It shall be unlawful for any participant or person to discard or otherwise dispose of any used sharps or syringe in any garbage receptacle, recycling receptacle, sink, toilet, or any other bin or receptacle that is not specifically designed for disposal of used sharps and syringes.

9.90.060 Public nuisance declared.

Any violation of the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by all available means.

9.90.070 Penalties for violations.

Violation of any provision of this chapter may be charged as an administrative citation, infraction, or misdemeanor, at the discretion of the City Attorney.

9.90.080 Conformance to law.

The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the city to be in violation of any such law(s).

9.90.090 Severability.
6 The provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, word, sentence, or paragraph of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this chapter.

SECTION 2. Urgency Ordinance.

This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure, immediately necessary for the public peace, health and safety and shall take effect September 20, 2023. A statement of urgency is as follows:

It is necessary to add Chapter 9.90 of Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code to ensure that needle exchange programs operate in conformity with state law, and to minimize the significant and imminent impacts to the community caused by improper disposal of used sharps and syringes and the congregation of persons who regularly inject drugs near schools, parks, playgrounds, and other sensitive locations, which are necessary for the protection of the public peace, health, safety and welfare.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ADDING CHAPTER 9.90 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 9.90 is hereby added to Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code to read as follows:

Chapter 9.90

SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Sections:

9.90.010 Purpose.

9.90.020 Definitions.

9.90.030 Unauthorized need exchange programs—Prohibited.

9.90.040 Operation of syringe exchange programs—Restrictions and regulation.

9.90.050 Disposal of sharps.

9.90.060 Public nuisance declared.

9.90.070 Penalties for violations.

9.90.080 Conformance to law.

9.90.090 Severability.
2 9.90.010 Purpose.

9.90.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section:

A. “Participant” means a person who uses syringe exchange services.

B. “Person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other entity of any nature.

C. “Sharps” means a device that has acute rigid corners, edges, or protuberances capable of cutting or piercing, including, but not limited to syringes, needles, and lancets.

D. “Sharps container” means a puncture-resistant plastic container with leak-resistant sides and bottom, and a tight fitting, puncture-resistant lid, meeting the standards of and 3 receiving approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration as a medical device used for the collection of discarded medical needles, syringes, or other sharps.

E. “Staff” means anyone who provides syringe exchange services on behalf of a syringe exchange program.

F. “Syringe” means both the needle and syringe used to inject fluids into the body, referred to in California Health and Safety Code Section 121349, as may be amended from time to time, as a ‘hypodermic needle and syringe’.

9.90.030 Unauthorized needle exchange programs—Prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 121349 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, it shall be unlawful for any person to own, manage, 4 conduct, or operate any syringe exchange program on public and/or private property within the jurisdictional limits of the city.

9.90.040 Operation of syringe exchange programs—Restrictions and regulation.

C. No participant or other person receiving syringes through any syringe exchange program may give, sell, trade, or otherwise transfer any syringe(s) so received to any other person.

D. No person conducting or operating any syringe exchange program, including staff providing syringe exchange services, shall provide any syringe(s) to a participant unless a sharps container is also given to the participant at the time any syringes are provided, or it is determined 5 to a reasonable degree of certainty that the participant possess or has access to a readily available sharps container that will allow for prompt disposal of used sharps and syringes immediately after use thereof.

E. No person conducting or operating any syringe exchange program, including staff providing syringe exchange services, shall provide any syringe(s) to any participant where such person or staff has actual or constructive notice that said participant has improperly disposed of any syringes or other sharps previously provided through the syringe exchange program to the participant. For purposes of this paragraph, constructive notice shall be effected when, based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, a reasonable person would know that the subject participant has improperly disposed of any sharps of syringes previously provided to the participant through the syringe exchange program.

9.90.50 Disposal of sharps.

A. Each syringe or sharps used in any way for the injection of a substance into the body shall be disposed of and secured in a sharps container immediately after its first use. 6 B. All disposal of sharps and sharps containers shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 118275 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, and Roseville Municipal Code Section 9.12.150, as may be amended from time to time.

9.90.060 Public nuisance declared.

Any violation of the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by all available means.

9.90.070 Penalties for violations.

Violation of any provision of this chapter may be charged as an administrative citation, infraction, or misdemeanor, at the discretion of the City Attorney.

9.90.080 Conformance to law.
7 The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the city to be in violation of any such law(s).

9.90.090 Severability.

The provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, word, sentence, or paragraph of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this chapter.

SECTION 2.

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

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting. 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of _______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
1051 Junction Blvd.

Roseville, CA 95678
Troy Bergstrom, Chief of Police
DATE: September 4, 2023
TO: Marjorie Katz
California Department of Public Health
FROM: Troy Bergstrom
Chief of Police
RE: SANE Application Comments
On behalf of the Roseville Police Department and the City of Roseville, following is our response to the application by SANE for the syringe services program here in Placer County and specifically here in the City of Roseville. We have reviewed SANE’s application and have a series of concerns and comments with the application as follows:
- There is concern about the parameters of the delivery of syringes and supplies program as it is loosely defined in the proposal as offering “home delivery and pickup” to areas in southwest Placer County. Under Section 6 of the “Program Information/Statement of Need” portion of the Application, SANE fails to describe what type of home delivery and pick-up is contemplated. There is no mention of a specific fixed location or whether “home delivery” requires delivery to a location with a mailing address, or alternatively if “home delivery” is intended to cover any type of location whereby an individual requests delivery (e.g., a park, open space, parking garage or parking lot, etc.) Without specifics regarding a delivery location or a specific location for needle drop-off, how can we be certain of where syringes will be delivered and how would accountability to that process be ensured so that we do not have boxes of syringes being delivered anywhere without oversight? This also raises the question about the ability to collect used needles in a sanitary capacity that will effectively reduce harm to either the user or innocent citizen that may happen upon an inappropriately discarded syringe at a park, walking trail, or other common location. - In line with the above lack of specifying what “home delivery” means, in the Proposal Needs statement under Section 9, the proposal talks primarily about homeless needs. Yet the proposal does not address how it would deliver syringes and other services to our homeless population as the proposal only generally talks about “home delivery”. How would the program deliver to our homeless population? How would they ensure our parks and other spaces do not become drop off points for syringes and “supplies” where these supplies are common items used to facilitate the use of drugs? There are no parameters identified in the proposal for how this would occur in a proposal that is clearly identified to deliver these supplies to our homeless population wrapped in a proposal for “home delivery”.
- One of SANE’s main services offered in the application is a rapid, on-site HIV and HCV screening. It appears however, that is a service only offered in Sacramento, which is an inconvenient distance for residents of Roseville to take advantage of this offering. This is particularly difficult for those experiencing homelessness or have limited options for travel, or those who simply need this service closer to their county of residence where they may already be accessing programs offered through Placer County Health and Human Services. Has SANE done any outreach through Placer HHS to see what is offered in our community and how those services are offered? If SANE is going to offer services in our community, a basic first step would have been to ask our local providers what is already offered and what is needed. Those questions do not appear to have been asked before this proposal was submitted.
- The information provided for the return/exchange/collection of syringes and needles does not appear to be specific to ensure a consistent option for returning used syringes or a location where users can responsibly dispose of the syringes in the interest of public health. The applicational only mentions that users can arrange for pick-up during delivery hours or drop off sharps waste during office hours. However, both delivery and office hours are limited, there is no mention of where dropoff locations will be located, and there is no information about what plan SANE has to address individuals who want to discard used syringes outside of these two limited options. It seems presumptuous to assume that those in need of needle exchange services will always plan ahead with requesting pick-up of used needles or will make arrangements to ensure return of used needles to fixed locations (which again, do not appear to be specified in the application). Without fidelity to a specific plan for collection, users may leave used needles in places where children or other citizens come upon them jeopardizing their health and safety. This ties directly into the programs’ delivery of these items to our homeless population where discarding these items in a safe manner would be of great concern to our community.
- SANE does not appear to offer a specific plan to account for needle and syringe exchanges. The number of needles delivered and collected should be scrupulously accounted for. Instead, SANE appears to rely on estimated numbers of needles dropped off or collected, which provides little confidence from the public’s standpoint about overall program management and safety practices. - SANE does not offer a partnership with local providers who need to collaborate for program legitimacy and effectiveness. Additionally, who is SANE accountable to in the event they do not act according to the standards set forth in the application? What overarching program exists to provide oversight, accountability, and management for needle users so the exchange is taking place with the entirety of public health in mind? Time and investment on SANE’s behalf seem necessary to facilitate that support from County partnerships who are daily engaged with those SANE seeks to serve. If a true partnership with our community was what SANE was interested in building, they could have heard our community’s concerns ahead of time, worked to alleviate those concerns, and submitted plans for addressing those concerns in their application, however that was not done. - Community Outreach ahead of the program appears to have been limited to non-existent. Under the section “steps program has taken to address any reasonable concerns” there is a list of fifteen neighborhood associations in our City, however there is no information included as to whether any outreach was actually done with any of these neighborhoods. Our Department is well connected to our Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) where this list of neighborhoods was obtained. If this proposal had been made to any of these associations, I am highly confident the associations next steps would have been to contact our Department to get more information. We have received no feedback from our neighborhood associations which leads me to believe this was just a list taken from the internet for the application process and no actual outreach has been done. Had that outreach been done, you would likely find widespread objection to a syringe delivery program in our neighborhoods.

The Roseville Police Department is highly integrated with Placer County Health and Human Services in providing needed services to our community. As a result, we rely heavily on the expertise of Placer HHS when implementing or supporting new programs in our city. There may be some potential service gaps that SANE could fill in order to provide residents with a broader harm reduction. However, without an endorsement from our local health authority that this is a viable program to assist our community, it is difficult to support this program. It is our request that SANE collaborate with Placer County HHS to learn what services are offered here and how they could help. Further, they need to engage in community engagement and learning prior to offering needle exchange services. This learning process is important for hearing from our residents about solutions that would support both those in need of services alongside the needs of our community where services are offered. However, nowhere in the application is there evidence of this collaboration that would be required before our Department could support this program application. Without these very necessary questions answered in their proposal, our Department is against the proposal to the California Department of Public Health and request that you deny the application as submitted.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment and if you have any questions regarding our comments or need any additional information, we would be more than happy to participate in a meeting to discuss this further.

Respectfully Submitted,
Troy Bergstrom
Chief of Police
Roseville Police Department
(916) 774-5010
[email protected]

From: City Council Mail <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:23 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Attorney <[email protected]>; Dreyer, Helen <[email protected]>; Avalos, Carmen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: More stringent wording of city ordinance regarding syringe exchange program Hello,
City Council received this email regarding September 20th Agenda item 9.2 - Roseville Municipal Code Ordinances regarding Syringe Exchange Programs.

Thank you,
Cary
From: Angie Nakao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:08 PM
To: City Council Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: More stringent wording of city ordinance regarding syringe exchange program EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I was able to attend the city council meeting through the presentation on the syringe exchange program ordinance. I appreciate what you’re doing to be proactive to keep this out of our city. I am concerned about the wording of the ordinance that allows only syringe exchange programs approved by CDPH. We can see that we cannot trust statewide entities and need more local control. I was not able hear the resolution by the board on this matter, but I would change it to more stringent wording: “allow only syringe exchange programs mandated by CDPH and approved by Placer County Department of Health.” I think the original wording could be used the wrong way by future city council members, citizens, and exchange programs.

In addition, I would mandate distribution zones to be further away from parks, libraries, schools, etc. and make it even more difficult for a program to operate, without expressly forbidding it.

Thanks again for not condoning these horrible programs. Stand up to these ridiculous laws!! They make no sense and are literally ruining California.

Angie Nakao
Resident of Roseville

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2921
File #: 0800-02
Title: 2023 Neighborhood Clean-up Summary
Contact: Brian Craighead 916-774-5783 [email protected] Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Information only. No Council action necessary.

BACKGROUND
Staff will provide an overview of the 2023 Neighborhood Clean-Up events that were provided through a partnership between the City of Roseville and the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA).

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact. The presentation is information only.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not required. Information only.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Craighead, Refuse and Stormwater Manager
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2939
File #: 0800-06
Title: Roseville Municipal Code Amendment - Graffiti
Contact: Mike Isom 916-774-5285 [email protected]
Travis Cochran 916-774-5325 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 10.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter

10.53 of the Roseville Municipal Code regarding graffiti.

BACKGROUND
Chapter 10.53 of the Roseville Municipal Code is aimed at addressing graffiti within city limits.

The current version of Chapter 10.53, which was originally adopted in 1990 and has been minimally revised since, focuses on aspects like regulation of spray paint and pursuing cost recovery against those who cause graffiti. However, it offers limited mechanisms for actually enforcing anti-graffiti provisions against those who cause graffiti and property owners who allow graffiti to remain on their property.

Abating graffiti and reducing blight within the City has been a Council priority in recent years. In 2021, the Council set a goal to deliver exceptional City services, and one of the adopted strategies to achieve this goal was increased code enforcement and beautification efforts throughout the City. In furtherance of this goal, the primary responsibility for graffiti abatement was reassigned to the code enforcement division, and the Council approved an additional full-time Code Enforcement Inspector, who has been designated as the “Graffiti Coordinator”. The Council also budgeted $100,000 to a vendor contract for graffiti abatement and approved an additional Deputy City Attorney position to focus on all aspects of public safety, including code enforcement and nuisance abatement. The Council’s goal to delivery exceptional City services was readopted in 2023, with emphasis placed on exploring additional ways to strengthen code enforcement efforts and abatement of graffiti and blight.

Between October 1, 2022 (when the Code Enforcement Division assumed responsibility for graffiti abatement), and the end of July 2023, the Graffiti Coordinator responded to approximately 183 reports of graffiti. Approximately 132 of the reports were for graffiti on public property, and the remaining reports were for graffiti on private property. These incidents of graffiti have varied in type and size, ranging from significant amounts of graffiti on sound walls and underpasses, to more minor use of markers and other writing implements on stop signs and mail collection boxes.

Typically, graffiti on public property is abated within 48 to 72 hours, while abatement of graffiti on private property takes approximately 10 days.

The Graffiti Coordinator has utilized all available tools for abatement of graffiti, including abatement efforts by City staff, use of the third-party graffiti abatement vendor contract, and obtaining voluntary compliance by private property owners. While the Graffiti Coordinator has been largely successful at obtaining voluntary compliance by private property owners, addressing graffiti on private property has shed light on numerous gaps in the City’s existing municipal code provisions addressing graffiti. As noted above, Chapter 10.53 was originally adopted in 1990 and it has become somewhat outdated. The existing provisions of Chapter 10.53 also entail a cumbersome and time-consuming process for graffiti abatement, especially for graffiti on private property where voluntary abatement cannot be achieved. This prompted a comprehensive review of Chapter 10.53 and proposed revisions that would allow for more straightforward and efficient enforcement of the City’s anti-graffiti provisions and expanded options for abatement and cost recovery.

The proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 10.53 offers broader regulation of graffiti and the implements used to commit graffiti (e.g., spray paint, etching cream, broad-tip markers, carving tools, etc.). It also requires property owners to be more proactive in removing graffiti on private property, and allows for issuance of an administrative citation when graffiti is not removed within a reasonable time after being notified that such graffiti exists. Further, the ordinance allows the City to pursue recovery of abatement costs incurred by the City through a graffiti nuisance abatement lien against the real property of the individual committing the graffiti, or if the person is a minor, the real property of their parent or guardian. This is a remedy allowed by state law but is not reflected in the current municipal code. A summary of the proposed changes to Chapter 10.53 are set forth below:

Section 10.53.010: Strengthens the “Purpose” section of the ordinance so that it more closely aligns with the Council’s goal to deliver exceptional City services through prompt abatement of graffiti.

10.53.020: Expands the definition of “graffiti” to cover other types of common graffiti implements, including spray paint, broad tipped markers, carving tools, etching creams, and paint sticks.

10.53.040: Prohibits minors from possessing of any graffiti implements if such possession is for the purpose of defacing property. This change is consistent with the California Penal Code and eliminates the risk of a minor being in violation simply for possession of markers or other instruments that may meet the definition of a “graffiti implement”.

10.53.050: Prohibits the sale of spray paint and etching creams to minors without consent of a parent or guardian.

10.53.060: Requires retail establishments that offer spray paint to have signage as mandated by the California Penal Code.

10.53.070: Prohibits a person from placing any graffiti on public or private property within the City and prohibits a person from possessing graffiti implements for the purpose of committing graffiti. This section also prohibits a property owner from allowing graffiti to remain on private property for longer than 72-hours after notification of the existence of the graffiti on their property.

10.53.080: Establishes the procedure for the City to provide “notice” to a private property owner regarding graffiti on their private property, which triggers the 72-hour timeframe within which graffiti must be abated.

10.53.100: Authorizes the Graffiti Coordinator to use all available means to promptly abate graffiti on public property. This section also allows the City to abate graffiti on private property if the property owner consents to such abatement, agrees to reimburse the city for the costs of the abatement, and agrees to waive and release the City from any claims arising from the abatement.

10.53.110 – 10.53.150: Clarifies that violation of Chapter 10.53 may be punishable as an administrative citation, infraction, or misdemeanor, and also establishes the process for recovering abatement costs against an individual who causes graffiti. This process allows recovery of court costs, attorney’s fees, costs of removal, costs for repairing or replacing defaced property, and law enforcement costs through a graffiti nuisance abatement lien or special assessment – either of which can be levied against real property owned by the individual causing the graffiti, or if a minor, any real property of their parents or guardians.

Graffiti, when left unabated, reduces property values, encourages blight, creates concerns regarding quality of life, and adversely affects the City’s image and business development. The proposed changes to Chapter 10.53 will give the Graffiti Coordinator, and the City as a whole, several more tools for abating graffiti on both public and private property in a more prompt and efficient manner. These changes also allow for swifter and more stringent penalties against those who elect to cause graffiti and disregard the property rights of the City and its community members.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed ordinance.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A – Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F – Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Travis Cochran, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance (redline)
ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING CHAPTER

10.53 OF TITLE 10 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GRAFFITI THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 10.53 of Title 10 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 10.53 SPRAY PAINT AND

GRAFFITI
Sections:

10.53.010 Purpose.

10.53.020 Definitions.

10.53.030 Graffiti prohibitedDeclared nuisance.

10.53.040 Possession of aerosol spray paint cansgraffiti implements by minors prohibited.

10.53.050 Sale of aerosol spray paint cans and etching creams to minors prohibited.

10.53.060 Signs to be placed in retail establishments.

10.53.070 PenaltiesGraffiti prohibited.

10.53.080 Declared nuisanceRemoval of graffiti.

10.53.090 Council to determine costsUse of public funds to remove graffiti.

10.53.100 Authority to remove.

10.53.110 Form of notice to removePenalties for violation.

10.53.120 Abatement lienCumulative remedies, procedures and penalties.

10.53.130 Public hearing and appealAdditional penalties.

10.53.140 Treble damages.

10.53.150 Recovery of city funds against offender.

10.53.160 Severability.

10.53.010 Purpose.

Aerosol spray paint cans are currently being used as a means of defacing public and private property, resulting in the creation of unsightly graffitiThe purpose of this chapter is to provide for the prompt abatement of graffiti from public and private properties and to provide for methods of controlling the sale to and unauthorized use of graffiti implements by minors.

Graffiti, when left unabated, reduces property values, encourages blight, adversely affects the city’s image and business development, creates concern for the quality of life of the city’s citizens, and frequently becomes a forum for gang-related, potentially criminal activities. In order to assist law enforcementcity personnel in dealing with this growing problemin addressing graffiti and penalizing those persons who disregard the property rights of others, the city council deems it necessary and appropriate to regulate the use and possession of aerosol spray paint cansgraffiti implements and the application of graffiti, and to provide for the abatement of graffiti. It is the city council’s intent that this chapter further serve as notice to the community that the city will strictly enforce the law to its maximum extent and prosecute those persons engaging in the defacement of public and private property.

This chapter is intended to be cumulative with and in addition to other provisions of this code and state law, including but not limited to Government Code Sections 38771 through 38773.7 and 53069.3, and Penal Code Sections 594, 594.1, and 640.5 through 640.8, and other remedies available at law to combat the effects of graffiti and the defacement of public and private property.

10.53.020 Definitions. Graffiti means the intentional spraying of paint or marking of paint, ink, chalk, dye or other similar substances upon private or public property without permission of the owner of the property.
“Graffiti coordinator” means a person appointed by the chief of police to assist in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.

A. “Aerosol spray can” means any aerosol container which is adapted or made for the purpose of spraying paint or other substances capable of defacing property.

B. “Broad tip marker” means any indelible marker or similar implement with a tip which at its broadest width is three-eighth inch or greater, containing an ink that is not watersoluble.

C. “Carving tool” means any tool or instrument designed or intended to cut, carve or scratch into glass, metal, wood, or other surfaces.

D. “Etching cream” means any caustic cream, gel, liquid, or solution capable, by means of a chemical action, of defacing, damaging, or destroying hard surfaces in a manner similar to acid.

E. “Graffiti” means any inscription, word, figure, or design that is inscribed, marked, etched, pasted, or otherwise placed on any property, building, structure, or surface, and is visible to the public, without the prior approval of the owner or person in lawful possession or control of the property, building, structure, or surface.

F. “Graffiti coordinator” means a person appointed by the Director of Development Services to assist in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.

G. “Graffiti implement” means any implement capable of marking a surface to create graffiti including, without limitation, any aerosol spray can, spray actuator, etching cream, paint stick, broad tip marker, carving tool, or other implements capable of inscribing, marking, etching, pasting, or otherwise placing words, figures, or designs on public or private property.

H. “Minor” means a person under eighteen (18) years of age.

I. “Paint stick” means a device containing a solid form of paint, chalk, wax, epoxy, or other similar substance capable of being applied to a surface by pressure and, upon application, leaving a mark at least one eighth of an inch in width, visible from a distance of twenty (20) feet, and not water-soluble.

J. “Property” means real or personal property, whether publicly or privately owned, within the city, and includes buildings, structures, and surfaces within such property.

K. “Responsible person” means any person or entity who is the owner or who has primary responsibility for the management, repair, or maintenance of the property, building, structure, or surface.

L. “Spray actuator” means an object, such as a spray tip, nozzle, or button, which is capable of being attached to an aerosol spray can for the purpose of spraying the substance contained therein.

M. “Surface” means the exposed area of any object, including, but not limited to, walls, fences, sidewalks, curbs, street lamp poles, utility poles, transformers, trees and vegetation, signs, and/or trash receptacles.

10.53.030 Graffiti prohibitedDeclared nuisance.

It is unlawful for any person to intentionally place graffiti upon any private or public property. A mistake as to the private property owner’s identity shall not be a defense to a violation of this sectionIt is hereby declared that graffiti is obnoxious and a public and private nuisance, and is subject to abatement and punishment as defined in this code and state law.

10.53.040 Possession of aerosol spray paint cansgraffiti implements by minors prohibited.

It is unlawful for any minor person under the age of 18 to have in their possession any aerosol spray can containing any substance commonly known as paint, while upon any public highway, street, alleyway, park, playground, swimming pool or other public place, whether such minor is or is not in any automobile, vehicle or other conveyance.It is unlawful for any minor to possess any graffiti implement for the purpose of defacing private or public property without the consent of the responsible person. Any law enforcement officer who observes a minor use a graffiti implement to commit graffiti may take immediate possession of the graffiti implement.

This section shall not apply if such minor is in possession of an aerosol spray cangraffiti implement in order to perform a task as directed by the minor’s parent, guardian, instructor or employer, and if that task would not be a violation of this chapter if conducted by an adult.

10.53.050 Sale of aerosol spray paint cans and etching creams to minors prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to sell to a minor any aerosol spray can containing any substance commonly known as paint. This section shall not apply to the furnishing of six ounces or less of an aerosol container of paint for the minor’s use or possession under the supervision of the minor’s parent, guardian, instructor or employer.

It is unlawful for any person to sell, give, or otherwise furnish any aerosol spray can or etching cream to any minor without the consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Evidence that a person, his or her employee, or agent demanded and was shown bona fide evidence by the minor representing that such minor is of the age of majority, and that such person acted upon such evidence of age of majority in the transaction or sale, is a defense to any criminal prosecution.

10.53.060 Signs to be placed in retail establishments.

As per Penal Code Section 594.1(c), A sign not smaller than 8½ inches by 11 inches shall be prominently displayed in the proximity of the merchandise in all retail establishments which offer for sale to the public paint in aerosol spray cans or etching creams shall post in a conspicuous place a sign stating that any person who maliciously defaces real or personal property with etching cream or paint is guilty of vandalism. These signs shall read as follows:
“Possession by or sale to a minor of an aerosol spray can containing paint is unlawful.

California Penal Codes § 594.1, Roseville Municipal Code sections 10.53.040 and 10.53.050.”

10.53.070 PenaltiesGraffiti prohibited.

Violation of this chapter may be charged as either an infraction or a misdemeanor in the discretion of the city attorney.

A. It is unlawful for any person to inscribe, mark, etch, apply, or otherwise place any graffiti upon any publicly or privately owned property within the city.

B. It is unlawful for any person to possess any graffiti implement for the purpose of inscribing, marking, etching, applying, or otherwise placing any graffiti upon any publicly or privately owned property within the city.

C. It is unlawful for any responsible person to permit or allow any graffiti to remain on any publically or privately owned property within the city for longer than seventy-two (72) hours after notice (defined in Section 10.53.080) of the existence of the graffiti.

10.53.080 Declared nuisanceRemoval of graffiti.

The council of the City of Roseville makes the following findings and declarations:

Graffiti on private or public property creates a condition tending to reduce the value of private and public property, to promote blight and deterioration, to reflect badly on the community and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Furthermore, graffiti has been used as a forum for gang-related activities and can lead to an increase in crime in the city.

Therefore, the presence of graffiti on private or public property is declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with provisions of this chapter, or any other applicable provision of law.A. Graffiti on any property shall be abated by the responsible person no later than seventy-two (72) hours after notice of the existence of the graffiti.

B. “Notice” for purpose of Section 10.53.070 and this section may be constructive notice to the responsible person or notification by the City to the responsible person of the existence of the graffiti. Constructive notice to the responsible person shall be effected when, based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, a reasonable person would know of the existence of the graffiti. Notification by the city to the responsible person shall be effected upon either of the following: (i) the city’s posting of a written notice on the property in a reasonably visible location stating the existence of the graffiti and that such graffiti must be removed within seventy-two (72) hours; or (ii) the city’s making direct contact with the responsible person or their agent, employee, or representative and informing such person of the existence of the graffiti and that such graffiti must be removed within seventy-two (72) hours.

C. Graffiti shall be considered “abated” for purposes of this section when the graffiti is removed or has been covered by paint or similar material that is substantially the same shade or color and texture to the area upon which the graffiti was placed.

10.53.090 Council to determine costsUse of public funds to remove graffiti.

The city council shall from time to time determine and fix an amount to be assessed as administrative costs excluding the actual cost of removal of the graffitiWhenever the city becomes aware, or is notified and determines, that graffiti is so located on property and is visible to the public, the city shall be authorized to use public funds for the removal of the graffiti, or for the painting or repairing of the graffiti. The city shall not authorize or undertake to provide for the painting or repair of any more extensive area than that where the graffiti is located, unless the Director of Development Services, or their designee, determines that a more extensive area is reasonably necessary to be repainted or repaired to avoid an aesthetic disfigurement to the surrounding property, neighborhood, or community.

10.53.100 Authority to remove.

Upon discovering the existence of graffiti on private or public property within the city, the graffiti coordinator shall have the authority to cause the abatement and removal thereof in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this chapter. A. Graffiti located on property owned by the city may be immediately removed and abated by the graffiti coordinator by any reasonable means.

B. Graffiti located on privately owned property or on property owned by a public entity other than the city may be removed and abated by the city if the responsible person or other public entity consents to such abatement, agrees to reimburse the city for the costs of the abatement incurred by the city, and executes and delivers a waiver and release to the benefit of the city in a form approved by the city attorney. Where these conditions have been satisfied, the graffiti may be removed and abated by the graffiti coordinator by any reasonable means.

C. If graffiti located on non-city property is not removed and abated within the time periods provided in Section 10.53.080 and the graffiti cannot be removed or abated by the city pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, the city may utilize the procedures set forth in Chapter

2.52, in addition to any other available remedies, to achieve compliance.

10.53.110 Form of notice to removePenalties for violations.

A 10-day Notice of Intention to Abate and Remove the Graffiti shall be mailed by registered or certified mail or served upon the owners of the property in the manner required for service of a summons and mailed by registered or certified mail to any individuals who have violated Section 10.53.030 of this chapter. The Notice shall advise that if the graffiti is not removed within the time frame set forth in the Notice, the city shall remove the graffiti and assess the costs to the property owner and/or the individuals responsible. If a responsible individual is a minor, costs shall be assessed to the parents or guardians of that minor. The Notices shall be in substantially the following forms:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ABATE AND

REMOVE GRAFFITI
Date:

Re: Graffiti at (address)
As owner shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the land located at _____________________ you are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 10.53.060 of the Roseville Municipal Code the undersigned has determined that there exists upon said land certain Graffiti which constitutes a public nuisance pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.53.080 of the Roseville Municipal Code.

You are hereby notified to abate the nuisance by removing the Graffiti within ten (10) days from the date of service of this notice and upon your failure to do so the same will be abated and removed by the City of Roseville. The cost of removal, together with administrative costs, will be assessed to you as owner of the land on which the Graffiti is located and the cost of removal may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general property taxes.

As owner of the land on which the Graffiti is located you are hereby notified that you may, within ten (10) days after the service of this Notice of Intention, request a public hearing and if such request is not received by the Police Chief within such ten (10) day period, the Graffiti Coordinator shall have the authority to abate and remove the Graffiti as a public nuisance and assess the costs as aforesaid without a public hearing.

You may submit a sworn written statement within such ten (10) day period denying responsibility for the presence of said Graffiti with your reasons for denial and such statement shall be construed as a request for hearing at which your presence is not required. You may appear in person at any hearing requested by you or any other responsible party or, in lieu thereof, may present a sworn written statement as aforesaid in time for consideration at such hearing.
_________________
Graffiti Coordinator
City of Roseville

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ABATE AND

REMOVE GRAFFITI
Date:

Re: Graffiti at (address)
As the person responsible for the Graffiti located at __________you are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 10.53.080 of the Roseville Municipal Code the undersigned has determined that said Graffiti constitutes a public nuisance pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.53.060. You are hereby notified to abate the nuisance by removal of the Graffiti within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notice, and upon your failure to do so the same will be abated and removed by the City of Roseville and the costs thereof, together with administrative costs will be assessed to you as the person responsible for the Graffiti. If you are a minor, costs may be assessed to your parents or guardians.

As the person responsible for the Graffiti, you are hereby notified that you may, within ten (10) days of the mailing of this Notice of Intention, request a public hearing. If such request is not received by the Police Chief within this ten (10) day period, the Graffiti Coordinator shall have the authority to abate and remove said Graffiti without a hearing.

Notice mailed _______________
______________________
Graffiti Coordinator,
City of Roseville
Violation of any provision of this chapter may be charged as an administrative citation, infraction, or misdemeanor, at the discretion of the city attorney.

10.53.120 Abatement lienCumulative remedies, procedures and penalties.

A. The cost of abating the graffiti shall constitute a lien and a special assessment against the property where the graffiti is located, and may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes.

B. If the cost of abating the graffiti is not paid within 30 days of mailing of demand by the city, the cost of abatement along with a penalty assessment of eight percent of the total, will be transmitted to the county auditor for entry upon and collection with the next tax roll and to the county recorder to be recorded as a lien against the property. Thereafter, such amount shall be collected with property taxes and shall be subject to additional interest and penalties in the case of delinquency, along with sale, because the assessment shall constitute a lien upon the property.

The cost of recording and removing a lien on property on which this amount has been assessed will be borne by the property owner. Unless otherwise expressly provided, the remedies, procedures and penalties provided by this chapter are cumulative to each other and to any others available under state law or other city ordinances.

10.53.130 Public hearing and appealAdditional penalties. Upon written request by the owner of the property or any violator of Section 10.53.030 received by the public works director within 10 days of mailing or service on an owner or mailing to a violator of the notices of an intention to abate and remove the graffiti, a public hearing shall be held by the public works director or designee on the question of the cost of abatement. Those individuals to whom notice has been sent may appear in person at the hearing or present a sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence of the graffiti. Following the public hearing, the public works director shall make written findings of fact showing whether the graffiti tends to reduce the value of private property to promote blight and deterioration and be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Such written findings of fact shall be the basis for the decision of the public works director.

Appeal from any decision of the public works director may be made in writing to the city council within 10 calendar days from the public works director’s action. Within the same 10-day period, the appellant shall pay a nonrefundable fee of $75.

A. Any person or entity violating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted by such person or entity and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided herein.

B. If a minor is personally unable to pay any fine or restitution levied for violating this chapter, each parent or legal guardian shall be personally liable for the payment of the fine or restitution for any acts of the minor.

C. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, each parent or legal guardian shall also be personally liable for any and all costs to any person or business incurred in connection with the removal of graffiti caused by that parent’s or guardian’s minor child, and for all law enforcement costs, city staff costs, attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred in connection with the civil prosecution of any claim for damages or reimbursement in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1714.1.

10.53.140 Treble damages.

Upon entry of a second or subsequent civil or criminal judgment within a two-year period finding that any property owner or minor is responsible for a condition to be abated pursuant to this chapter, the court may order such offender to pay treble the costs of the corresponding abatement. This section does not apply to conditions abated pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17980. any person is responsible for the unlawful application of graffiti, a fine in the amount of three times the cost of abatement shall be paid by the violator(s).

10.53.150 Recovery of city funds against offender.

A. Any person who is found guilty of violating Section 10.53.070(A) shall pay restitution to the property owner, in addition to authorized penalties to the city. If the violator is a minor, the parent or guardian shall be responsible for payment of restitution.

B. The city may, as permitted by state law, file a lien to collect abatement and related administrative costs incurred in the abatement of any violation of Section 10.53.070(A). The city may record this lien on real property belonging to the person found guilty of violating Section

10.53.070(A), or if the person is a minor, on real property owned by the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor. This lien may only be filed against the person who is found guilty of violating Section 10.53.070(A), or if the individual is a minor, the parent or guardian having custody and control of the individual.

C. Prior to recording a graffiti nuisance abatement lien, the city shall serve notice on the person who violated Section 10.53.070(A), or if the person is a minor, the city shall serve notice on the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor. The notice shall be served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. If the parent or guardian or other person cannot be found after diligent search, the notice may be served by posting a copy of the notice upon the property owned by the parent or guardian or other person, in a conspicuous place, for a period of ten (10) calendar days. The notice shall also be published pursuant to Government Code Section 6062 in a newspaper of general circulation that is published in the county in which the property is located. The notice shall include an itemized description of the abatement and related administrative costs, the date of the abatement order, a description of the lien process, and the facts supporting the lien on the property.

D. The graffiti nuisance abatement lien shall be recorded in the county recorder’s office in the county in which the parcel of land is located. From the date of recording, the lien shall have the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien.

E. The graffiti nuisance abatement lien shall specify the amount of the lien; that it is recorded on behalf of the city; the date of the abatement order; the street address, legal description and assessor's parcel number of the parcel on which the lien is imposed; and the name and address of the recorded owner of the parcel.

F. If the lien is discharged, released or satisfied, either through payment or foreclosure, notice of the discharge containing the information specified in subsection D, above, shall be recorded by the city.

G. The graffiti nuisance abatement lien authorized by this section may be satisfied through foreclosure in an action brought by the city.

H. The city may recover any costs incurred regarding the processing and recording of the lien and providing notice to the property owner as part of its foreclosure action to enforce the lien. As used in this chapter, “abatement and related administrative costs” include, but are not limited to, court costs, attorney’s fees, costs of removal of the graffiti, costs of repair and replacement of defaced property, and the law enforcement costs incurred by the city in identifying and apprehending the minor or other person. Attorney’s fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in any litigation initiated under this section.

I. As an alternative to obtaining a graffiti nuisance abatement lien as described above, and as permitted by state law, the city may make the abatement and related administrative costs a special assessment against a parcel of land owned by the minor or by the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor. The special assessment shall be collected as provided for in Government Code Section 38773.6.

10.53.160 Severability.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2931
File #: 0202
Title: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Third Quarter Report
Contact: Scott Pettingell 916-774-1306 [email protected] Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 10.3.

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

BACKGROUND
The attached report provides a summary of the City’s financial position through the third quarter of FY2022-23 for (1) the General Fund, (2) the enterprise operating funds, and (3) revenues in other selected funds. This report is provided pursuant to the Budget Control section of the City Charter (Section 7.15).

FISCAL IMPACT
This item is a financial update only and has no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §20165 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. This informational report meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

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

Description
FY2022-23 Third Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Third Quarter Report
Overview
This report provides an overview of the City’s financial position through the third quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2022- 23 (July 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023) for:
(1) the General Fund.
(2) the major enterprise operating funds, and
(3) revenues in other selected funds.

Considerations
General Fund revenues through the third quarter of FY2022-23 are trending to end the year modestly above estimates. Sales tax (Bradley Burns and Measure B) revenue growth has slowed compared to prior years, and the combined revenue is forecasted to end the year 2.6 percent, or $2.6 million, under budget estimates. This shortfall will be offset by greater than anticipated revenues in other categories. Based on the most recent information from the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller, property tax revenues will end the year above the budget estimate by $3.1 million. With the passage of Measure C in November 2022 and its implementation in January 2023, the City’s transient occupancy tax (TOT), also known as hotel tax, will exceed estimates by approximately $1.5 million. Building permits, plan check fees, and engineering inspection fees will end the year above the budget target, and recreation program revenues have returned to pre-pandemic levels.

General Fund operating revenues, collected through the third quarter, are 61 percent of the budget estimate. This collection rate is expected and is in line with prior years due to the timing associated with receiving some of the more significant tax revenue sources. The table and graph included in this report show cumulative General Fund operating revenue through the third quarter and a revenue budget to actual comparison. Following the table and graph are additional details on each of the City’s major revenue streams.

The following factors should be taken into consideration when analyzing this information:
 Sales and Use Tax is the largest General Fund revenue source. The City only receives seven months of sales tax revenues by the end of the third quarter of each fiscal year due to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) processing timelines. Third quarter revenues are derived from taxable sales through January 2023, received in July through March.  Property Tax is the second largest General Fund revenue source, but most of this tax is received from the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller in the third (mid-January) and fourth (mid-May) quarters. This Third Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2022-23
1 distribution schedule is why property tax revenue is tracking low at 57 percent in the following table and graph.
 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as hotel tax, is derived from payments received by the City through March for hotel stays through February; therefore, the following charts only reflect two months of TOT revenues collected after the Measure C increase was effective.

General Fund operating expenditures through the third quarter are 71 percent of the budget. Salary savings realized as the result of vacant positions and continued supply chain delays contributed to the lower spending rate compared to the percentage of the year elapsed (75 percent). All General Fund Departments are anticipated to end the year on or below budget.

General Fund: Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison

Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
(July 1 – March 31)
Revenue Type

Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Revenues
Balance
Remaining
% of
Budget
Collected
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 74,091,000 $ 41,140,243 $ (32,950,757) 56% Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 28,100,000 17,381,503 (10,718,497) 62% Sales and Use Tax - State Aid for Public Safety 1,622,000 1,167,887 (454,113) 72% Property Tax 64,659,000 36,689,357 (27,984,643) 57%
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 4,000,000 2,997,010 (1,002,990) 75% Parks, Recreation & Library Programs 4,188,040 3,048,590 (1,139,450) 73% Building Permits 2,920,836 2,477,414 (443,422) 85%
Plan Check Fees 2,537,000 2,726,800 189,800 107%
Engineering Inspection Fees 353,196 362,506 9,310 103%
Other Revenues 14,331,957 11,401,388 (2,915,569) 80%
Total

$ 196,803,029 $ 119,392,698 $(77,410,331) 61%
2 Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax
The City's Bradley Burns and Measure B sales and use tax revenues collected through the third quarter are 56 percent and 62 percent of the budget estimates, respectively. Sales tax revenue received through the third quarter is derived from taxable sales through January 2023.

To date, the City has received Bradley Burns and Measure B sales tax distributions from taxable sales through June. These amounts total $70,753,558 in Bradley Burns sales tax and $28,827,172 in Measure B sales tax.

The latest sales tax data indicate more slowing in sales and use tax growth than anticipated. The slower growth is related to a change in consumer behavior from taxable goods to other areas that were constrained during the pandemic such as services and travel as well as uncertainties around inflation, interest rates, and the potential for a slowdown or recession.

Fortunately, when developing the FY2022-23 budget, staff projected that sales and use tax would end the year between the City sales tax consultant's conservative and most-likely estimates; therefore, the variance from budget is only 2.6 percent, or $2.6 million, under estimates. 56%
62%
72%
57%
75%
73%
85%
107%
103%
80%
61%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns
Sales and Use Tax - Measure B
Sales and Use Tax - Public Safety
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Parks, Recreation & Library
Building Permits
Plan Check Fees
Engineering Inspection Fees
Other Revenues
Total
General Fund Operating Revenues
Cumulative Percentage of Revenue Collected
(July 1 – March 31)
Amended
Budget
3 The graphs below show Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales and Use Tax revenues budget compared to actuals through June.

Additional Sales Tax Information: The City's sales tax consultant prepares a report on sales tax and business activity each quarter. The report lists the top 25 sales tax remitters, a summary of cash receipts, and sales tax data by economic category. A copy of the report is attached.

Secured, Unsecured, and
Supplemental Property Tax
Property tax revenue for FY2022-23 is based on the
assessed valuation as of January 1, 2022. The City
receives most of this funding in the third and fourth
quarters of the fiscal year. Based on the information
provided by the Auditor-Controller, the City's property tax revenue for FY23 will be $67.6 million, exceeding budget estimates by approximately $3 million.

Property Tax budget compared to actuals through June 2023 $74.1
$70.8
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Budget Actuals Millions
Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax Revenues
$28.1 $28.8
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Budget Actuals Millions
Measure B Sales & Use Tax
$64.7 $67.6
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Budget Actuals Millions
Property Tax Revenues
4 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Through the end of the third quarter, TOT (or “hotel tax”) revenues are at 75 percent of estimates ($3 million for the months of July through February). TOT collected through June 2023 totals $5.5 million, 37 percent higher than budget estimates.

On November 8, 2022, Roseville voters approved Measure C to increase the City’s TOT rate from 6 percent to 10 percent.

The 10 percent tax rate went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Based on the final TOT revenue of nearly $4.5 million in FY2021-22, the higher rate would have generated an additional $2.9 million of tax revenue for the General Fund last year.

Parks, Recreation & Library (PRL) Programs
Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) program revenues are 73 percent of the budget for the third quarter. These revenues fluctuate throughout the year due to the seasonality of programming. Based on the current results, staff anticipates PRL is on track to meet its FY2022-23 revenue goals.

Building Permits, Plan Check Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees Building permit, plan check, and engineering inspection fees are higher than budget through the third quarter due to sustained increases in the City's development activity. Staff anticipates that revenues will remain higher than budgeted, especially in the final months of the fiscal year since development activity remained strong.

Other Revenues
Other revenues include reimbursements from the State and developers; property transfer tax; business license tax; rental payments; and animal licensing, passport processing, permit, franchise, and other fees. As of the end of the third quarter, revenues in this category are tracking higher than target at 80 percent of budget estimates due to seasonality and timing of revenue collection. Staff anticipates these revenues will end the fiscal year on or above the budget target.
$4.0
$5.5
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
Budget Actuals Millions
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
5 General Fund: Operating Expenditures

Budget to Cumulative Expenditure Comparison
(July 1 – March 31)
Department
Amended
Budget
Cumulative
Expenditures
Balance
Remaining
% of
Budget
Expended
Police $ 55,485,587 $ 40,117,280 $ 15,368,307 72%
Fire 42,547,380 31,418,785 11,128,595 74%
Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) 31,549,551 21,384,821 10,164,730 68% General Government* 12,081,446 8,329,321 3,752,125 69%
Development Services 11,291,582 7,589,554 3,702,028 67% Public Works 10,354,465 6,243,158 4,111,307 60%
Economic Development & Housing 1,158,171 921,428 236,743 80% Total $ 164,468,182 $ 116,004,347 $ 48,463,835 71%
(1) General Government includes the following departments: City Council, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk, Finance, Public Affairs and Communications, and Human Resources.

General Fund expenditures are tracking below estimates compared to the budget at 71 percent through the third quarter of the fiscal year. The slightly lower spending rate (71 percent versus 75 percent of the year elapsed) is primarily due to cost savings from vacant positions in Police, Fire, PRL, Development Services, Public Works, and other General Fund departments, as well as reduced spending due to the timing of expenditures and supply chain delays.

The expenditure budget consumption for the Police and Fire Departments is close to target at 72 percent and 74 percent, respectively. These departments expect to be on budget through the end of the fiscal year. 72%
74%
68%
69%
67%
60%
80%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Police
Fire
PRL
General Government
Development Services
Public Works
Economic Development
Total
General Fund Department Operating Expenditures
Percentage of Budget Expended
(July 1 – March 31)
6 PRL expenditures are at 68 percent of the budget through the third quarter, primarily due to temporary and fulltime position vacancies.

The lower-than-budget expenditure trend (67 percent of budget consumption) for Development Services is related to vacancies in the Building Inspection, Engineering, and Code Enforcement Divisions. Additionally, due to the post-pandemic office environment and training changes, Development Services is experiencing expense savings in various material and supply expenses, such as office supplies, fuel, office equipment, and training and development. Staff anticipates that expenses will increase slightly in the fourth quarter but remain under budget overall through the end of the fiscal year.

Public Works expenditures are 60 percent of the budget through the third quarter due to salary savings from temporary and full-time position vacancies, and lower-than-expected materials, services, and supplies expenses.

The Economic Development Department is tracking at 80 percent of the budget through the third quarter, primarily due to the timing associated with processing reimbursements for labor costs in the Housing Division.

The Housing Division is budgeted in the General Fund and reimbursed from several housing-related funds (e.g., Housing Authority, Housing Choice Voucher, and Community Development Block Grant). Staff will process the necessary reimbursements to fully reimburse the General Fund by the end of the fiscal year.

Enterprise Funds: Operating Revenues and Expenditures
Revenues
Operating revenues in the
Electric Fund are on target
through the third quarter.

Electric revenues are
projected to be above budget
through the end of the fiscal
year due to increased retail
sales attributable to strongerthan-expected customer usage due to warmer-than-average temperatures.

In the Environmental Utilities Department, Water revenues are tracking under budget by 4 percent due to lowerthan-expected usage during the winter months. Wastewater revenues are slightly over budget at 77 percent due to reimbursements from regional partners—this amount might be adjusted at year-end after a true-up calculation.

Waste Services revenues are slightly over budget target through the third quarter due to increased residential consumption and new development.

The larger budget to actual variances in the Transit and Transportation enterprise funds are due to the timing associated with their primary funding streams – most of these revenues are realized in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Transit operating revenue losses in passenger fares due to low ridership persist during FY2022-23. 7 Transit operations will continue to receive support from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 during the fiscal year to offset revenue losses.

Revenues in the Youth Development Fund are at 71 percent of the budget through the third quarter of the fiscal year. The $6.8 million cumulative revenues include a $1.8 million subsidy from the City’s allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. Without this subsidy, revenues in the Youth Development Fund would be tracking at 64 percent of budget. Enrollment trends continue to improve.

Expenditures
Operating expenditures for
the Electric Fund are under
budget through the third
quarter, primarily due to the
timing of expenditures and
lower power supply costs
derived from a substantial
increase in hydroelectric
energy from the Calaveras and South Feather projects.

Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services Operations expenditures are tracking lower than budget due to vacancies and savings in professional services, training, and travel. In addition, Water Operations expenditures are lower than budget due to reduced water purchase costs from lower-than-expected usage during the winter months.

Transit and Transportation expenditures are lower than anticipated due to the timing of contracted services and vehicle purchases being delayed through the end of the year. Staff anticipates ending the year slightly under budget due to vacancies and savings in materials, services, and supplies expenses.

Expenses for the Youth Development Fund are at 57 percent through the third quarter of the fiscal year. While enrollment trends are still recovering, PRL staff continues to take measures to reduce operational costs to offset any revenue shortfall.

Other Revenue
The table presented shows
revenues in the Fire
Facilities, Public Facilities,
and Strategic Improvement
Funds through the third
quarter of FY2021-22 and FY2022-23. The revenue estimates for these three funds are generally based on a multi-year trend analysis of forecasted single and multi-family residential units, commercial development, and prior-year revenue collections. The Public Facilities Fund is at 109 percent of the revenue target due to the 8 sustained increase in development activity throughout the City. Revenues for the Fire Facilities and Strategic Improvement Funds ended the third quarter close to target at 72 percent and 71 percent, respectively. Staff anticipates that revenues in these funds will end the year on or above the budget target due to the increase in development activity during the spring and summer months. Cumulative revenue in the Strategic Improvement Fund is significantly lower than the FY2021-22 actuals because the prior year’s actuals included a $2.5 million transfer from the Environmental Utilities Department for 243.4 acres of vacant land for future operational requirements.
9 Top 25 Sales Tax Remitters California sales tax cash receipts decreased by 0.2% from the same quarter last year. In this jurisdiction sales tax cash ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS receipts increased by 1.8% from the same quarter last year AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE due to a increase of $27,411,000 in Taxable Sales.

AUTONATION HONDA
BMW OF ROSEVILLE Cash Receipts Quarter Annual
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES Roseville 1.8% -0.1%
CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS Placer Countywide Pool 13.7% 4.3% COSTCO WHOLESALE Placer Countywide -1.8% 0.1%
FUTURE FORD Sacramento Valley Region -3.9% 0.9%
FUTURE NISSAN Statewide -0.2% 3.9%

GMC RELIABLE
HOME DEPOT Annualized Percent Change in Sales Tax Cash Receipts

LEXUS OF ROSEVILLE

MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE

MCKESSON MEDICAL -SURGICAL

NIELLO ACURA

NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORE

ROSEVILLE CHEVROLET

ROSEVILLE HYUNDAI

ROSEVILLE KIA

ROSEVILLE TOYOTA & SCION

SAFEWAY SERVICE STATIONS

SAM'S CLUB

TARGET STORES

VANDERBEEK MOTORS

WAL MART STORES
Business Activity Quarter Annual Quarter Annual Quarter Annual General Retail -2.4% 4.4% -4.6% -0.1% -1.1% 2.0%
Food Products 6.4% 8.7% 6.4% 8.2% 5.0% 7.6%
Transportation -3.1% -1.7% -4.0% 2.4% -4.7% 5.6%
Construction -6.8% 0.7% -14.4% 1.2% -7.4% 2.1%
Business To Business -4.5% 5.8% 3.3% 9.1% -4.0% 4.9%
TOTAL LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY -1.9% 2.6% -3.0% 3.3% -2.0% 4.5% COUNTYWIDE POOL ACTIVITY 17.8% 4.2% 1.9% 2.3% -2.9% 0.3% City of Roseville
Roseville Sacramento Valley California
Quarterly Report on Sales Tax and Business Activity
1st Quarter 2023 in Review
-12.0%
-6.0%

0.0%

6.0%

12.0%

18.0%

24.0%

30.0%
Roseville Placer Countywide Statewide
Placer Countywide Pool 13.7% 4.3%
10 Roseville
Annual Per Capita Sales Tax
Adjusted for Inflation
(Constant 2019 $)
City of Roseville
News
Economic Activity: Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.6% in the first quarter of 2023. U.S. inflation decreased to 5.0% in March of 2023 compared to the same month a year ago.

California's headline inflation was 5.4% year over year as of February of 2023. (DIR, BEA, BLS, April Finance Bulletin)
Employment: The U.S. unemployment rate decreased slightly to 3.5% in March of 2023. California's unemployment rate increased slightly to 4.4% in March of 2023, 0.3 percentage point higher than November of 2022 rate of 4.1%. (BLS, March Finance Bulletin)
Personal Income: U.S. personal income increased by 6.2% for the first quarter of 2023, compared to same quarter previous year. Compensation of employees increased by 6.9% while personal current taxes decreased by 6.5% from the previous period, resulting in a net gain of 8.4% in disposable income. The increase of disposable income generated a 20.6% increase in US personal savings for the first quarter of 2023, compared to same quarter previous year. (BEA)
2019Q1 $386 2020Q1 $376 2021Q1 $371 2022Q1 $419 2023Q1 $402 $46 $51 $73 $71 $69 $2 $2
$38 $2 $2 $2 $43
$31 $35 $35 $20 $20 $22 $23 $22
$123 $113
$116 $133 $122
$45 $43
$38
$46
$47
$112 $103 $88
$108
$105
General Retail
Food Products
Transportation
Construction
Business To Business
Miscellaneous
County Pool
(Cash Basis)
11 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2928
File #: 0206-03-01 & 0409
Title:

Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services), Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 11.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends the the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville of Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District, Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax and Submitting Levy of Tax to Qualified Electors.

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville Declaring Results of Special Annexation Election, Determining Validity of Prior Proceedings, and Directing Recording of Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien City of Roseville, Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) Annexation No. 9

BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the developer's request for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 2.5-acre parcel into ten (10) single family residential lots. Per the conditions of approval, the subject property shall be annexed into the existing infill Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 4 (Public Facilities) prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, for the purpose of covering the costs of the ongoing maintenance obligations. The List of Authorized Services can be found in the attached documents. Parcels within this subdivision will be assigned the maximum tax rate associated within Tax Zone 2 of the Rate and Method of Apportionment, also attached.

On August 16, 2023, Council approved a Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory to Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 4 (Public Services) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein and set September 20, 2023, as the date to conduct a public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
The annexation of property into infill CFD No. 4 will not impact the City's General Fund. The property owners will pay a special tax, sufficient to pay the maintenance costs of the CFD, to be levied annually on the parcels of real property within the CFD.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 23-376
Resolution 23-377
Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien
Notice of Public Hearing

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-376

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

OF ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT,

AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX AND

SUBMITTING LEVY OF TAX TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
WHEREAS, this Council on August 16, 2023 adopted its Resolution No. 23-344, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville of Intention to Annex Territory to Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein” (the “Resolution of Intention”), stating its intention to annex certain territory to the City’s Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Resolution of Intention, incorporating a description and map of the proposed boundaries of the territory to be annexed to the CFD and stating the public services to be provided and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the CFD to finance the public services for the CFD, are as set forth in Resolution No. 05-227, adopted by the City Council of the City on May 18, 2005 (the “Resolution of Formation”);
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, this Council held a noticed public hearing as required by the Act and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed annexation of territory to the CFD and at such hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the annexation of territory to the CFD and the levy of said special taxes within the area proposed to be annexed were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of such hearing, written protests had not been filed against the proposed annexation of territory to the CFD by (i) 50% of more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing in the existing CFD, or (ii) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing in the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD, or (iii) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD; and WHEREAS, Annexation Map No. 9 to the CFD, showing the territory proposed to be annexed has been recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Placer and is on file with the City Clerk, and reference is hereby made thereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Roseville resolves:

1. All prior proceedings taken by this Council with respect to the CFD and the proposed annexation of territory thereto have been duly considered and are hereby determined -2-
to be valid and in conformity with the Act, and the CFD has been validly established pursuant to the Act.

2. The description and map of the boundaries of the territory to be annexed to CFD, as described in said Annexation Map No. 9 to the CFD on file with the Clerk are hereby finally approved, are incorporated herein by reference, and shall be included within the boundaries of the CFD, and said territory is hereby ordered annexed to the CFD, subject to voter approval of the levy of the special taxes therein as hereinafter provided.

3. The provisions of the Resolution of Formation and the Resolution of Intention, each as heretofore adopted by this Council are by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.

4. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the proposition of the levy of the special tax within the territory to be annexed to the CFD shall be submitted to the voters of the area to be annexed to the CFD at an election called therefor as hereinafter provided.

5. This Council hereby finds that fewer than 12 persons have been registered to vote within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the hearing heretofore conducted and concluded by this Council for the purposes of these annexation proceedings. Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, this Council finds that for purposes of these proceedings the qualified electors are the landowners within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD and that the vote shall be by said landowners, each having one vote for each acre or portion thereof such landowner owns in the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD.

6. Pursuant to Section 53327 of the Act, the election shall be conducted by messenger or mail-delivered ballot pursuant to Section 4000 et seq. of the California Elections Code, except that the election date shall be established in accordance with Government Code Section 53326(a).

7. The Council hereby calls a special election to consider the measure described in the ballot referred to in paragraph 8 below, which election shall be held on September 20, 2023 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in the regular meeting place of this City Council, being the City Council Chambers, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California.

8. The City Clerk is hereby appointed as the election official to conduct the election and cause to be provided to each landowner(s) in the territory to be annexed to the CFD, a ballot in the form of Exhibit A hereto, which form of ballot is hereby approved.

9. The City Clerk shall accept the ballots of the qualified electors received prior to the holding of the public hearing, whether received by mail or by personal delivery.

10. This Council hereby further finds that the provision of Section 53326 of the Act requiring a minimum of 90 days to elapse before such election is for the protection of voters, that the voters have waived such requirement and the date for the election hereinabove specified is established accordingly.
* * * * * *
-3-
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Roseville, California, at a regularly scheduled meeting thereof, held on the _______ day of __________, 2023 by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Roseville
A-1
Exhibit A

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)

OFFICIAL BALLOT

SPECIAL TAX ANNEXATION ELECTION
This ballot is for the special landowner election. You must return this ballot in the enclosed postage paid envelope to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Roseville no later than 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, either by mail or in person. The City Clerk’s office is located at City Hall, City of Roseville, Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, 95678.

To Vote, mark a cross (X) in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void.

The estimated maximum amount of money raised annually by this measure is expected to be $______per year (assuming Fiscal Year 2023-2024 special tax rates), upon full build-out of the parcels annexing into the CFD, subject to escalation each year, based upon the rate and for the duration of the special tax set forth in the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the CFD.

If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the City Clerk of the City of Roseville and obtain another.

BALLOT MEASURE: Shall the measure pursuant to which the City of Roseville, by and for its Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”), is authorized to levy special taxes within the territory annexed to the CFD pursuant to and as described in the Resolution of the Council of the City of Roseville of Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District, Authorizing Levy of Special Tax Therein and Submitting Levy Of Tax to Qualified Electors, adopted by such Council on September 20, 2023 be adopted?
YES:

NO:

By execution in the space provided below, you also confirm your waiver of the time limit pertaining to the conduct of the election and any requirement for notice of election and analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measure, as such waivers are described and permitted by Section 53326(a) and 5327(b) of the California Government Code.

Number of Votes:

Property Owner:

By:

Name:

Title:

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-377

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ANNEXATION ELECTION, DETERMINING

VALIDITY OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF

AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
WHEREAS, in proceedings heretofore conducted by the Council pursuant to the MelloRoos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”), this Council has heretofore adopted a resolution calling a special election of the qualified landowner electors in the territory of land proposed to be annexed to Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the resolution which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference, the special election has been held and the City Clerk has filed a Canvass of Votes Cast in Special Election, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed the Canvass and hereby approves it.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Roseville resolves:

1. The issue presented at the special election was the levy of a special tax within the territory annexed to the CFD, to be levied in accordance with the formula heretofore approved by this Council as described in the resolution adopted on the date hereof entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville of Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District, Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax and Submitting Levy of Tax to Qualified Electors,” adopted on the date hereof.

2. Pursuant to the Canvass on file with the City Clerk, the issue presented at the special election was approved by the landowners of the territory annexed to the CFD by more than two-thirds of the landowners voting at the special election.

3. Pursuant to the voter approval, said annexed territory to the CFD is hereby declared to be fully annexed to and part of the CFD and this Council may levy special taxes therein as heretofore provided in these proceedings.

4. It is hereby found that all prior proceedings and actions taken by this Council pursuant to the CFD and the territory annexed thereto were valid and in conformity with the Act.

Within 15 days of the date hereof, the City Clerk shall execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Placer, an amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien as required by Section 3117.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. -2-
* * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Roseville, California, at a regularly scheduled meeting thereof, held on the _______ day of __________, 2023 by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Roseville
A-1

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)

CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULT OF ELECTION
I hereby certify that on this date, I canvassed the returns of the election held on this date, in the territory annexed to Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) of the City of Roseville which election is designated as the Special Tax Annexation Election, and the total number of ballots cast in the territory to be annexed and the total number of votes cast for and against the measure are as follows and the totals as shown for and against the measure are full, true and correct:

Qualified
Landowner Votes
Votes Cast YES NO
City of Roseville
Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
Special Tax Annexation Election,
September 20, 2023 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BALLOT MEASURE: Shall the measure pursuant to which the City of Roseville, by and for its Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”), is authorized to levy special taxes within the territory annexed to the CFD pursuant to and as described in the Resolution of the Council of the City of Roseville of Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District, Authorizing Levy of Special Tax Therein and Submitting Levy Of Tax to Qualified Electors, adopted by such Council on
September 20, 2023 be adopted?
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND this ____ day of , 2023.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
By:

City Clerk

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street,
Roseville, CA 95678

AMENDMENT TO NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN
City of Roseville
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3117.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of California and the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, section 53311, et. seq., of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Roseville (the “City”), County of Placer, State of California, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of a special tax which the City is authorized to levy for Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”), County of Placer, State of California, is hereby imposed on the property described herein. The special tax secured by this lien is authorized to be levied for the purpose of paying the costs of public services in and according to the rate and method of apportionment set forth in that certain Notice of Special Tax Lien heretofore recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Placer, State of California on June 21, 2005, as Document No. 2015-0079310, to which recorded Notice of Special Tax Lien and amendment thereto reference is hereby made and the provisions of which are hereby incorporated by this reference.

This Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien amends and supplements the Notice of Special Tax Lien to add to the territory of Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) of the City Roseville the lands set forth in that certain “Annexation Map 9 to Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services), County of Placer, State of California – 1028 Main Street Subdivision,” heretofore recorded on _________ at Book _ Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page _ in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Placer, State of California.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 53324 of the Government Code, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Roseville, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of a special tax which the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California is authorized to levy is hereby imposed.

The special tax secured by this lien is authorized to be levied for the purpose of paying for public services as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and the incidental expenses related thereto.

The assessor’s tax parcel(s) numbers of all parcels or any portion thereof which have been annexed to Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services), as shown in the Annexation Map referred to above, are thus included in this Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien, together with the name(s) of the owner(s) thereof, as they appear on the latest secured assessment roll as of the date of recording hereof or as are otherwise known to the City are as set forth in Exhibit C hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

The special tax is authorized to be levied against the parcel(s) described in Exhibit C hereto, which parcel(s) has been annexed into Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services), City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, which has been officially formed and the lien of the special tax is a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the special tax and which shall continue in force and effect unless the special tax obligation is canceled in accordance with law or the special tax ceases to be levied and a notice of cessation of special tax is recorded in accordance with Section 53330.5 of the Government Code.

The rate, method of apportionment and the manner of collection of the authorized special tax is shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. The rate, method of apportionment, and the manner of collection of the authorized special tax does not contain conditions under which the obligation to pay the special tax may be prepaid and permanently satisfied.

Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the county recorder, the obligation to pay the special tax levy shall become a lien upon all nonexempt real property within the Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services), City of Roseville, in accordance with Section 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code.

For further information concerning the current and estimated future tax liability of owners or purchasers of real property subject to this special tax lien, interested persons should contact the City Administrator of the City of Roseville, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678, telephone number (916) 774-5319.

Dated: As of , 2023.

By:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
EXHIBIT A – List of Authorized Services
EXHIBIT B – Rate and Method of Apportionment
EXHIBIT C – Property Owner and Parcel Number

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivsion)
List of Authorized Services
The Maintenance Obligations to be finance, in whole or in part, by this CFD shall consist of the following:

1. Maintenance of the landscape corridors and paseos designed to serve the project areas within the CFD, including but not limited to, soundwalls, trees, bus shelters, autumn leaf cleanup and street sweeping, landscaping, the City and neighborhood entry features and the landscape median;

2. Maintenance of all public pedestrian or bicycle pathways;

3. Maintenance of the Open Space Buffer Areas, Park Preserve areas and any lots that will be conveyed to the City, with such maintenance to include fire breaks and fire safety measures;

4. Maintenance of landscaping, and irrigation, for neighborhood park improvements, maintenance, and repair and replacement;

5. Maintenance of any sound attenuation wall, berm, and related on-site sound attenuation improvements constructed as part of the CFD;

6. Maintenance of storm drainage, stormwater management and drainage system facilities; and

7. Performance and management of any environmental mitigation monitoring, including the annual review thereof.

General City Costs
 City and County costs associated with the setting, levy, and collection of the Special Taxes.
 City costs associated with contract administration.

Sinking Funds
The Special Taxes may be collected and set-aside in designated sinking funds to be used by the City to fund miscellaneous costs related to any of the items described above as well as vandalism repair and future repairs to and replacement of landscaping, entry monuments and features, wall and fences, and other improvements the maintenance of which is funded by CFD No. 4.

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 4
(PUBLIC SERVICES)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax applicable to each Assessor’s Parcel in Community Facilities District No. 4 (Public Services) [herein “CFD No. 4”] shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of CFD No. 4, through the application of the appropriate Special Tax rate, as described below. All of the property in CFD No. 4, unless exempted by law or by the provisions of Section E below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided, including property subsequently annexed to CFD No. 4 unless a separate Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax is adopted for the annexation area.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Acreage” or “Acre” means the land area making up an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final subdivision map or other parcel map recorded at the County Recorder’s Office.
“Administrative Expenses” means the costs incurred by the City to determine, levy and collect the Special Tax, including salaries of City employees and fees of consultants and the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes upon the general tax rolls; preparation of required reports, and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the Finance Director.
“Administrator” means the person or firm designated by the City to administer the Special Taxes according to this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax. “Annual Tax Escalation Factor” means an annual increase in the Maximum Special Tax following the Base Year in an amount not to exceed four percent (4%). “Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel number.
“Authorized Services” means the public services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 4 as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD was formed. “Base Year” means Fiscal Year 2005-06.
“City” means the City of Roseville.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City of Roseville, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 4.
“County” means the County of Placer.
“Developed Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Taxable Property for which a use permit or building permit for new construction of a residential or non-residential structure was issued prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year. “Finance Director” means the Finance Director for the City of Roseville or his or her designee. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting on July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “Land Use Class” means, for a particular Parcel, Non-Residential Property, MultiFamily Property, Single Family Detached Property, or Single Family Attached Property. “Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied on Taxable Property in any Fiscal Year. “Multi-Family Property” means any Parcel of Developed Property for which a building permit or use permit has been issued for construction of a residential structure with Units that are offered for rent to the general public.
“Non-Residential Property” means any Parcel of Developed Property within CFD No. 4 that is not Multi-Family Property, Single Family Detached Residential Property, or Single Family Attached Property.
“Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 4 that is owned by the federal government, State of California, County, City, or other public agency. “Single Family Attached Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels in CFD No. 4 for which a building permit was issued for construction of a residential structure consisting of two or more Units that share common walls and are offered as for-sale Units, including such residential structures that meet the statutory definition of a condominium contained in Civil Code Section 1351.
“Single Family Detached Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels in CFD No. 4 for which a building permit was issued for construction of a Unit that does not share a common wall with another Unit.
“Special Tax Requirement” means the amount of revenue needed in any Fiscal Year to pay for the following: (i) Authorized services, maintenance expenses, sinking fund payments and capital reserves authorized to be funded by CFD No. 4, (ii) Administrative Expenses, (iii) amounts needed to cure any delinquencies in the payment of Special Taxes which have occurred or (based on delinquency rates in prior years) may be expected to occur in the Fiscal Year in which the tax will be collected.
“Special Tax” means any tax levied pursuant to the Act on property within CFD No. 4. “Taxable Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 4 which are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section F below. “Taxable Public Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels in CFD No. 4 that had, in prior Fiscal Years, been taxed as Developed Property and subsequently came under the ownership of a Public Agency.
“Tax Zone” means one of the twenty-eight (28) mutually exclusive tax zones identified in Attachment 1 of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, as may be updated to include new Parcels added to the CFD as a result of future annexations (which may be noncontiguous with Parcels already in the Tax Zone).
“Unit” means an individual single-family detached unit or an individual residential unit within a duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhome, condominium, or apartment structure. “Undeveloped Property” means all Parcels of Taxable Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 4 that are not Developed Property, as determined by the Administrator.

B. DATA COLLECTION FOR ANNUAL TAX LEVY
Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall identify the current Assessor’s Parcel number for all Parcels of Taxable Property within CFD No. 4 and shall determine within which Tax Zone each Assessor’s Parcel is located. Upon each annexation of property into CFD No. 4, the Administrator shall update Attachment 1 to include the new Assessor’s Parcel number(s).

Based on review of building permit records for property within the CFD, each Parcel shall be categorized as either Developed Property or Undeveloped Property for purposes of levying the Special Tax pursuant to Section E below. For Single Family Attached Property or Multi-Family Property, the number of Units shall be determined by referencing the condominium plan, apartment plan, site plan or other development plan for the property.

If a Parcel in the CFD is rezoned prior to such Parcel becoming Developed Property, the City may in its sole discretion, move the Parcel to a different Tax Zone based on the new Land Use Class that can be developed on the Parcel after the rezone. If a Parcel rezones after the Parcel has been taxed as Developed Property in prior Fiscal Years, the City can either continue to apply the Maximum Special Tax to the Parcel that had applied prior to the rezone or, in the City’s sole discretion, allow for the Parcel to be moved to a different Tax Zone based on the Land Use Class that will be allowed after the rezone is approved.

C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX
The following Maximum Special Tax rates apply to all Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 4:

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
(FISCAL YEAR 2005-06, REVISED 2006-07) *
Tax Zone
Maximum Special Tax
(Fiscal Year 2005-06) *
1 $ 50 per Unit
2 $ 75 per Unit
3 $ 100 per Unit
4 $ 125 per Unit
5 $ 150 per Unit
6 $ 175 per Unit
7 $ 200 per Unit
8 $ 225 per Unit
9 $ 250 per Unit
10 $ 275 per Unit
11 $ 300 per Unit
12 $ 350 per Unit
13 $ 375 per Unit
14 $ 250 per Acre
15 $ 350 per Acre
16 $ 475 per Acre
17 $ 600 per Acre
18 $ 750 per Acre
19 $ 850 per Acre
20 $ 1,000 per Acre
21 $ 1,050 per Acre
22 $ 1,500 per Acre
23 $ 2,000 per Acre
24 $ 2,500 per Acre
25 $ 3,000 per Acre
26 $ 3,500 per Acre
27 $ 4,000 per Acre
28 $ 4,500 per Acre
29 $ 5,000 per Acre
30 $ 5,500 per Acre
31 $ 6,000 per Acre
* Beginning July 1, 2006 and each July 1 thereafter, all of the Maximum Special Taxes shown in Table 1 above shall be adjusted by applying the Annual Tax Escalation Factor.

D. METHOD OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF SPECIAL TAX
Each Fiscal Year, the Special Tax shall be levied as follows until the amount of the levy equals the Special Tax Requirement for that Fiscal Year:

First: The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Developed Property up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax determined for each category of Developed Property within each Tax Zone until the amount levied is equal to the Special Tax Requirement for the Fiscal Year.

Second: If additional revenue is needed after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax that had applied to the Parcel prior to the Parcel becoming Public Property until the amount levied is equal to the Special Tax Requirement for the Fiscal Year.

The Special Tax for CFD No. 4 shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes provided, however, that the City may (under the authority of Government Code Section 53340) collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet CFD No. 4 financial obligations and the Special Tax shall be equally subject to foreclosure if delinquent.

E. LIMITATIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property that is not Taxable Public Property.

F. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULA
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that does not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Taxes. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be left to the City’s discretion. Interpretations may be made by the City by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.

ATTACHMENT 1

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
(FISCAL YEAR 2005-06, REVISED 2006-07)*

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
Tax Zone
Maximum Special Tax
(Fiscal Year 2005-06)*
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16 017-250-005 (017-117-007,011,014) 71 ac
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

ATTACHMENT 2

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
ANNEXATION NO. 5 (OLD AUBURN RANCH)
Tax Zone
Assessor's Parcels
Included in Tax
Zone*
Proposed
Units
Fiscal Year in
Which APN was
Added to CFD No. 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 467-090-002-000 32 2015/16
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

ATTACHMENT 3

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
ANNEXATION NO. 6 (FOOTHILLS AMERICAN DREAM)
Tax Zone
Assessor's Parcels
Included in Tax
Zone*
Proposed
Units
Fiscal Year in
Which APN was
Added to CFD No. 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 475-050-019-000 62 2016/2017
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

ATTACHMENT 4

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
ANNEXATION NO. 7 (THE VILLAGES AT KIT CARSON)
Tax Zone
Assessor's Parcels
Included in Tax
Zone*
Proposed
Units
Fiscal Year in
Which APN was
Added to CFD No. 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 048-350-015-000;
048-350-016-000;
048-350-018-000;
048-350-021-000;
048-350-022-000 21 2019/20
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

ATTACHMENT 5

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
ANNEXATION NO. 8 (415 EAST STREET SUBDIVISION)
Tax Zone
Assessor's Parcels
Included in Tax
Zone*
Proposed
Units
Fiscal Year in
Which APN was
Added to CFD No. 4
1 2
3 4 013-030-009-000 10 2020/21
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

ATTACHMENT 6

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES

IDENTIFICATION OF TAX ZONES
ANNEXATION NO. 9 (1028 MAIN STREET SUBDIVISION)
Tax Zone
Assessor's Parcels
Included in Tax
Zone*
Proposed
Units
Fiscal Year in
Which APN was
Added to CFD No. 4
1 2 015-080-030-000 10 2023/24
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 The property identified by the APNs listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor's Parcels or changes to Assessor's Parcel numbers in future Fiscal Years.

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
Property Owner and Assessor Parcel Number
Name(s) of Property Owner Assessor Parcel Number(s)
Chad Phillips and 015-080-030-000
Kasha Phillips

NOTICE OF HEARING

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Community Facilities District No. 4
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 9 (1028 Main Street Subdivision)
Notice is hereby given by the City of Roseville (the “City”) with respect to its Community Facilities District No. No. 4 (Public Services) (the “CFD”) that on August 16, 2023, the City Council of the City, as the legislative body for the CFD, adopted its Resolution No. 23-, “A Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory to Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein” (the “Resolution of Intention”). Reference is hereby made to the Resolution of Intention, on file with the City Clerk of the City for further particulars. The following is a summary of the provisions of the Resolution of Intention.

Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the Council determined that the public convenience and necessity require that certain territory, as more particularly described in the Resolution of Intention, be annexed to the existing CFD, all as provided in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Section 53311 et seq. of California Government Code) (the “Act’). The Resolution of Intention provides that the special taxes heretofore caused to be levied in the CFD for financing the public services provided through the CFD shall be levied in the territory proposed to be annexed, subject to public hearing and landowner election proceedings as specified in the Act.

Notice is further given that Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter, in the City Council Chambers, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678, are the time and place when and where the City Council of the City, as the legislative body for the CFD, will conduct a public hearing on the annexation of the territory described in the Resolution of Intention to the CFD and finally consider and determine whether the public convenience and necessity require the annexation of said territory to the CFD and the levy of special taxes therein.

Notice is further given that at the hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for and against the annexation of said territory to the CFD or the levying of special taxes within the territory proposed to be annexed will be heard.

Dated as of August ____, 2023
City Clerk
City of Roseville

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2947
File #: 0400-02 & 0401-02-02
Title: Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023
Contact: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5274 [email protected] Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 11.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Sign ordinance Chapter 17.06 regarding wall signs for corner tenants.

At the August 24, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Downtown Code Chapter 2, 3, 4, and 7 regarding permitted land uses, parking requirements, Vernon Street District Standards, and Downtown murals.

2. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.86 regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

BACKGROUND
Staff annually reviews the Zoning Ordinance to identify needed maintenance updates, including in response to state legislation, but has not prepared a maintenance update for the City’s Downtown Code in several years. Staff is proposing updates to the Downtown Code consistent with legislation passed over the last several years, and to bring it into consistency with similar changes made in the Zoning Ordinance. A more detailed description of the changes is contained within the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1). The updates are relatively minor, and consist of the following changes (see Exhibit A):

Downtown Code Chapter 2 (Land Use and Zoning): This update adds community care facilities (small and large) and long-term care facilities (small and large) as uses permitted in districts where residential uses are permitted, adds low barrier navigation centers as a permitted use where multifamily uses are permitted, adds electric vehicle charging centers as a use type (to reflect this emerging new use), modifies “gasoline sales” to “fuel sales” to recognize alternative fuels, and adds a table note clarifying that transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted.

These changes were adopted by City Council as part of annual Zoning Ordinance updates in 2022 and 2023.

Downtown Code Chapter 3 (Regulatory Incentives): This update adds a note indicating that parking standards may be reduced by sections of the Government Code related to density bonuses, proximity to transit, and other sections of law.

Downtown Code Chapter 4 (District Standards): The existing Section 4.6.2 requires 80% of ground-floor space be retail and 20% be office on Vernon Street. As the non-residential market has shifted this provision has become a barrier to development and redevelopment.

Staff is recommending the requirement be modified to require 80% of ground floor space be non-residential. This preserves the ground-floor space as a predominantly activated space, while providing for more flexibility of uses. On June 7, 2023, the City Council enacted Emergency Ordinance No. 6667 which temporarily suspended the provisions of Section 4.6.2 to allow staff time to draft the currently proposed language.

Chapter 7 (Downtown Specific Ordinances): The existing Section 7.11 relating to Downtown Murals was designed to focus mural development around imagery related to historic Roseville, includes large sections of subjective language that have been difficult to implement, or provisions that have hampered beneficial mural projects. Blue Line Arts administers a mural program for the Downtown area, and recommended revisions to the section. Staff worked with Blue Line Arts for over a year on revisions to simplify and clarify the section. Both City staff and Blue Line Arts staff are comfortable with the proposed changes.

Section 17.06.220 (Sign Ordinance, Wall signs for building complexes): For corner tenants of freestanding pad buildings, this update allows three wall signs (one on each wall face) instead of two. See Exhibit B.

Section 19.86.020 (Zoning Ordinance, Initiation of amendment): This update establishes that text amendments to Title 19 (the Zoning Ordinance) shall be initiated by City Council, Planning Commission, or the Planning Manager. See Exhibit C.

EVALUATION
Downtown Code
In 2009 the City Council, by Ordinance, added Chapter 19.31 to the Roseville Municipal Code which adopted and incorporated by reference the Downtown Code, “as though it were fully set forth” within Title 19. Therefore, the same findings of fact to approve a zoning ordinance amendment apply to amendments of the Downtown Code. Section 19.86.050 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires two findings be made in order to approve a zoning ordinance amendment. The two findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the project in relation to the findings.

1. The project is consistent with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City.

2. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan of the City of Roseville.

The proposed project brings the Downtown Code into consistency with legislation adopted within the past few years, and amends sections which have proven difficult to implement. The proposed amendments ensure a clear and consistent set of effective regulations, and are therefore consistent with the public interest, health, safety, and welfare. Staff review also concludes the changes are consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan.

Sign Ordinance (Title 17)
Title 17 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance was adopted by City Council on the basis of the findings listed in Section 17.02.020, as shown below. There is no advisory body for Title 17, so staff requested Planning Commission review and comment on the change to Title 17. Planning Commission had no comments or concerns about the proposed change.

1. Signs are an essential element of any community. As such, their location, number, size, design, and relationship to each other and to other structures have a significant influence upon a community’s appearance and welfare, and a resultant effect upon a viewer’s perception of the community. Signs serve a useful purpose in communicating messages, whether commercial, non-commercial, or merely informative, or otherwise.

2. Where signs are not properly regulated and maintained, they contribute to visual clutter, confusion, aesthetic blight, and create an unpleasant impression. They may cause traffic hazards and impede rather than enhance commerce and communication. In such situations, signs may fail to achieve their original objective of communication. Failure to appropriately regulate signs adversely affects the public health, safety and welfare.

The proposed minor change to Title 17 has no impact on the findings made upon adoption of the Sign Ordinance, and ensures a clear set of regulations for both the public and for City staff.

Zoning Ordinance (Title 19)
Section 19.86.050 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires two findings be made in order to approve a zoning ordinance amendment. The two findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the project in relation to the findings.

1. The project is consistent with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City.

2. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan of the City of Roseville.

The proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance is minor and ensures that amendments to regulations of the Zoning Ordinance can be initiated, as needed, by the City. For this reason, staff finds that the project is consistent with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City and that the project is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans.

Public Outreach
Text amendments of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance are not site-specific, and therefore public hearing notices were not mailed to individual property owners. Consistent with noticing requirements for a citywide project a public hearing notice was published in the Press Tribune, and in addition was posted on the RCONA website. Staff also worked collaboratively with Blue Line Arts to develop the amendments to Downtown Code Chapter 7, addressing murals.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed amendments were heard by the City's Planning Commission on August 24, 2023.

A Commissioner asked what types of non-residential uses could be expected in the Vernon Street District, and staff indicated that the usual array of non-residential uses were permitted, and included personal services, restaurants, and other activated uses. Staff also noted that many of the existing uses on Vernon Street do not meet the current requirement for 80% retail/20% office, and that City Council took action to suspend application of this requirement, until the section could be amended. Planning Commission had no other comments or concerns about the revisions.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project has no impact on the City's General Fund.

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren Hocker, Senior Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Exhibit A Downtown Code Redline
Attachment 1 Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit B Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 17.06 Redlines Exhibit C Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 19.86 Redline ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTION

2.3.2 OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE ROSEVILLE DOWNTOWN CODE REGARDING ALLOWED LAND USES, SECTION 3.4 OF CHAPTER 3 REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.6.2 OF CHAPTER 4 REGARDING VERNON STREET DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND SECTION 7.11 OF CHAPTER 7

REGARDING DOWNTOWN MURALS
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Background and Purpose: In 2009, the City Council, by Ordinance No. 4728, added Chapter 19.31 to the Roseville Municipal Code which adopted and incorporated by reference the Downtown Code. The proposed amendment of the Downtown Code would amend Downtown Code Chapter 2 (Land Use and Zoning) to update the permitted use table to reflect changes in state law, including adding community care facilities (small and large) and long-term care facilities (small and large) as uses permitted in districts where residential uses are permitted, adding low barrier navigation centers as a permitted use where multifamily uses are permitted, adding electric vehicle charging centers as a use type (to reflect this emerging new use), modifying “gasoline sales” to “fuel sales” to recognize alternative fuels, and adding a table note clarifying that transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted; amend Downtown Code Chapter 3 (Regulatory Incentives) to add a note indicating that parking standards may be reduced by sections of the Government Code related to density bonuses, proximity to transit, and other sections of law; amend Downtown Code Chapter 4 (District Standards) to amend Section 4.6.2 to require 80% of ground floor space be non-residential, instead of requiring 80% be retail and 20% be office; and to amend Chapter 7 (Downtown Specific Ordinances) to clarify and simplify Section 7.11 relating to Downtown Murals.

SECTION 2. Amendment of Downtown Code. Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 7 are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.

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

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Downtown Code a certificate or notation stating the time and place of said publication by posting. The Planning Manager is directed to replace pages of the Downtown Code with the revised pages as shown in Exhibit A.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
DOWNTOWN CODE 2-13

2.3.2 Detailed Land Use Matrix
The following land use matrix specifies permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, administratively permitted uses, permitted uses with a zoning clearance, and prohibited uses, for each of the ten Specific Plan districts (excludes Royer Park which is not a development district). Principally permitted uses indicate that the use is allowed in the specified zone. Conditionally permitted, administratively permitted uses, and uses permitted by a zoning clearance require the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, Administrative Permit, or Zoning Clearance, respectively, as provided in Chapter 19.72 and 19.74 of the Municipal Code. Prohibited uses are not allowed in the specified district. The Director may determine that uses that are not specifically listed in the land use matrix are of the same general character of uses listed in thematrix.

Existing buildings, structures, and uses permitted within the Specific Plan area (as of the effective date of this chapter) shall continue to be permitted and exempt from the requirements of this chapter as legal nonconforming. The expansion of, addition to, or modification of an existing building, structure, or use may be permitted subject to development plan review and approval of the Director to ensure that the proposed expansion is consistent with the policies and standards of this chapter and the Municipal Code.

PermittedUse Types: Use type classifications are defined in Chapter 19.08 ofthe City’s ZoningOrdinance. This chapter of the Downtown Code relies on the classification system established in the Zoning Ordinance.

Primary uses for the various zone districts are exhibited in the table on the following pages, and are designated as follows:
• Principally permitted use, designated as “P”;
• Conditionallypermitteduse,designatedas “CUP”;
• Administrativelypermitteduse,designatedas“A”;
• Zoning Clearance permitted use, designated as “ZC”; and • Primary use types not listed or designated by a dash(-) are not permitted in thatzone district.

Exhibit A

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
2-14 DOWNTOWNCODE
Washington CorridorWashington Corridor (Intensified)Old Town Bungalow ResidentialOld Town CommercialOld Town Commercial (Extension)Vernon StreetDry Creek Mixed-UseCreek View ResidentialVernon Bungalow ResidentialDouglas Boulevard DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11

AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE

USE TYPES
Resource Protection &
Restoration - - - - P P P P - P
Resource Related Recreation P P P P P P P P P P
CIVIC USE TYPES DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11 Community Assembly (1) P - - CUP - CUP - CUP - P
Community Services P P P P P P P P P P
Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P
Hospital Services
General Hospital
Services P - - - - - - - - P
Psychiatric Hospital
Services CUP - - - - - - - - CUP
Libraries & Museums, Private P - - P P P P - - P
Public Parking Services P P P P P P P P P P
Schools
College & University P - - - - P P P - P
Elementary &
Secondary P - - - - - CUP - - P
Private Elementary &
Secondary P - - - - - CUP - - P
Power Generating Facilities (2)
Emergency ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Supplemental/Individual
Use

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Passive Power P P P P P P P P P P
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES (13) DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11 Live/Work (3) P P P P - P P P P P
Mixed Use (4) P P - P P P P P - P

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
DOWNTOWNCODE 2-15 Washington Corridor Washington Corridor (Intensified) Old Town Bungalow Residential Old Town Commercial Old Town Commercial (Extension)Vernon StreetDry Creek Mixed-UseCreek View ResidentialVernon Bungalow ResidentialDouglas Boulevard DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11
Dwelling
Community Care
Facilities, Small

P P P P - P P P P P
Community Care
Facilities, Large

P P A P - P P P A P
Multi-Family (13 du’s/
Acre min. density) (5) P P - P - P P P - P
Single-Family - - P - - - CUP CUP P -
Two-Family (6) - - P - - - CUP CUP P -
Family Day Care Home,
Small - - P - - - P P P -
Family Day Care Home,
Large CUP CUP CUP CUP - CUP CUP P CUP
Long-Term Care
Facility, Small P P P P - P P P P P
Long-Term Care
Facility, Large P P A P - P P A A P
Low Barrier Navigation
Centers P P - P - P P P - P
Single Room Occupant - - - CUP - CUP - - - -
High Efficiency
Residential Units (7) - - - P/ CUP - P/ CUP P/ CUP P/ CUP - - COMMERCIAL USE TYPES DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11 Animal Sales & Service
Grooming & Pet Stores P - - CUP CUP CUP - - - P
Veterinary Clinic P - - CUP CUP - - - - P
Veterinary Hospital CUP - - - CUP - - - - CUP
Automotive & Equipment
Automotive Repairs CUP - - - CUP CUP - - - CUP
Commercial Parking (8) CUP - - CUP P CUP - - - CUP

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
2-16 DOWNTOWNCODE
Gasoline Fuel Sales CUP - - - CUP - - - - CUP
Electric Vehicle Charging
Centers

CUP - - - CUP - - - - CUP
Banks & Financial Services P P - P p P P P - P
Bars & Drinking Places CUP CUP - P P P CUP - - CUP
Broadcasting & Recording
Studios - - - P P P - - - -
Business Support Services P P - P P P P - - P
Commercial Recreation
Amusement Center CUP CUP - P P P P - - CUP

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
DOWNTOWNCODE 2-17 Washington Corridor Washington Corridor (Intensified) Old Town Bungalow Residential Old Town Commercial Old Town Commercial (Extension)Vernon StreetDry Creek Mixed-UseCreek View ResidentialVernon Bungalow ResidentialDouglas Boulevard DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11
Indoor Entertainment CUP CUP - P P P P - - CUP
Indoor Sports &
Recreation

P - - P P P - - - P
Outdoor Entertainment - - - - - - P - - -
Community Care Facility P - - - - P P P - P
Day Care Center P - - - - P P - - P
Eating & Drinking
Establishments
Convenience P P - P P P P - - P
Full Service P P - P P P P - - P
Food & Beverage Retail
Sales(12) P P - P - P P P - P
Funeral & Internment Services - - - - - CUP - - - CUP
Lodging Services P - - P - P P - - P
Long Term Care Facility CUP - - - - - CUP - - CUP
Maintenance & Repair P - - P P P - - - P
Medical Services (General) P - - P - P P - - P
Neighborhood Commercial P P - P P P P P - P
Nightclubs (9) - - - ZC / A A A - - -
Offices, Professional (10) P P ZC P P P P - ZC P
Personal Services (11) P P ZC P CUP P P - ZC P
Retail Sales & Services (12) P P - P P P P - - P
Specialized Education &
Training
Vocational Schools P - - P - P P - - P
Specialty Schools CUP CUP - P - P P - - CUP

2.0 Land Use and Zoning
2-18 DOWNTOWNCODE
Washington CorridorWashington Corridor (Intensified)Old Town Bungalow ResidentialOld Town CommercialOld Town Commercial (Extension)Vernon StreetDry Creek Mixed-UseCreek View ResidentialVernon Bungalow ResidentialDouglas Boulevard DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11
INDUSTRIAL USE TYPES DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 DT-6 DT-7 DT-9 DT-10 DT-11 Equipment & Materials Storage
Yard - - - - CUP - - - - -
Light Manufacturing - - - - CUP - - - - -
Printing & Publishing - - - - CUP - - - - -
Research Services - - - - P - - - - -
Telecommunication Facilities P/AP/
CUP

P/AP/CUP
P/AP/
CUP

P/AP/CUP P/AP/CUP P/AP/CUP P/AP/CUP P/AP/CUP
P/AP/
CUP

P/AP/CUP
Intermodal Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Notes:
1) Community Assembly uses such as churches, fraternal lodges, non-profit clubs, etc… shall be prohibited from occupying the ground floor of the buildings in the Old Town Commercial and Vernon Street Districts. 2) Additional requirements are contained in Chapter 19.32 of the ZoningOrdinance. 3) Additional requirements are contained in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code addressing Live/Work units. 4) Additional requirements are contained in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code addressing Mixed Use development. 5) Multi-family will have a minimum density of 13 units per acre when anticipated to be a mixed use, multi-family or live work product. The Vernon Street district prohibits multi-family projects that are not a mixed-use development between Lincoln Street and TaylorStreet.
6) Additional development standards are provided in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code addressing development types allowed as Two-family or medium density product type.
7) High Efficiency units are further defined in and additional regulations are included in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code.
8) Commercial parking in this Specific Plan Area does not allow for the storage of inoperable vehicles. It is intended to provide parking for surrounding businesses within the planning area. 9) Additional development standards are provided in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code addressing nightclub uses as a principally permitted use in the Old Town Commercial district. 10) Additional development standards are provided in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Code, addressing the location of office uses in the Old Town Commercial, Vernon Street, Old Town Bungalow and Vernon Street Bungalow districts.

Additionally, cash advance, and Bail Bonds offices are not permitted as office uses in the Downtown. Standards for residential to office conversions are provided in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code. 11) Tattooshops,bodypiercing,massage,smokeshops,hookaloungesandsmoking lounges arerestrictedfromoccupying the ground floor of buildings in the Old Town Commercial and Vernon Street Districts. Additionally, to locate these personalservices within these districts a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) isrequired. Only those personalserviceslisted in Chapter 7.10 ofthe Downtown Code are permitted in the Bungalow District. See additionalstandardsin Chapter 4.

Existing uses operating at the time of the adoption of this document will be considered legal non-conforming uses. 12) Additional development standards are provided in Chapter 7 of the Downtown Code, addressing retail uses in the Downtown. Pawn Shops are not permitted as a retail use in the Downtown. Liquor Stores are not permitted as a Food and Beverage use in theDowntown.
13) Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing, as defined in the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance, are considered a residential use type and are permitted (P) where residential uses are permitted (P) or conditionally permitted (CUP).

3.0 Regulatory Incentives
DOWNTOWN CODE 3-5

3.4 Parking Requirements/Incentives1

3.4.1 Parking Strategy
Reduction of on-site parking requirements for the uses within the Plan Area is a way to encourage and incentivize redevelopment. Analysis of the existing on-site parking requirements for the Plan Area indicated that they were not appropriate to a pedestrian-friendly downtown. By reducing the emphasis on the automobile, it will help create an environment that is more urban and vibrant in nature. To accomplish this, a “park once” mentality needs to be instituted and accepted by the stakeholders, residents and customers within the Downtown.

To effectively develop a higher FAR, gain the desired land uses, and development density Downtown, it will be necessary to relax existing off-street parking regulations. Relaxing the off-street parking regulations will also provide an incentive to developers and property owners to develop and/or redevelop parcels in the downtown. An overall parking strategy for the plan area was developed with the following implementation measures:
• Maximizethe on-street parkingandcontinualturnoverinhighuse areasthrougha comprehensive parking management plan and parking meters;
• Provide structured public parking to offset off-street parking requirements; • Utilize an in-lieu parking fee with a graduated cost structure to help fund the cost of the public parking structures and act as a development incentive;
• Reduce the off-street parking requirements for desired uses including office, retail, restaurant and commercialservices;
• Amend the parking requirementsto allow off-site parking (such as on-streetspacesin front of a business) to count towards meeting the overall parking requirement through the application of a lot square footage ratio;
• Create new at-grade public parking within the Historic Old Town; • Utilize diagonal parking within the public right-of-way, when possible to maximize parking;
• Institute a parking credit for combining and developing two or more parcels; and,
• Enhance the appearance of existing parking areas to contribute to the overall character of the Plan Area.
1 Parking requirements may be reduced by sections of the Government Code pertaining to density bonuses, projects in proximity to transit and other sections of law, including Government Code Section 65585 and 65915.

3.0 Regulatory Incentives
3-6 DOWNTOWN CODE

3.4.2 Required Parking/In lieu Fee
One of the strategies for encouraging development in the Downtown is to relax the requirement for off-street parking for future uses. The number of parking spaces required for each use type is defined in Table 3.4.1, and is based on gross floor area unless otherwise noted. Where the parking requirement is established based on the number of units (i.e. 1 space per unit), the term unit means per dwelling unit, and each live/work unit is classified as one unit. All use types that are not specified in this table shall be parked per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

The City may impose or enforce the below parking standards as requirements, except as otherwise provided within the California Government Code. Parking requirements can also be satisfied through the payment of a parking in-lieu fee that is meant to work as an incentive to development in the plan area. Since it is a monetary incentive, the discussion of this component of the parking strategy has been included in Section 3.5.1 of this Chapter.

Table 3.4.1
USE TYPE PARKING REQUIREMENTs

CIVIC USE TYPES
Community Assembly
1per 3 fixed seats, or 1 per 50 sq.ft.for non-fixed seatsin the assembly area, plus one per classroom.

Community Services Determined as part of the Design Review approval Hospital Services
General Hospital Services
1 per doctor, plus 1 per 3 employees for the largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds
Psychiatric Hospital Services
1 per doctor, plus 1 per 3 employees for the largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds
Libraries and Museums, Private 1 per 500 sq. ft.

Schools
College and University As determined by the Design Review approval Elementary and Secondary
2 per classroom, plus 60 lineal feet of loading area for every 100 students
Private Elementary and Secondary
2 per classroom, plus 60 lineal feet of loading area for every 100 students

RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Live/Work (1)
Studio/1 bedroom = 1 space/unit
2 bedrooms and above = 1.5 spaces/unit
Guest Parking: Projects with more than 10 units shall provide 1 space for every 10 units
DOWNTOWN CODE 4-1

4.0 District Standards Quick Reference Guide

4.6.2 Vernon Street District Development Standards
C. Special Provisions

1. New development fronting ontoVernon Streetshall provide (and new tenants and tenant improvements in existing buildings shall maintain)80%ofthegroundfloorspaceas non-residentialretailuse,and20%can be occupied as office.

2. Multi-family residential is not permitted between Taylor Street and LincolnStreet.

3. Multi-family residential at a minimum of 36 units per acre is allowed with approval of a conditional user permit in the area extending from Bulen Street to Taylor Street on the southern end of the District, and from Lincoln Street to Folsom Road on the northern end of theDistrict.

4. A maximum of 10,000 square feet of single use ground floor retail/office can be developed as an individual use, anything above this requires a conditional use permit.

5. The following sites have been designated as catalystsites:
• 300-330 Vernon Street
• 401 Vernon Street
• 623-627 Vernon Street
The design for these properties has been developed as pre-design concepts and are addressed in Chapter 9.

7.0 DowntownSpecificOrdinances
DOWNTOWN CODE 7-1

7.11 Downtown Murals
A. Purpose
In order to effectively implement a successful
mural program for the Downtown that will
ensure process consistency and community
aesthetic benefitsaesthetic value in the
community, it is important that potential
applicants adhere to the following policy and
standards. The policy and standards that follow
are intended to provide a reasonable processthat
will safeguard the interests of the community,
properties adjacent to sites with murals, as well
as those of the individual building/property
owner.

B. Applicability
The purpose of the Downtown mural program
is to support the creation and maintenance of a
visually engaging environmentenhance the
commercial activity in the various commercial
districts within the Specific Plan area. The
following Downtown Specific Plan Districts will
allow murals: Washington Boulevard,
Washington Boulevard Intensified, Old Town
Commercial, Vernon Street, Douglas Boulevard
and the Dry Creek Districts. For purposes of the
Downtown Code, murals shall not be considered
signs as defined by Title 17 of the Roseville
Municipal Code.

C. Permit Required
Prior to the application of any mural to a
building façade, a minor design review permit
(MDRP) as described in Chapter 19.74 C(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance, shall be obtained from the
City of Roseville Planning and Redevelopment
Department.

D. Design Criteria
The following provides the design criteria that needs
to be considered as part of the development of a
building mural:

1. Location
Murals shall be constructed on a building
face that is clearly visible to pedestrians and
motorists. Specific to the building itself, and to
the extent possible, the mural image should
be located on the sides/walls of buildings that
are readily visible from the street/sidewalk.

2. Design Characteristics
Given the historical nature and area of
Downtown, the mural shall be of historical
significance, reflecting the growth and
development of the City of Roseville and the
surrounding area, or should be of such high
qualityandrelevancetodowntownRoseville,

7.0 Downtown Specific Ordinances
7-2 DOWNTOWN CODE
as appropriate. The mural shall provide a
public art benefit to the area and shal not
add visual clutter. Potential subject matter
may include images representative of
historic eras important to Roseville, such
as the citrus and vineyard industry periods;
significant local historical figures, such as
early settlers, community members, etc.
who have made valuable contributions
to the community; significant buildings/
structures; or significant events/activities.

3. Materials
Murals shall be of exceptional design
and quality and incorporate high-quality
materials that enhance the overall
development and appearance of the site.

The materials used may include paint
(preferred method) or other artistic
mediums, such as tile or mosaic which are
appropriate for an outdoor location.

Materials used to produce the mural shall
be long lasting and graffiti- resistant to the
greatest extent possible.

4. Colors
Vibrant mural Mural colors are
encouraged, but should be
complimentary and harmonious with the
exterior colors of the building structure.

Under no circumstances will neon,
fluorescent or reflective type colors/
materials be permitted.

5. Size
Thesizeofthemuralwillbedependentupon
the size of the building surface selected.

The size of the mural can vary dependent
upon the overall uninterrupted wall space
that the mural is proposing to occupy. The
overallsize of the mural shall be based on how
the mural integrates with the building
architecture and will be reviewed as part
of the Design Review process.

6. Advertising
A mural shall not contain commercial
advertising, defined as any text displaying
business logos, names, or services, and
imagery with a commercial message (as
defined by the Sign Ordinance). Commercial
advertising is regulated by the Sign
Ordinance and Downtown Code Chapter 8,
not by this section. Murals may contain
design content that references business
activities at the site (ex: a cornucopia mural
on a grocery store), provided it does not
contain commercial advertising. The
exception will be the inclusion of a historic
advertising theme that is unrelated to
business activities within the
building/structure (ex: a mural of historic
fruit packing crates, provided none of the
brands displayed currently exist).

Additionally, the mural artist’s signature
may appear on the finished mural provided
that it does not detract from the mural
display.

7.0 DowntownSpecificOrdinances
DOWNTOWN CODE 7-3

7. Building Architecture
The mural, by its design, construction, and
location shall enhance and not obscure or
detract from the overall building
architecturesignificant architectural
features of the selected structure.

8. Relation to adjacent properties
A mural shall not have an adverse impact
onadjacentpropertiesorthepermitteduse
thereof,andshouldcontributetotheunique
character and quality of the pedestrian
environmentwithinRoseville’sdowntown.

E. Care andMaintenance

1. Responsibility
Any mural produced on a private structure
shall become the physical property of the
property owner. As such, the building owner
is responsible for the care and maintenance
of the mural, and any costs associated with
maintenance, repair, and/or removal of the
mural.

2. Neglect ofMaintenance
If, for whatever reason, the City has found
thatthemural isin a stateof poor condition,
thebuildingownerwillbenotifiedinwriting,
and required tomake the necessary repairs
within 60 days of official notification. If the
repairs are not made within the specified
time period, the City reserves the right to
repair or remove the mural at the property
owner’s expense.

F. Approval Process
The approval process shall be a Minor Design
Review Permit as established in Chapter 19.74 of
the Zoning Ordinance.

1. Formal Application
Any entity desiring to construct a mural on
a building in the Downtown shall submit a
Minor Design Review permit application.

Accompanying the application will be a
color scale rendering of the proposed
project which shall be submitted to the
Director, or his/her designee. This
application will be reviewed for
appropriateness of design, content
accuracy, proposed building location and
any other information required to
complete the process. Mural designs that
do not meet all of the design criteria may
be denied, or accepted with required
modifications.

7.0 Downtown Specific Ordinances
7-4 DOWNTOWN CODE

2. Appeal of decision
Mural designs that do not receive approval
may be appealed. The Director’s decision
to deny an application may be appealed to
the Design Committee, following filing of a
written appeal and payment of the required
appeal fee as described in Chapter19.80 of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

3. Schedule
Applicants arerequiredtobegintheirmural
project within 60 days of approval and are
required to complete the mural project
within nine months of the approved Minor
Design Review Permit.

4. Building OwnerAuthorization
TheMinorDesignReviewPermitapplication
must be signed by the property owner.

This signature represents the owner
authorization to proceed with a mural at
the site.

Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2023
Prepared by: Lauren Hocker, Senior Planner
ITEM 6.4: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – CITYWIDE – DOWNTOWN CODE AND ORDINANCE UPDATES 2023 – PL23-0186

REQUEST
The project is a City-initiated minor update to the Downtown Code and to Title 17 (Sign Ordinance) and Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code. The request includes amendments to Downtown Code Chapter 2 (Land Use and Zoning) to update the permitted use table to reflect changes in state law, including adding community care facilities (small and large) and long-term care facilities (small and large) as uses permitted in districts where residential uses are permitted, adding low barrier navigation centers as a permitted use where multifamily uses are permitted, adding electric vehicle charging centers as a use type (to reflect this emerging new use), modifying “gasoline sales” to “fuel sales” to recognize alternative fuels, and adding a table note clarifying that transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted; amendments to Downtown Code Chapter 3 (Regulatory Incentives) to add a note indicating that parking standards may be reduced by sections of the Government Code related to density bonuses, proximity to transit, and other sections of law; amendments to Downtown Code Chapter 4 (District Standards) to amend Section 4.6.2 to require 80% of ground floor space be non-residential, instead of requiring 80% be retail and 20% be office; and to amend Chapter 7 (Downtown Specific Ordinances) to clarify and simplify Section 7.11 relating to Downtown Murals. The request also includes one minor amendment to Title 17 (Sign Ordinance) Section 17.06.220 to allow three wall signs for corner tenants and one minor amendment to Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) Section 19.86.020 to indicate that text amendments to Title 19 shall be initiated by City Council, Planning Commission, or the Planning Manager.

Applicant – City of Roseville
Owner – Citywide

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

1. Consider the two (2) findings of fact and recommend City Council adopt the Ordinance Amendment to amend Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Downtown Code.

2. Review and comment on the Ordinance Amendment to Title 17 of the Roseville Municipal Code.

3. Consider the two (2) findings of fact and recommend City Council approve the Ordinance Amendment to Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request.

BACKGROUND
Staff annually reviews the Zoning Ordinance to identify needed maintenance updates, including in response to state legislation, but has not prepared a maintenance update for the City’s Downtown Code in several years. Staff is proposing updates to the Downtown Code consistent with legislation passed over the last several years, and to bring it into consistency with similar changes made in the Zoning Ordinance. These updates are relatively minor, and consist of the following changes (see Exhibit A):

Attachment 1
Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023, Citywide; PL23-0186 Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 2 of 5
• Downtown Code Chapter 2 (Land Use and Zoning): This update adds community care facilities (small and large) and long-term care facilities (small and large) as uses permitted in districts where residential uses are permitted, adds low barrier navigation centers as a permitted use where multifamily uses are permitted, adds electric vehicle charging centers as a use type (to reflect this emerging new use), modifies “gasoline sales” to “fuel sales” to recognize alternative fuels, and adds a table note clarifying that transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. These changes were adopted by City Council as part of annual Zoning Ordinance updates in 2022 and 2023. • Downtown Code Chapter 3 (Regulatory Incentives): This update adds a note indicating that parking standards parking standards may be reduced by sections of the Government Code related to density bonuses, proximity to transit, and other sections of law. The primary law affecting these provisions is AB 2097, which became effective in January 2023. This law eliminates parking requirements for most projects within ½-mile of a “major transit stop,” which in the City is the Amtrak multimodal station and affects most of the Downtown Specific Plan. Rather than attempt to completely revise all sections dealing with parking in the Downtown Code, staff is recommending a minor edit to note that parking standards may be reduced by applicable sections of the Government Code. This change was not made in the Zoning Ordinance, because on a Citywide basis most areas are unaffected by the applicable legislation. • Downtown Code Chapter 4 (District Standards): The existing Section 4.6.2 to requires 80% of ground-floor space be retail and 20% be office on Vernon Street. This standard was established in order to ensure a pedestrian-focused and activated streetscape, but as the non-residential market has shifted – particularly as it relates to office space – this provision has become a barrier to development and redevelopment. Staff is recommending the requirement be modified to require 80% of ground floor space be non-residential. This preserves the ground-floor space as a predominantly activated space, while providing for more flexibility of uses. • Chapter 7 (Downtown Specific Ordinances): The existing Section 7.11 relating to Downtown Murals was designed to focus mural development around imagery related to historic Roseville, includes large sections of subjective language that have been difficult to implement, or provisions that have hampered beneficial mural projects. Blue Line Arts administers a mural program for the Downtown area, and recommended revisions to the section. Staff worked with Blue Line Arts for over a year on revisions to simplify and clarify the section. Both City staff and Blue Line Arts staff are comfortable with the proposed changes. Key changes include:
o Delete “Location” section. The section required murals to be clearly visible from the sidewalk, but tenants and others have sometimes wanted to locate murals within alleys, and they still provide a public benefit is less street-forward locations. o Delete “Design Characteristics” section. This section requires the mural be “of historical significance.” This is a subjective determination which has proven difficult to implement. There are also many non-historical mural designs which contribute to the intent of the mural section, which is to create a visually engaging environment. o Augment “Advertising” section. To avoid having to refer to both the Sign Ordinance and the Downtown Code, definitions have been included for the existing prohibition on “commercial advertising” which are consistent with the City’s existing Sign Ordinance. o Delete “Relation to Adjacent Properties” section. This section states that a mural should not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. However, it is unclear what adverse impact could result from a mural, or how to define this section to be objective.

Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023, Citywide; PL23-0186 Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 3 of 5
Staff recommends that the Design Review process itself is sufficient to address this concern.
• Section 17.06.220 (Sign Ordinance, Wall signs for building complexes): For corner tenants of freestanding pad buildings, this update allows three wall signs (one on each wall face) instead of two.
• Section 19.86.020 (Zoning Ordinance, Initiation of amendment): This update establishes that text amendments to Title 19 (the Zoning Ordinance) shall be initiated by City Council, Planning Commission, or the Planning Manager.

19. Therefore, the same findings of fact to approve a zoning ordinance amendment apply to amendments of the Downtown Code. Section 19.86.050 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires two findings be made in order to approve a zoning ordinance amendment. The two findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the project in relation to the findings.

1. The project is consistent with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City.

2. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan of the City of Roseville.

Sign Ordinance (Title 17)
Title 17 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance was adopted by City Council on the basis of the findings listed in Section 17.02.020, as shown below. There is no advisory body for Title 17, so staff is requesting Planning Commission review and comment on changes to Title 17, and staff will pass those comments on to City Council.

Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023, Citywide; PL23-0186 Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 4 of 5
The proposed minor change to Title 17 has no impact on the findings made upon adoption of the Sign Ordinance, and ensures a clear set of regulations for both the public and for City staff.

1. The project is consistent with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City.

2. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan of the City of Roseville.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Text amendments of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance are not site-specific, and therefore public hearing notices were not mailed to individual property owners. Consistent with noticing requirements for a citywide project a public hearing notice was published in the Press Tribune, and in addition was posted on the RCONA website. Staff also worked collaboratively with Blue Line Arts to develop the amendments to Downtown Code Chapter 7, addressing murals.

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

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

A. Consider the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and recommend City Council approve the ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE – CITYWIDE – DOWNTOWN CODE AND ORDINANCE UPDATES 2023 – PL23-0186.

B. Review and comment on the Title 17 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – CITYWIDE – DOWNTOWN CODE AND ORDINANCE UPDATES 2023 – PL23-0186.

C. Consider the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and recommend City Council approve the Title 19 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – CITYWIDE – DOWNTOWN CODE AND ORDINANCE UPDATES 2023 – PL23-0186.

Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023, Citywide; PL23-0186 Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 5 of 5
B:\Development Services\Planning Division\Long range\00 Projects\Downtown Code Update 2023\Hearings\City Council\PL23-0186, 311 Vernon, Downtown Code and Ordinance Updates 2023, 01 Staff Report.docx Exhibits
A. Downtown Code Redlines (portions of Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 7) B. Sign Ordinance Redlines (RMC 17.06.220)
C. Zoning Ordinance Redlines (RMC 19.86.020)
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.

NOTE: Exhibits are included as part of
Council staff report, and are not
duplicated as part of this attachment.

ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTION

17.06.220 OF CHAPTER 17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING WALL SIGNS FOR BUILDING COMPLEXES
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 17.06.220 of Chapter 17.06 of Title 17 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.06.220 Wall signs for building complexes.

A. Number.

1. Major tenants are permitted an unlimited number of wall signs;

2. Freestanding pad buildings with one tenant are permitted three wall signs, provided each sign is located on a different side of the building and faces a public entrance, a public street or a parking lot;

3. Freestanding pad buildings with two or more tenants are permitted two wall signs per in-line tenant and three wall signs per corner tenant, provided the signs for each tenant are located on a different side of the building and face a public entrance, a public street or a parking lot. Provided however, no sign shall be permitted on any façade facing a property line shared with residential land uses; and
2 4. Uses that are neither major tenants nor freestanding pad buildings are permitted one wall sign; provided however, a use on a corner of the building is permitted two wall signs, provided each sign is located on a different side of the building and faces a public entrance, a public street, or a parking lot.

B. Location and Design.

1. Wall signs may be:
a. Attached flat against or pinned away (peg mounted or similar) from a building wall, but shall not extend or protrude more than one foot from the wall, except for projecting signs as provided in Section 17.06.180;
b. Attached to the facade of a building, but shall not extend above the upper edge of the facade; and
c. Painted on or attached to a canopy or awning.

2. Sign casing/housing shall be compatible with the architecture of the building and should not cover or interrupt major architectural features, including such features as doors, windows, tile embellishments and reveal lines;

3. Signs placed between window spandrels, on fasciae, on sloping roofs, or on awnings shall not exceed two-thirds of the height of the area to which the sign is attached and must be centrally positioned;

4. Wall signs shall be centered vertically on the spandrel, fascia, or awning; 3 5. The size of the letters and the spacing shall be balanced for the tenants within the building complex providing minimum and maximum letter heights;

6. Signs throughout the building complex shall be consistent in appearance; and

7. Exposed raceways shall not be permitted. However, raceways will be permitted only when the raceway is an integral component of the graphic design of the sign.

C. Area.

1. With the exception of office buildings, the combined area for wall signs shall not exceed 20 percent of the front tenant space façade up to a maximum of 200 square feet per tenant. Office buildings containing one or more tenants are permitted unlimited wall signs, provided that the cumulative total of wall sign area does not exceed 20 percent of the building façade up to a maximum of 200 square feet per building, or as otherwise provided for corporate centers as identified in Section 17.06.255.

2. For buildings 100,000 square feet and larger directly abutting a freeway, the combined area of all wall signs for a building shall not exceed 20 percent of the building facade up to a maximum of 300 square feet per building.

3. The length of wall signs shall not exceed 70 percent of the length of the tenant space façade or building facade if a tenant occupies more than one tenant space in a building complex.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.
4 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTION

19.86.020 OF CHAPTER 19.86 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 19.86.020 of Chapter 19.86 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.86.020 Initiation of amendment.

An amendment of this chapter title may be initiated in any of the following manners:

A. Upon motion of the City Council to amend the Zoning Map or text of this title.

B. Upon motion of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Map or text of this title.

C. Upon application by a property owner or owners of a parcel to be affected by an amendment of amend the Zoning Map which to rezones the parcel., or amending the text of this title which applied to the parcel.

D. Upon recommendation by the Planning Manager to amend the Zoning Map or text of this title to clarify text, address changes mandated by state law, maintain General Plan and specific plan consistency, to address minor boundary adjustments, or for any other reason beneficial to the City.
2 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
3 _________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2941
File #: 0400-04-12-2 & 0704-01-01
Title: Sierra Vista Specific Plan - Parcel WB-52 Park Abandonment Contact: Greg Bitter 916-774-5294 [email protected] Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 11.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:

A. Hear public testimony regarding the abandonment of the dedication of Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-52 as a City Park; and
B. Adopt a resolution overruling any objections and ordering the dedication of Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-52 as a City Park to be abandoned.

BACKGROUND
The proposed park to be abandoned is located on Parcel WB-52 in the northwestern portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) (see Attachment 1: Vicinity Map). The 1.5-acre parcel was dedicated to the City of Roseville as a public park as part of the adoption of the Westbrook portion of the SVSP. WB-52 was not conveyed through a grant deed to the City, but rather dedicated on a recorded map through an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. Title remains with the current private landowner of WB-52. This means the City does not own WB-52 in fee simple. The SVSP was approved on May 20, 2010 (File #2007PL-044) and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road and includes approximately 105 acres of land designated for parks.

As a result of land use amendments and rezones that were approved with Westbrook Phase 2 and 3 (File #PL13-0318), Parcel WB-52 is surrounded by two High Density Residential (HDR) parcels with an Open Space parcel to the north. The City Parks, Recreation & Libraries staff evaluated Parcel WB-52 for its intended use as a City park and determined the site is challenging because of its small size and limited public access. Given the location of the park, the benefit to the overall Westbrook area would be minimal as it would primarily serve the residents of the adjacent HDR parcels. However, the HDR parcels are owned by a private developer that will be providing on-site recreational amenities including outdoor areas for residents of the multi-family project.

With the park abandonment, the City would be receiving the fair market value of Parcel WB-52, as a park in-lieu of land fee, and these funds would go towards the improvement of other parks in the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area. The City Parks, Recreation & Libraries staff have determined that enhancing the amenities at these other nearby parks would provide a benefit to a greater number of residents within the Westbrook area than development of WB-52 as a 1.5 acre park. While this abandonment of WB-52 for use as a park does decrease the total neighborhood park acreage in the SVSP by 1.5 acres, the proposal remains consistent with the City’s General Plan Policies related to Parks and Recreation. General Plan Policy PR1.4 states that: “The City will consider payment of in-lieu fees for both development and parkland as an alternative to dedication of land in order to achieve the parkland standard.”

PARK ABANDONMENT
California law allows a municipality to abandon all or any portion of a park and sell the land pursuant to procedures set forth in the Municipal Park Abandonment Law of 1939, set forth in California Government Code Sections 38501-38510 (the “Municipal Park Abandonment Law”). The Municipal Park Abandonment Law provides a two-step process for a city to abandon a park and sell the park land (or in this case, abandon the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication): (1) adopt a resolution of intention to abandon a park, and (2) consider any objections and order all or any portion of a park to be abandoned.

On August 16, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-334 declaring the Council’s intent to abandon the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for SVSP Parcel WB-52. With this resolution, the Council made the following findings as they relate to all or any portion of the purported park: (1) the land has not been used by the public for park purposes; (2) no consideration has been paid for the land except by the City; (3) no public funds have been expended to improve the land as a park; and (4) the land was offered as an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for park purposes by the recording of a plat map with the County Recorder. In the case of SVSP Parcel WB-52, the land was offered as an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the City via the final large lot subdivision map of Westbrook Phases 2 and 3 by the Westbrook developers as required by the development agreement for the Westbrook area, has not been used by the public for park purposes, no consideration was paid for the land and no public funds have been expended to improve the park. SVSP Parcel WB-52 is therefore eligible to be abandoned in accordance with the two-step process found in the Municipal Park Abandonment Law. The resolution also described the park to be abandoned and set the time, September 20, 2023 at 6:00 p.m., that the Council would take final action on the abandonment. Subsequent to adopting Resolution No. 23-334, the resolution was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on August 31
st
, September 7
th and 14th
, and posted in four locations along the boundaries of SVSP Parcel WB-52.

The purpose of this item is to allow the City Council to hear any objections to the abandonment of the park. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Council may either terminate the abandonment proceedings or order the park to be abandoned and order the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to be abandoned.

The abandonment of the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for SVSP Parcel WB-52 is associated with a request by the current owner/developer of the parcel for a variety of legislative entitlements, including amending the land use and zoning designation of SVSP Parcel WB-52 from Parks/Open Space to High Density Residential. The inclusion of SVSP Parcel WB-52 will allow the owner/developer to utilize this land for the development of future multi-family developments and to provide additional on-site recreational amenities for these developments. The Planning Commission considered these legislative entitlements at their August 24, 2023 hearing and there was no public comment provided. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of all entitlements to the City Council. The Council will be considering the legislative entitlements, that include the land use change for SVSP Parcel WB-52 at their September 20, 2023 meeting. Consistent with prior Council action and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the entitlements, the attached resolution includes provisions and findings for Council to overrule any objections to the park abandonment and order that the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for SVSP Parcel WB-52 be abandoned.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City will be receiving fair market value of the WB-52 property as a park in-lieu of land fee. Therefore, there will be no negative fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

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

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

Description
Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
Resolution 23-383
MDR-7.1
CC
LDR-6 LDR-4.9
LDR-5.1
LDR-4.2
LDR-5.9
LDR-6.3
P/QP
PR
HDR-20.5
PR
HDR-26.4
MDR-7.2
MDR-6.8
HDR-29.3
MDR-7.9
OS
LDR-5
OS
Vicinity Map
Nearmap, Maxar
Land Use Boundary
LDR
MDR
HDR
CC
OS
PR
P/QP
Roseville Parcel
Roseville Street Label
7/24/2023, 2:15:29 PM 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
1:9,028
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-383

OVERRULING ANY OBJECTIONS AND ORDERING
SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PARCEL WB-52 TO BE ABANDONED AS A CITY PARK
WHEREAS, the land commonly referred to as Sierra Vista Specific Plan (“SVSP”) Parcel WB-52 (as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) (hereinafter “Parcel WB-52”) is currently owned by Pine Island Apartments, LLC, but had been dedicated to the City of Roseville (the “City”) on the final large lot subdivision map of Westbrook Phases 2 and 3, which was recorded with the Placer County Clerk Recorder; and
WHEREAS, Parcel WB-52 was dedicated to the City as a park and was intended to be developed as a 1.5 acre neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, after planning for this park, it was discovered that Parcel WB-52 is challenged by a lack of infrastructure, its small size, and limited public access (it is not adjacent to any public roadways). Given the location of the park, the benefit to the overall Westbrook area would be minimal, as it would primarily serve the residents of the adjacent High Density Residential parcels (where on-site recreational amenities are already planned by the developer of those sites); and
WHEREAS, with the park abandonment, the City would be receiving the fair market value of Parcel WB-52, as a park in-lieu of land fee, and these funds could go towards the improvement of other parks in the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area. The City Parks, Recreation & Libraries staff have determined that enhancing the amenities at these other nearby parks would provide a benefit to a greater number of residents within the Westbrook area than development of Parcel WB-52 as a 1.5 acre park; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-334 declaring the Council’s intent to abandon Parcel WB-52 as a City park, and made the following findings as they relate to all or any portion of the purported park: (1) the land has not been used by the public for park purposes; (2) no consideration has been paid for the land except by the city; (3) no public funds have been expended to improve the land as a park; and (4) the land was dedicated for park purposes by the recording of a plat or map with the County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Park Abandonment Law of 1939 (California Government Code Sections 38501-38510) allows a municipality to abandon all or any portion of a park and sell the land pursuant to certain procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City does not own Parcel WB-52 in fee simple and title remains with the private landowner. The City would be abandoning its right to accept the dedication of WB-52 (for parks and recreation purposes) and title to Parcel WB-52 would remain with the private landowner, who anticipates using the site to develop affordable housing; and WHEREAS, all written and oral objections made or filed were duly heard, evidence for and against the proposed action was received, and a full, fair and complete hearing was granted and held.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that

1. The City Council finds that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code §38501 et seq. regarding Municipal Park Abandonment, it is hereby ordered:
i. That any and all objections to the abandonment of Parcel WB-52 are hereby overruled; and
ii. That Parcel WB-52 in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto, is hereby abandoned as a City Park.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE, IN THE COUNTY OF PLACER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

Lot 2, as shown on that certain map, entitled ‘Final Map, Westbrook Phases 2&3, Large Lot Subdivision, Subdivision No. PL13-0318’. Filed for record December 8, 2016, in Book DD of Maps, Page 79, Placer County Records.

APN: 496-100-028-000.

EXHIBIT “B”
N74°46'52"W

44.01'
N67°23'18"W

57.49'
N89°36'45"W

30.85'
WB-52
LOT 2
DD MAPS 79

1.50 ACRES ±
N89°25'21"E 200.00'
Folsom Fresno
600 Coolidge Drive, Suite #140
Folsom, CA 95630
phone: (916)984-7621
web: www.mpengr.com
*
DRAWN:

CHECKED:

SCALE:

MJC JOB NO:

MJC DATE:
1"=120' SHEET:
210088
JULY 2023
1 of 1
Dwg: X:\2021\21-0088-00 (SVSP WB-30&31)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\EXHIBITS\WB-52 ABANDONMENT\210088-S1-EX02.DWG | Saved: 08-17-23 04:16pm MCHIARA 321.06'
324.04'

BOULEVARD
N00°34'39"W
N00°34'39"W

SANTUCCI

PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
EXHIBIT "B"

ABANDONMENT
WESTBROOK WB-52
LOT 2 ~ DD MAPS 79

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2949
File #: 0400-04-18-1 & 0400-02 & 0400-04-12-2
Title:

North Industrial Planning Area (Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks) Parcel CO-52 and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34 - General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification
Contact: Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 [email protected] Meeting Date: 9/20/2023
Item #: 11.4.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the August 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

1. Consider the 5
th Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 12
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific
Plan EIR; and

2. Adopt a resolution approving land use amendments to the General Plan; and

3. Adopt a resolution approving text and land use amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan; and

4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Rezone of North Industrial Planning Area Parcel CO-52 and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-52; and

5. Adopt a resolution adopting the two (2) findings of fact and approving the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification for a Master Plan Amendment to the HP Campus Oaks Master Plan; and

6. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA); and

7. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Sixth Amendment to the SVSP Westpark Federico DA; and

8. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan DA.

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the August 24, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.

Background/Project Location
The project site consists of five (5) vacant parcels in two areas of the City. One parcel is located at 401 Roseville Parkway, on Parcel CO-52 of the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks (HPCO) Master Plan area in the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA) (see Attachment 1). Adopted in August 2015, the HPCO Master Plan redesignated 198 acres of industrial land formerly owned by Hewlett-Packard to a mix of land uses, including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; Business Professional, Community Commercial, Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial, Parks and Recreation, Open Space, and Public/Quasi-Public. The HPCO Master Plan also established development standards, design guidelines, permitted uses, and a development plan for the area, and a tentative subdivision map to create large lots based on the land use plan.

Parcel CO-52 is 17.65 acres and has a zoning designation of Industrial/Business Park/Special Area (MP/SA) and a land use designation of Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial (T/BP LI). The HPCO Master Plan anticipated Parcel CO-52 to be developed with an employment center with a building square footage allocation of 150,000 square feet.

The four (4) other project parcels are located in the Westbrook portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area (see Attachment 2) and consist of Parcels WB-30 (APN 496-100-027-000), WB-32 (APN 496-100-034-000), WB-52 (APN 496-100-028-000), and FD-34 (APN 498-020- 014-000). The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road. Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 have a zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3) and a land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR), and Parcel WB-52 has a zoning and land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR). Parcel WB52 is a 1.5-acre parcel that is owned by a private landowner but this parcel is subject to an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) to the City via the final large lot subdivision map of Westbrook Phases 2 and 3 by the Westbrook developers, as required by the Westbrook Development Agreement. However, the City Parks, Recreation and Libraries staff evaluated Parcel WB-52 for its intended use as a City park and determined the site is challenging because of its small size and limited public access (it is surrounded by two HDR parcels with an Open Space parcel to the north). On August 16, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution #23-334) declaring its intention to abandon the IOD of Parcel WB-52 for parks and recreation purposes and have it remain with the private landowner. The applicant will pay in-lieu fees to the City in the amount of the fair market value of this property. The City Council will take final action on the abandonment on September 20, 2023.

Project Description
The proposed project will result in the addition of 285 market-rate HDR units in the HPCO Master Plan area and the addition of 266 affordable HDR units (10 very-low income and 256 low-income) in the SVSP area, for a total of 551 additional HDR units. This current application requests only land use changes; it does not include approval of any specific development project on the subject parcels. The increase in residential units, including affordable units, assists the City in fulfilling its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as determined by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The August 24, 2023 Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 3, includes a table summarizing the density and unit changes that would occur under the proposed project, including the transferred obligation to provide affordable units.

Below is a description of the proposed changes for each project parcel.

HPCO Parcel CO-52 (17.65 acres): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use for Parcel CO-52 from T/BP LI to HDR and a Rezone to change the zoning designation from MP/SA to R3. The proposed unit allocation for Parcel CO-52 is 285 units and the affordable obligation of 143 low-income units (50 percent of new units proposed on Parcel CO-52) will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-30 and WB-32. A Master Plan Amendment and Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification is requested to amend the HPCO Master Plan text and figures consistent with the land use and zoning changes for Parcel CO-52. The changes include a reduction to the anticipated square footage of non-residential building area and an increase in the total number of HDR units for the HPCO Master Plan area. A Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan Development Agreement (DA) is requested to reflect these proposed changes.

SVSP Parcel WB-30 (8.06 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 237 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 68 very-low-income units and 169 low-income units under the SVSP. The applicant proposes to add 118 low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated very-low-income units to low-income units, for a total of 355 low-income units on the parcel. The units will be age-restricted for use by senior citizens. The obligation to provide 68 very-low-income units will be transferred to Parcel FD-34. This action will require a Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the site and to document the number of HDR units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required for this parcel. In addition, there is a 20-foot-wide public access easement across this parcel extending from Pleasant Grove Boulevard to Parcel WB-52.

Approval of an easement abandonment by the City Council would be required to allow the future development of Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities, rather than as a public neighborhood park (discussed below).

SVSP Parcel WB-32 (5.11 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 128 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 92 very-low-income units and 36 low-income units under the SVSP.

The applicant proposes to add 64 low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated very-low-income units to lowincome units, for a total of 192 low-income units on this parcel. The obligation to provide 92 very-low-income units will be transferred to Parcel FD-34. These changes will be documented in the proposed Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA. No redesignation or rezone will be required for this parcel.

SVSP Parcel WB-52 (1.5 acres): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR and a Rezone to change the zoning designation from PR to R3. No housing units will be allocated to this parcel, however, the applicant intends to develop the area encompassed by Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities to serve current and future residents of HDR Parcels WB30, WB-31, and W-16. In-lieu fees, in the amount of fair market value of the property, will be required for the future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland.

The proposed changes will require a Specific Plan Amendment to the SVSP and will be documented in the Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA.

SVSP Parcel FD-34 (7.04 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 172 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 86 very-low-income units and 86 low-income units under the SVSP.

The applicant proposes to add 84 very-low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated low-income units to verylow-income units, in part by receiving the transfer of very-low-income units from Parcels WB30 and WB-32, for a total of 256 very-low-income units on the parcel. This action will require a Sixth Amendment to the Federico DA to document the revised affordable unit obligations and density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required.

Summary Evaluation
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone As detailed in pages 5-8 of the attached Planning Commission staff report, the proposed land use amendment of HPCO Parcel CO-52 from T/BP LI to HDR is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the City’s adopted Guidelines for Conversion of NonResidential Land Uses (see Attachment 1 of the Planning Commission staff report). In addition, the General Plan identifies the proposed R3 zone as an implementing zone for the HDR land use, which is intended for multiple-family dwellings at a density of at least 13 units per gross developable acre and applied to lands in close proximity to services. Parcel CO-52 is located within close proximity to the Campus Oaks Town Center, and the proposed unit allocation of 285 units results in a density of 16.1 units per gross developable acre, which is consistent with the HDR land use and is compatible with the surrounding uses. The obligation to provide 143 affordable units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-30 and WB-32, which are both HDR parcels with existing affordable unit obligations. As detailed in the Project Description, affordable housing obligations will also be transferred among SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34.

The transfers will result in a net increase of 266 affordable units beyond existing conditions, including 10 very-low-income and 256 low-income units. Table 5-3 of the SVSP will be amended to reflect the changes in the affordable housing obligations (see Exhibit F). The City’s Housing Division reviewed the project and determined the proposed affordable unit transfers are acceptable and consistent with City policy.

As evaluated and discussed in the Planning Commission staff report and in the Combined CEQA Document (included as Exhibit A), there are no significant impacts to traffic or utilities resulting from the proposed land use amendment and rezone.

The proposed land use amendment and rezone of Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR and R3 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the SVSP. Consistent with General Plan Policy PR1.4, in-lieu fees will be required for the future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland, which is included in the proposed amendment to the Westbrook DA. The in-lieu fee will be provided as the fair market value of Parcel WB-52 and will be required on Parcel WB-31 only, which is a market-rate parcel, to not burden the affordable parcels WB-30 and WB-32. The funds from the in-lieu fees will go towards the improvement of other parks in the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area, providing a benefit to a greater number of residents. A Specific Plan Amendment is requested to change the text, tables, and figures of the SVSP to reflect the land use change. The SVSP change pages are included as Exhibit F.

Master Plan Amendment and Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification The HPCO Master Plan is considered the approved MPP Stage 1 for the plan area. The MPP Stage 1 Modification includes amending the HPCO Master Plan text and figures consistent with the project changes. The HPCO Master Plan modifications focus on changes to figures, tables, and text related to the changes in land use and zoning for Parcel CO-52. The exhibit for the proposed HPCO Master Plan Amendment is included as Exhibit I and the redlines are included as Exhibit J. No changes to policies, standards, or guidelines in the HPCO Master Plan are proposed. The proposed changes to land use and zoning are consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, and with the findings required for a Rezone.

Development Agreement Amendments
Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties. The project includes a third amendment to the SVSP Westbrook DA (Exhibit K) which covers SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and WB-52; a sixth amendment to the SVSP Westpark Federico DA (Exhibit L) which covers SVSP Parcel FD-34; and a tenth amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA (Exhibit M) which covers HPCO Parcel CO-52. Although a density bonus would not ordinarily require a DA Amendment, the project requires DA Amendments in order to document the transfer of the affordable housing obligations among the project parcels and to reflect the land use changes. In addition, the Westbrook DA will be revised to include a neighborhood park in-lieu fee for the re-designation of Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR. The inlieu fee will be required upon the issuance of each residential building permit within Parcel WB-31 to provide additional funding for neighborhood park improvements in the Plan Area. Lastly, the Westbrook DA will be amended to state that the City acknowledges that if the landowner undertakes the affordable projects on Parcels WB-30 and/or WB-32, the landowner intends to obtain the welfare exemption from property taxes afforded under Section 214, subdivision (g) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. This same welfare exemption will be added in the Westpark Federico DA for the affordable project on Parcel FD-34. Items that are not addressed in the amendments are subject to the terms of the original DAs and prior amendments.

In summary, City staff has found the proposed DAAs to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, the HPCO Master Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The City’s Housing Division reviewed the project and determined the proposed affordable unit obligations are acceptable and consistent with City policy. The DA Amendments are in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City's Planning Commission on August 24, 2023. The applicant's representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested the Commission recommend approval to the City Council. No public testimony was received at the hearing. After deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Master Plan Amendment for a MPP Stage 1 Modification, and Development Agreement Amendment with a vote of 7 aye, 0 nay, 0 absent.

Public Outreach
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website and notice of the proposed rezone and land use amendment for HPCO Parcel CO-52 and SVSP Parcel WB-52 were posted on the corresponding sites. Notices of both the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing were published in the Roseville Press Tribune and on the RCONA website, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comments regarding the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the City’s General Fund. The entitlements would facilitate eventual construction of multi-family residential projects. The eventual construction of the multi-family residential projects would generate revenue to the City through the payment of development impact fees and community facilities districts for ongoing municipal services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Given the project is located in two different Plan areas of the City, individualized CEQA analysis is required based on site location and the previous planning conducted for that site and area.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared an Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan (COMP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #95112022, certified on June 5, 1996) for changes to Parcel CO-52; and an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified on May 5, 2010 inclusive of the SVSP Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND] adopted in June 2012), for changes to SVSP Parcels FD-34, WB-30, WB-32, and WB-52. The addenda are included in the “Combined CEQA Document” included as Exhibit A and the corresponding attachments are included as Exhibit B, which include the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions assessment, transportation impact analysis, utility demands study, and applicable mitigation measures. To comply with CEQA’s requirement to prepare a single environmental review document for “the whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a)), the City prepared a combined environmental document that treats the actions in the two separate planning areas as a single combined project in order to avoid performing piecemeal review. The CEQA document also includes a Cumulative Considerations analysis, which looks at the combined effects of the project in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from the changes in the HPCO Master Plan Area and in the SVSP area. This analysis provides additional consideration of the project’s combined cumulative impacts by looking at the actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan area as contemplated in the certified 2020 General Plan EIR for the 2035 General Plan Update. The environmental review did not identify any new environmental impacts resulting from the project. As such, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider the addenda prior to taking action on this project.

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

Description
Attachment 1 Vicinity Map (HPCO Parcel CO-52)
Attachment 2 Vicinity Map (SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, & FD-34) Attachment 3August 24, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit A Combined CEQA Document (5thAddendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan EIRand the 12thAddendum to the

SVSP EIR)
Exhibit B Combined CEQA Document Attachments
Resolution 23-388
Exhibit CGeneral PlanAmendment Exhibit (HPCO Parcel CO-52) Exhibit DGeneral PlanAmendment Exhibit (SVSP Parcel WB-52) Exhibit E General Plan Land Use Map
Resolution 23-389
Exhibit F SVSP Change Pages
Ordinance 23-xxx Rezone
Exhibit G Rezone Exhibit (HPCO Parcel CO-52)
Exhibit H Rezone Exhibit (SVSP Parcel WB-52)
Exhibit I HPCO Parcel CO-52 Master PlanAmendment Exhibit Resolution 23-390
Exhibit J HPCO Master Plan Redlines
Ordinance for ThirdAmendment to the Westbrook DA
Exhibit K ThirdAmendment to the Westbrook DA
Ordinance for SixthAmendment to the Westpark Federico DA Exhibit L SixthAmendment to Westpark Federico DA
Ordinance for TenthAmendment to the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan DA Exhibit M TenthAmendment to the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan DA Rickey, Walter &
Doris Park
Safeway
Round Table
Pizza
Walgreens
Chase
Crimson Ridge
Park
Foothills
Hewlett-Packard
Ind Complex
Vicinity Map
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Roseville, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Nearmap, City of Roseville, Maxar Roseville Parcel
Roseville Street Label
8/28/2023, 3:02:10 PM 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
1:9,028
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
CC ATTACHMENT 1
CO-52
Westbrook
Roccucci,
Richard &
Pauline Park
Sullivan, John L.

Park
Four Corners
Park
Sierra Vista
Nichols, Bud
Park
Mahan, R
P. "Bob"
Vicinity Map
Nearmap, City of Roseville, Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Roseville, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar
City Boundary
Roseville Street Label
8/28/2023, 2:57:52 PM 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 mi
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 km
1:18,056
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
CC ATTACHMENT 2
WB-30
WB-52
WB-32
FD-34
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2023
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.2: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendment, and Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification – 401 Roseville Parkway – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments in Western Roseville – File #PL23-0064

REQUEST
The project is a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Master Plan Amendment (MPA), and Rezone for HP Campus Oaks (HPCO) Master Plan Parcel CO-52 to change the land use from Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial (T/BP LI) to High Density Residential (HDR) and to change the zoning from Industrial/Business Park/Special Area (MP/SA) to Multi-Family Housing (R3) to allow the future development of 285 multi-family units. The affordable obligation of 143 low-income units (50 percent of new units proposed on Parcel CO-52) that is required by the City for the change in land use for Parcel CO-52 will be transferred from the HPCO Master Plan to Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcels WB-30 and WB-32. A Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification is requested to change the HPCO Master Plan to reflect the proposed changes, with the accompanying HPCO Master Plan Amendment to reflect the change in land use and zoning on Parcel CO-52. A Rezone, GPA, and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) for SVSP Parcel WB-52 is requested to change the zoning from Park and Recreation (PR) to R3 and the land use designation from PR to HDR. Density bonuses and changes to the affordable housing obligations for Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 are also requested. The allocation of additional multi-family units is requested pursuant to the Density Bonus Law (see Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.). Lastly, a Third Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA), a Sixth Amendment to the SVSP Westpark Federico DA, and a Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA are requested to document transfers of affordable housing obligations between the subject parcels, the revised affordable unit obligations on specified parcels, and to reflect the proposed land use changes and density bonuses. The requested entitlements will result in 285 market-rate HDR units on Parcel CO-52, with the density bonuses (including the transfer of CO-52’s low-income affordable unit obligation) on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 adding 256 HDR units affordable to low-income households and 10 HDR units affordable to very-low-income households to the City’s affordable housing unit inventory.

Applicant – Greg Bardini, Morton & Pitalo, Inc.

Property Owner – Scott Canel, Pine Island Apartments, LLC

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

1. Consider the 5th Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 12th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR;

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

5. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification for a Master Plan Amendment to the HP Campus Oaks Master Plan;

6. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Third Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA);
CC ATTACHMENT 3
NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 2 of 12

7. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Sixth Amendment to the SVSP Westpark Federico DA; and

8. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA.

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

BACKGROUND
The project site consists of five (5) vacant parcels in two areas of the City. One parcel is located at 401 Roseville Parkway, on Parcel CO-52 of the Hewlett Packard Campus Oaks (HPCO) Master Plan area in the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA) (see Figure 1). Adopted in August 2015, the HPCO Master Plan redesignated 198 acres of industrial land formerly owned by Hewlett Packard to a mix of land uses, including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; Business Professional, Community Commercial, Tech/Business Park – Light Industrial, Parks and Recreation, Open Space, and Public/Quasi-Public. The HPCO Master Plan also established development standards, design guidelines, permitted uses, and a development plan for the area, and a tentative subdivision map to create large lots based on the land use plan. Parcel CO-52 is 17.65 acres and has a zoning designation of Industrial/Business Park/Special Area (MP/SA) and a land use designation of Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial (T/BP LI). The HPCO Master Plan anticipated Parcel CO-52 to be developed with an employment center with a building square footage allocation of 150,000 square feet.

Figure 1: Project Location (HPCO Parcel CO-52)
CO-52
NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 3 of 12
The four (4) other project parcels are located in the Westbrook portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area (see Figure 2 below) and consist of Parcels WB-30 (APN 496-100-027-000), WB-32 (APN 496-100-034-000), WB-52 (APN 496-100-028-000), and FD-34 (APN 498-020-014-000). The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road.

Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 have a zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3) and a land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR), and Parcel WB-52 has a zoning and land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR). Parcel WB-52 is a 1.5-acre parcel that is owned by a private landowner but this parcel is subject to an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD)to the City via the final large lot subdivision map of Westbrook Phases 2 and 3 by the Westbrook developers, as required by the Westbrook Development Agreement. However, the City Parks, Recreation and Libraries staff evaluated Parcel WB-52 for its intended use as a City park and determined the site is challenging because of its small size and limited public access (it is surrounded by two HDR parcels with an Open Space parcel to the north). On August 16, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution #23-334) declaring its intention to abandon the IOD of Parcel WB-52 for parks and recreation purposes and have it remain with the private landowner. The applicant will pay in-lieu fees to the City in the amount of the fair market value of this property. The City Council will take final action on the abandonment on September 20, 2023.

Figure 2: Project Location (SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34)

PROJCECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will result in the addition of 285 market-rate HDR units in the HPCO Master Plan area and the addition of 266 affordable HDR units (10 very-low income and 256 low-income) in the SVSP area, for a total of 551 additional HDR units. No development is being proposed with this project. The increase in residential units, including affordable units, assists the City in fulfilling its share of the Regional Pleasant Grove Bl
WB-30
WB-32
WB-52
FD-34
Westbrook Bl
NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 4 of 12
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as determined by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Below is a description of the proposed changes for each project parcel. • HPCO Parcel CO-52 (17.65 acres): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use for Parcel CO-52 from T/BP LI to HDR and a Rezone to change the zoning designation from MP/SA to R3. The proposed unit allocation for Parcel CO-52 is 285 units and the affordable obligation of 143 low-income units (50 percent of new units proposed on Parcel CO-52) will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-30 and WB-32. A Master Plan Amendment and Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification is requested to amend the HPCO Master Plan text and figures consistent with the land use and zoning changes for Parcel CO-52. The changes include a reduction to the anticipated square footage of non-residential building area and an increase in the total number of HDR units for the HPCO Master Plan area. A Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan Development Agreement (DA) is requested to reflect these proposed changes.
• SVSP Parcel WB-30 (8.06 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 237 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 68 very-low-income units and 169 low-income units under the SVSP. The applicant proposes to add 118 low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated very-low-income units to low-income units, for a total of 355 low-income units on the parcel. The units will be age-restricted for use by senior citizens. The obligation to provide 68 very-low-income units will be transferred to Parcel FD-34.

This action will require a Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the site and to document the number of HDR units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required for this parcel. In addition, there is a 20- foot-wide public access easement across this parcel extending from Pleasant Grove Boulevard to Parcel WB-52. Approval of an easement abandonment by the City Council would be required to allow the future development of Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities, rather than as a public neighborhood park (discussed below).
• SVSP Parcel WB-32 (5.11 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 128 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 92 very-low-income units and 36 low-income units under the SVSP. The applicant proposes to add 64 low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated very-low-income units to low-income units, for a total of 192 low-income units on this parcel. The obligation to provide 92 very-low-income units will be transferred to Parcel FD-34. These changes will be documented in the proposed Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA. No redesignation or rezone will be required for this parcel. • SVSP Parcel WB-52 (1.5 acres): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR and a Rezone to change the zoning designation from PR to R3. No housing units will be allocated to this parcel, however, the applicant intends to develop the area encompassed by Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities to serve current and future residents of HDR Parcels WB-30, WB-31, and W-16. In-lieu fees, in the amount of fair market value of the property, will be required for the future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland. The proposed changes will require a Specific Plan Amendment to the SVSP and will be documented in the Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA.
• SVSP Parcel FD-34 (7.04 acres): This parcel is currently allocated 172 HDR units, with an affordable obligation of 86 very-low-income units and 86 low-income units under the SVSP. The applicant proposes to add 84 very-low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code, § 65915 et seq.), and to convert the allocated low-income units to very-low-income units, in part by receiving the transfer of very-low-income units from Parcels WB-30 and WB-32, for a NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 5 of 12
total of 256 very-low-income units on the parcel. This action will require a Sixth Amendment to the Federico DA to document the revised affordable unit obligations and density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required.

The table below summarizes the density and unit changes that would occur under the proposed project, including the transferred obligation to provide affordable units.

Table 1: Current and Proposed Unit Allocations
Parcel
Density (units/acre) Currently Allocated
Units Proposed Units
Existing Proposed Total VeryLow Low Base
Units
Density
Bonus Total VeryLow Low
CO-52 0 16.1 0 0 0 285 N/A 285 0 (143)*
WB-30 29.4 44.0 237 68 169 237 118 355 0 355
WB-32 25 37.6 128 92 36 128 64 192 0 192
WB-52 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0
FD-34 24.4 36.4 172 86 86 172 84 256 256 0
UNIT TOTALS 537 246 291 822 266 1,088 256 547
NET CHANGE +551 +10 +256
*The obligation to provide these Low-Income Units will be transferred from Parcel CO-52 to Parcels WB-30 and WB-32.

EVALUATION – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONE Proposed amendments to the General Plan and a Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. For the proposed rezone of Parcels CO-52 and WB-52, Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

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

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The project would rezone HCPO Parcel CO-52 from Industrial/Business Park/Special Area (MP/SA) to Multi-Family Residential (R3) and amend the land use designation from Tech/Business Park – Light Industrial (T/BP LI) to High Density Residential (HDR) (see Exhibits C and D). The General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II-10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation. The proposed R3 zone is listed as an implementing zone for the HDR land use.

According to the General Plan, the HDR land use designation applies to land characterized by multiplefamily dwellings at a density of at least 13 units per gross developable acre and should be applied to lands in close proximity to services. Parcel CO-52 is 17.65 acres, and the project proposes a unit allocation of 285 units, which results in a density of 16.1 units per acre consistent with the HDR land use.

In addition, the parcel is in close proximity to services, including the Campus Oaks Town Center to the northwest, which includes a variety of retail, restaurants, and commercial uses.

Table II-9 of the General Plan contains a table addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses. The proposed HDR land use is considered compatible with the adjacent T/BP LI parcel to the north and with the HDR parcels to the south and west, and conditionally compatible with the Community Commercial NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 6 of 12
(CC) parcel to the north. A 0.3-acre well site is located at the northeast corner of the site and is designated as Public/Quasi-Public, which is considered conditionally compatible.

In 2004, in response to increased requests to convert commercial and industrial properties to residential uses, the City Council adopted guidelines for the conversion of non-residential land uses. A copy of the guidelines is provided as Attachment 1. As stated in the guidelines, the purpose is to make clear the City’s expectations related to the loss of job-generating land uses. The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes outside of the Infill portion of the City is to maintain the City’s fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community. The guidelines include evaluating fiscal impacts, noise, park dedication, public services, affordable housing, schools, utilities, and traffic when contemplating residential land use allocations. The guidelines were used in staff’s evaluation of the proposed land use amendment to HPCO Parcel CO-52, given that it will be converting a non-residential land use (e.g., Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial) to a residential land use (e.g., High Density Residential) with a unit allocation of 285 units. The guidelines are listed below.

1. A region-wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres.

2. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model.

3. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size shall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance.

4. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income).

5. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee.

6. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City.

7. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding in-lieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in-lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit.

8. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of an in-lieu fee for land dedication.

9. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity.

10. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated.

11. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation.

NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 7 of 12

12. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.

Parcel CO-52 is under 50 acres, therefore guidelines #1 and #3 listed above are not applicable to the evaluation of the project. The City’s building permit process includes the assessment of all applicable and appropriate fees, which will ensure the project conforms to the guidelines addressing impact fees.

Traffic: As part of the environmental review of the project, a traffic study was prepared by Fehr & Peers to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the proposed changes, including the changes proposed in the SVSP area. The environmental document is included as Exhibit A and the traffic study is included as Attachment B of Exhibit B. Consistent with General Plan policies, the traffic study included an estimated trip generation, analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and impacts on Level of Service (LOS). Each item is discussed below. Within the City’s travel demand model, the amendments to Parcel CO-52 would replace 150,000 square feet of high-tech industrial space with 285 multi-family dwelling units and would result in a net increase of 266 HDR units within the SVSP. - Trip Generation: The proposed project would result in a net increase of 278 daily trips generated by Parcel CO-52 and a net increase of 593 daily trips in the SVSP. Overall, a net increase of 871 daily trips is expected. The corresponding increase during the a.m. peak hour is 30 trips and the corresponding increase during the p.m. peak hour is 16 trips. However, the reduction in VMT, discussed below, offsets the increase in daily trips. The City’s Engineering Division reviewed the traffic study and determined there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project.
- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): VMT is a measurement of travel demand, representing the number of miles traveled by vehicles in some amount of time (e.g., VMT per day or annual VMT).

Consistent with state law, the General Plan has adopted VMT standards and requires land use amendments to be evaluated for consistency with these standards. Per the traffic study findings, converting a tech/business park use to multi-family residential results in a decrease in VMT.

Overall, the proposed amendments would result in a net combined decrease of 2,376 VMT in the Campus Oaks and SVSP areas. Although there is an overall increase in trip generation, the net decrease in VMT is largely due to the proposed age-restricted uses on Parcel WB-30, which have a lower average trip rate and trip length compared to a typical multi-family use. Thus, VMT impacts associated with the project would have a less than significant impact. - Level of Service (LOS): The Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes a policy requiring LOS “C” or better as an acceptable operating condition at all signalized intersections during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Parcels WB-30 and WB-32 are situated less than one mile to the west of the signalized Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Westbrook Boulevard intersection, which operates near the cusp of LOS C/D under cumulative p.m. peak-hour conditions. The traffic study evaluated whether the proposed project would cause this intersection to worsen from LOS C to D. The results concluded that the intersection would continue to operate at a cumulative LOS C during the p.m. peak hour with the proposed project changes, consistent with General Plan policy.

Utilities: As part of the environmental review of the project, a technical memo was prepared by Morton & Pitalo (see Attachment C of Exhibit B – Combined CEQA Document Attachments) that evaluated the water, sewer, and electric demands based on the proposed land use change for Parcel CO-52. The memo concluded the change in land use from T/BP LI to HDR would result in an additional water demand of 5.1 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase in sewer demand by 0.139 million gallons per day (mgd) during peak weather flow, and a decrease in electric demand by 0.39 megawatts (MW). The increases in water and sewer demand would not result in a significant impact to the City’s water supply and sewer facilities.

NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 8 of 12
Public Benefit and Affordable Housing: The increase in residential units would contribute additional funding for public services through the Public Services Community Facilities District (CFD), and additional funding for fire and police services through the Municipal Services CFD. In addition, the proposed 285- unit allocation for Parcel CO-52 is subject to an affordable obligation of 143 low-income units (50 percent of new units proposed) which increases the City’s affordable housing supply. This affordable unit obligation will be transferred from the HPCO Master Plan to SVSP Parcels WB-30 and WB-32. Parcels WB-30 and WB-32 are both HDR parcels with existing affordable unit obligations. The City’s Housing Division reviewed the project and determined the proposed affordable unit transfers are acceptable and consistent with City policy.

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

SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34
As detailed in the Project Description, affordable housing obligations will also be transferred among SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34. The transfers will result in an additional 266 affordable units, with 10 very-low-income units and 256 low-income units. Table 5-3 of the SVSP will be amended to reflect the changes in the affordable housing obligations (see Exhibit G). The City’s Housing Division reviewed the project and determined the proposed affordable unit transfers are acceptable and consistent with City policy.

SVSP Parcel WB-52
Parcel WB-52 is a 1.5-acre parcel that is designated as a City park in the SVSP and has a land use and zoning designation of Parks and Recreation (PR). As mentioned in the Background section of this report, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intention to abandon the dedication of the park parcel.

A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are requested to change the land use designation from PR to HDR and the zoning designation from PR to R3 (see Exhibits E and F). No housing units will be allocated to this parcel because the applicant intends to develop the area encompassed by Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities to serve current and future residents of HDR Parcels WB-30, WB-31, and W-16. Consistent with General Plan Policy PR1.4, in-lieu fees will be required for the future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland, which will be included in the proposed amendment to the Westbrook DA. The in-lieu fee will be provided as the fair market value of Parcel WB-52 and will be required on Parcel WB-31 only, which is a market-rate parcel, to not burden the affordable parcels WB-30 and WB-32. The funds from the in-lieu fees will go towards the improvement of other parks in the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area, providing a benefit to a greater number of residents. A Specific Plan Amendment is requested to change the text, tables, and figures of the SVSP to reflect the land use change. The SVSP redlines are included as Exhibit G.

EVALUATION – MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1

MODIFICATION
The HPCO Master Plan is considered the approved Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 for the plan area. While Section 19.82.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance describes the procedures for amendments to a Major Project Permit, Section 6.3.3 of the HPCO Master Plan requires City Council approval of major modifications to the Master Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation and the City Council will be acting on the MPP Stage 1 entitlement. The findings for a Major Project Permit Stage 1 are as follows:

1. The Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City design guidelines; and
NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 9 of 12

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

The Major Project Permit 1 Modification includes amending the HPCO Master Plan text and figures consistent with the project changes. The HPCO Master Plan modifications focus on changes to figures, tables, and text related to the changes in land use and zoning for Parcel CO-52. The exhibit for the proposed HPCO Master Plan Amendment is included as Exhibit H and the redlines are included as Exhibit I. No changes to policies, standards, or guidelines in the HPCO Master Plan are proposed. As discussed in the evaluations of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the proposed changes to land use and zoning are consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, and with the findings required for a Rezone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development Agreements (DAs) are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

The project includes a third amendment to the SVSP Westbrook DA (Exhibits J and K), a sixth amendment to the SVSP Westpark Federico DA (Exhibits L and M), and a tenth amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA (Exhibits N and O). Although a density bonus would not ordinarily require a DA Amendment, the project requires DA Amendments in order to document the transfer of the affordable housing obligations among the project parcels and to reflect the land use changes. Each DA Amendment is listed and discussed below. Items that are not addressed in the amendments are subject to the terms of the original DAs and prior amendments.

Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA: The Westbrook DA covers SVSP Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and WB-52. The DA will be amended to reflect the changes in land use for Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR, revise the affordable housing obligations, and reflect the density bonuses for Parcels WB-30 and WB-32.

In addition, the DA will be revised to include a neighborhood park in-lieu fee for the re-designation of Parcel WB-52 from PR to HDR. The in-lieu fee will be required upon the issuance of each residential building permit within Parcel WB-31 to provide additional funding for neighborhood park improvements in the Plan Area. Lastly, the DA will be amended to state that the City acknowledges that if the landowner undertakes the affordable projects on Parcels WB-30 and/or WB-32, the landowner intends to obtain the welfare exemption from property taxes afforded under Section 214, subdivision (g) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 10 of 12
Sixth Amendment to the Westpark Federico DA: The Westpark Federico DA covers SVSP Parcel FD-34.

The DA will be amended to reflect the density bonus and revised affordable housing obligation for Parcel FD-34. Similar to the amendment to the Westbrook DA, the DA will be amended to state that the City acknowledges that if the landowner undertakes the affordable project on Parcel FD-34, the landowner intends to obtain the welfare exemption from property taxes afforded under Section 214, subdivision (g) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard (HP) Master Plan DA: The HP Master Plan DA covers HPCO Parcel CO-52. The DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use changes and unit allocations for Parcel CO-52 and to update the intensity thresholds for water, sewer, electric, and traffic demands.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on August 10, 2023 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. No comments have been received as of publication of the staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Given the project is located in two different Plan areas of the City, individualized CEQA analysis is required based on site location and the previous planning conducted for that site and area. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared an Addendum to the Hewlett Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan (COMP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #95112022, certified on June 5, 1996) for changes to Parcel CO-52; and an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified on May 5, 2010 inclusive of the SVSP Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND] adopted in June 2012), for changes to SVSP Parcels FD-34, WB-30, WB-32, and WB-52. The addenda are included in the “Combined CEQA Document” included as Exhibit A and the corresponding attachments are included as Exhibit B, which include the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions assessment, transportation impact analysis, utility demands study, and applicable mitigation measures. To comply with CEQA’s requirement to prepare a single environmental review document for “the whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a)), the City prepared a combined environmental document that treats the actions in the two separate planning areas as a single combined project in order to avoid performing piecemeal review. The CEQA document also includes a Cumulative Considerations analysis, which looks at the combined effects of the project in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from the changes in the HPCO Master Plan Area and in the SVSP area. This analysis provides additional consideration of the project’s combined cumulative impacts by looking at the actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan area as contemplated in the certified 2020 General Plan EIR for the 2035 General Plan Update. The environmental review did not identify any new environmental impacts resulting from the project. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the addenda prior to taking action on this project.

NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 11 of 12

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

1. Consider the 5th Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 12th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR;

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064;

4. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the REZONE – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064;

5. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT / MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB32, WB-52 & FD-34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23- 0064; and

6. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SVSP WESTBROOK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064;

7. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE SVSP FEDERICO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064; and

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

AMENDMENT TO THE HEWLETT PACKARD MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – 401 ROSEVILLE PARKWAY – NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD34 – CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA AMENDMENTS – FILE #PL23-0064.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses

EXHIBITS
A. Combined CEQA Document (5th Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan EIR and the 12th Addendum to the SVSP EIR)
B. Combined CEQA Document Attachments
C. HPCO Parcel CO-52 GPA Exhibit
D. HPCO Parcel CO-52 Rezone Exhibit
E. SVSP Parcel WB-52 GPA Exhibit
F. SVSP Parcel WB-52 Rezone Exhibit
G. SVSP Change Pages
H. HPCO Parcel CO-52 Master Plan Amendment Exhibit
I. HPCO Master Plan Redlines
J. Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA – redlines
K. Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA – clean
NIPA PCL CO-52 & SVSP PCL WB-30, WB-32, WB-52 & FD-34 – Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments File #PL23-0064
Planning Commission – August 24, 2023 – Page 12 of 12
L. Sixth Amendment to the Westpark Federico DA – redlines M. Sixth Amendment to the Westpark Federico DA – clean
N. Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA – redlines O. Tenth Amendment to the Hewlett Packard Master Plan DA – clean Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Note: Exhibits A-I, K, M, and O are not included as
part of CC Attachment 3 (Planning Commission
Staff Report) because they are already included as
exhibits to the City Council Communication.

Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses
August 4, 2004
Intent:

In response to pressures to convert portions of the City's non-residential land use inventory the City has developed the following guidelines for the consideration of land use changes. The intent of the guidelines is to articulate the City's expectations relating to land use change proposals. These guidelines are to be applied as performance measures in the preparation and review of any such proposals. The guidelines are not intended to be inclusive of all City development requirements, but rather supplement those requirements by identifying or emphasizing concepts particularly important or unique to potential land use changes. It is expected that the City’s emphasis on certain concepts or requirements will change overtime. Therefore, the guidelines are to be a fluid document to be revisited every two years and updated to reflect the City’s present need. In consideration of the unique attributes and constraints of various areas of the City, the guidelines have been divided in two areas those guidelines that are applicable to the infill area and those that are applicable to the balance of the City. A map depicting these areas is attached. Infill The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes within the infill portion of the City is to encourage and emphasize reinvestment and revitalization without creating undue burdens and barriers to development while preserving neighborhood compatibility. 1. Infill properties are identified as those properties located within the City’s infill planning area as designated on the City’s Zoning Map.

2. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Neighborhood Park fees are to be applied to infill neighborhood park improvements as identified on an infill park CIP projects list. Where the Parks Department demonstrates a park need a Parkland dedication or inlieu park fee for land dedication may be negotiated and evaluated on a project by project basis, based on the nature of the project and the benefit to the City.

3. Encourage the use of private passive open space in-lieu of land dedication for infill projects.

4. Off site utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) that serve more than the specific project are not the sole responsibility of the project. Over-sizing of improvements or upgrading to City standards may be available for City reimbursement. The City may develop a CIP for off site improvements for which a project may pay an impact fee in lieu of constructing the improvement. Each project shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and shall be conditioned accordingly.

5. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed to reflect the payment of the City's existing infill school impact fees. 6. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income) except redevelopment areas shall provide 15%. (Of those 40% affordable to very low income and the balance affordable to low/middle income).

7. A land use change on the Placer County Fair Grounds shall require a master plan.

PC ATTACHMENT 1

8. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects. Balance of the City The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes for the balance of the City is to maintain the City's fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community.

1. Balance of the City includes properties within all specific plans and the North Industrial Plan area.

2. A region wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres.

3. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model.

4. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size shall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance.

5. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income).

6. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee. 7. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City. 8. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding in-lieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in-lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit. 9. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of and in-lieu fee for land dedication.

10. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity.

11. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated.

12. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation.

13. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.

08/16/23 1

THIRD AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND WESTPARK S.V. 400, LLC,

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
(Parcels WB‐30, WB‐32, and WB‐52)
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 PINE ISLAND APARTMENTS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (“Pine Island” or “Landowner”), as successor in interest to WESTPARK S.V. 400, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Westpark”), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code.

RECITALS
A. Westpark and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the City Council of City on June 20, 2012, and recorded on July 25, 2012, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2012‐0066790‐00. City and Westpark entered into the Development Agreement relative to development within a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”, “SVSP”, or “Plan Area”), as described in Exhibit “A” and shown in Exhibit “B” to the Development Agreement (the “Property”), and attached thereto.

B. On May 4, 2016, City approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “First Amendment”) relative to development within a portion of the SVSP, as more precisely defined in Exhibits “A” and “B” attached to the First Amendment, which was recorded on May 11, 2016, as Document No. 2016‐0035988‐00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

C. Westpark assigned its interest for a portion of the Property to Pine Island pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated as of November 10, 2021, and recorded November 10, 2021, as Document No. 2021‐0139629‐00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

D. On February 2, 2022, City approved the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) relative to development within a portion of the SVSP, as more precisely defined in Exhibits “A” and “B” attached to the

PC EXHIBIT J
08/16/23 2
Second Amendment, which was recorded on March 10, 2022, as Document No. 2022‐ 0021197‐00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

E. This Third Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Third Amendment”) affects a certain portion of the Property commonly known as SVSP Parcels WB‐30, WB‐32 and WB‐52 (the “Third Amendment Property”), as described in Exhibit “A” and as shown in Exhibit “B” attached to this Third Amendment. This Third Amendment does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the remainder of the Property described in the Development Agreement.

F. Concurrent with its consideration of this Third Amendment, City is processing (1) a General Plan Amendment (Reso. No. 23‐____), Specific Plan Amendment (Reso. No. 23‐____), and a Rezone (Ordinance No. _________) to re‐ designate and rezone Parcel WB‐52 from Park to High Density Residential land use, (2) a fifty percent (50%) density bonus to allow development of an increase in High Density Residential units from the allocated 237 units assigned to Parcel WB‐30 to a total of 355 units on Parcel WB‐30, with a concurrent increase in the affordable housing obligation on Parcel WB‐30 from 237 units affordable to low and very‐low income households to 355 units affordable to low income households, and (3) a fifty percent (50%) density bonus to allow development of an increase in High Density Residential units from the allocated 128 units assigned to Parcel WB‐32 to a total of 192 units on Parcel WB‐32, with a concurrent increase in the affordable housing obligation on Parcel WB‐32 from 128 units affordable to low and very‐low income households to 192 units affordable to low income households. City and Landowner enter into this Third Amendment in order to provide consistency with and to vest these land use approvals.

G. The 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. REVISED SECTION 2.2. The summary table of Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement (“Vested Entitlements”) is revised as follows:
“Low Density Residential 505 units on 93.8 Net Acres;
Low Density Residential/Age Restricted 493 units on 94.3 Net Acres; Medium Density Residential 466 units on 67.3 Net Acres; 08/16/23 3
High Density Residential 658* units on 25.824.3 Gross Acres; Community Commercial 14.5 Gross Acres;
Community Commercial/Commercial 0 Gross Acres;
Mixed Use
Park 13.24.7 Gross Acres;
Open Space 36.6 Gross Acres;
Schools 10.0 Gross Acres;
Water Treatment/Well Site 0.3 Gross Acres;
Lift Station 0.8 Gross Acres;
Right of Way /Landscape Corridors 45.3 Gross Acres.”
*Parcel WB-30 includes 237 allocated HDR units, plus a density bonus of 118 HDR units, and Parcel WB-32 includes 128 allocated HDR units, plus a density bonus of 64 HDR units.”
b. REVISED SECTION 2.6.2. Section 2.6.2 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“2.6.2. Multi Family Affordable Rental Units. Landowner agrees that five hundred and forty-seven (547) affordable rental units for low income households three hundred and sixty-five (365) affordable rental units, including one hundred and sixty-two (162) affordable rental units transferred from Parcel W-16 in the West Roseville Specific Plan, and forty-one (41) middle income purchase transferred from Parcels WB-20 and WB-21, will be reserved within the Property,
consisting of one hundred and four (104) units for rental to very low income households and two hundred and sixty-one (261) units for rental to low income households, as follows:

Parcel Total Units in Parcel
incl. density bonus
Low Income Rental
Units
Very Low Income
Units
WB-30 355237 355169 068
WB-32 192128 192 360
TOTAL 547365 547261 0104
c. NEW SECTION 2.6.2.5. Section 2.6.2.5 is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:
“2.6.2.5 Welfare Exemption. City acknowledges that if Landowner undertakes the affordable projects on Parcels WB-30 and/or WB-32, Landowner intends to obtain the welfare exemption from property taxes afforded under Section 214, subdivision (g), of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (the “Welfare Exemption”). Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Landowner from obtaining such Welfare Exemption, and 08/16/23 4
the City agrees to provide all reasonable support and cooperation to Landowner in securing the Welfare Exemption.”
d. REVISED SECTION 3.12.1. Section 3.12.1 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

“3.12.1 Park and Open Space Dedications. Landowner shall dedicate to City a total of 13.214.6 acres of active neighborhood parkland, and 36.6 acres of open space.

The following twothree parcels, and one open space parcel, shall be dedicated to City as described below and shown in Exhibit “V”:

1. An 8.7-acre, more or less, portion of the Property for the purposes of a public park, shown as Parcel WB-50;

2. A 4.4-acre, more or less, portion of the Property, for the purpose of a public park, shown as Parcel WB-51; and

3. A 1.5-acre, more or less, portion of the Property, for the purpose of a public park, shown as Parcel WB-52; and

34. A 36.6-acre, more or less, portion of the Property, for the purposes, of drainage, flood control, bike trails, fuel modification (i.e., fire breaks), and preservation of wetland habitat and open space, shown as Parcel WB-80;
Landowner shall dedicate any park lands and open space Parcels within the Property provided that the Large Lot Final Map creating a separate parcel for the subject site has been recorded. City shall accept such dedication of any park lands and open space Parcels at the time when all infrastructure improvements (e.g., curb and gutter, roadway, utilities, utility stubs, bike trail grading, open space perimeter fencing, as may be required by the 404 Permit, etc.) adjacent to the parcels, i.e., frontage along the parcel, are substantially complete. Dedication of Preserve parcels shall be in accordance with Section 3.12.11.1 and the City’s Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan. In the event the Landowner uses any of the above mentioned parcels for temporary construction activity or staging (e.g., detention basins, rock crushing operations, dirt/debris stockpiling, etc.), the Landowner shall, prior to acceptance by City, restore the site to a like condition to what existed prior to such temporary construction or staging activity.”

e. NEW SECTION 3.12.3.2. Section 3.12.3.2 is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:
“3.12.3.2. Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee. In accordance with the 08/16/23 5
revised park financing plan for the Property stemming from the re-designation of Parcel WB-52 from Park to a High Density Residential land use, Landowner, in addition to paying the Neighborhood Park Fee provided for in Section 3.12.3 above, shall pay a one-time neighborhood park in-lieu fee for Parcel WB-31 (the “Neighborhood Park InLieu Fee”), upon the issuance of each residential building permit within Parcel WB-31, to provide additional funding for neighborhood park improvements in the Plan Area, provided that the first building permit for development on Parcel WB-31 is issued by January 15, 2028. Such Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee shall total $510,000 collectively for the 293 High Density Residential units allocated to Parcel WB-31, and, if paid by each building permit on Parcel WB-31 as provided for herein, shall be $1,740.61 per High Density Residential unit on Parcel WB-31 (but excluding carriage units, which shall not pay Neighborhood Park In-Lieu fees), subject to annual adjustment, on July 1, based on the percentage change in the CCI. If the first building permit for development on Parcel WB-31 is not issued by January 15, 2028, then Landowner, instead of paying the per-building permit Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee provided for in this Section

3.12.3.2, shall pay lump sum payments of $170,000 on January 31, 2028, June 30, 2028, and January 15, 2029, with each payment subject to annual adjustment on July 1, based on the percentage change in the CCI. In any event, the full Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee amount of $510,000, subject to the annual CCI adjustment, shall be paid in full by January 15, 2029. ”
f. REVISED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits attached to the Development Agreement are proposed to be deleted and replaced by new exhibits attached to this Third Amendment as follows:

Exhibit C ----- Annexation Area and Plan Area (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit E ----- Land Use Plan (Parcel WB-52 land use)
Exhibit F ----- Affordable Housing Sites (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit G ----- Phasing Plan (Parcel WB-52 land use)
Exhibit H ----- Road Improvements (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit I ----- Traffic Signals (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit J ----- Sewer Facilities (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit K-1 ----- Wastewater Facilities for Reimb. (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit L ----- Groundwater Well (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit N ----- Water Facilities (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit P ----- Recycled Water Facilities (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit Q ----- Recycled Water Facilities for Reimb. (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit S ----- Post Develop. 100 Year Floodplain (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit T ----- Electric Utility Improvements (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit U ----- 60kV Easement Area (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit V ----- Parks and Open Space (Parcel WB-52 land use) Exhibit W ----- Parks Financing Plan
Exhibit X ----- Bikeway Master Plan (Parcel WB-52 land use) 08/16/23 6
Exhibit Y ----- Open Space Preserve Areas (Parcel WB-52 land use)

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has found and determined that this Third Amendment of the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

3. AMENDMENT. This Third Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement, except as specified herein. As amended hereby, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect.

4. FORM OF AGREEMENT. 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 the Third Amendment in duplicate by its City Manager as 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.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, LANDOWNER:
a municipal corporation

PINE ISLAND APARTMENTS, LLC
an Indiana limited liability company
By:___________________________
Dominick Casey
City Manager By:_____________________________
Scott I. Canel
ATTEST: Manager

By: ___________________________
Carmen Avalos
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ___________________________
Michelle Sheidenberger
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:
08/16/23 7

By: ___________________________
Mike Isom
Development Services Director
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of PARCELS
WB-30, WB-32, AND WB-52

THIRD AMENDMENT PROPERTY
All that certain real property situate in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, described as follows:

Lots 1 and 2 as said lots are shown and so designated on that certain final map entitled “Westbrook Phases 2 & 3, filed in Book DD of Maps, Page 79, Placer County Records and amended by Certificate of Correction recorded March 21, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017- 0020719, Official Records.

Together with,
Lot 8 as said lot is shown and so designated on that certain final map entitled “Westbrook Phases 2 & 3, filed in Book DD of Maps, Page 79, Placer County Records and amended by Certificate of Correction recorded March 21, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017-0020719, Official Records.

Dwg: X:\2021\21-0100-00 (WESTBROOK 30)\DWG\PLAN\EXHIBITS\DA\WB_DA_BASE.DWG | Saved: 07-26-23 04:13pm GBARDINI EXHIBIT 'B' DIAGRAM OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT PROPERTY LOT 2 'DD' MAPS 79 3rd AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN JULY 2023 LOT 1 'DD' MAPS 79 LOT 8 'DD' MAPS 79 SANTUCCI BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD. PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. VISTA GRANDE BLVD. BASELINE ROAD

FIDDYMENT ROAD SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN

- 1 -

SIXTH AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND WESTPARK SIERRA VISTA, LLC, AS

ASSIGNEE OF WESTPARK FEDERICO, LLC, MOURIER INVESTMENTS,

LLC, AND FEDERICO-TYLER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
This Sixth Amendment of Development Agreement is entered into this ____ day of __________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“City”) and FD34 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company (“FD34” or “Landowner”), as Assignee of MOURIER INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Mourier”), pursuant to Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.

RECITALS
A. Mourier, Westpark Federico, LLC, a California limited liability company (Westpark Federico"), and the Federico-Tyler Family Limited Partnership (“Federico”), and City, entered into a Development Agreement (the “Original 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. 2010-0045943-00. The Original Development Agreement encompassed a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”, “SVSP”, or “Plan Area”), as more precisely defined in Exhibits “A” and “B” of the Original Development Agreement (the “Property”). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Original Development Agreement, which, with all its various amendments, constitutes the “Development Agreement”.

B. Westpark Federico assigned its interest in the Development Agreement to Westpark Sierra Vista, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Westpark Sierra Vista”) pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated as of January 5, 2011, and recorded January 12, 2011, as Document No. 2011-0003089-00, in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

C. Westpark Sierra Vista, Mourier, Federico, and City entered into a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “First Amendment”) which was approved by the City Council of City on December 20, 2017, and recorded on February 21, 2018, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2018-0010796-00.

PC EXHIBIT L
- 2 -
D. Westpark Sierra Vista, Mourier, Federico, and City entered into the First Amendment relative to development within certain portion of the Property, as is more precisely defined in Exhibits “A” and “B” of the First Amendment.

E. Mourier and Federico assigned their interest in the Development Agreement with a respect to a portion of the Property to Westpark Sierra Vista in that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated as of May 16, 2019, and recorded May 16, 2019, as Document No. 2019-0032322-00, in the Official Records of Placer County. The portion of the Property so assigned by Mourier and Federico to Westpark Sierra Vista was described in Exhibit “A” to that Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement.

F. Westpark Sierra Vista, as Assignee of Westpark Federico, and Federico-Tyler each assigned its interest in the Development Agreement with respect to a portion of the Property to Mourier pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated as of May 16, 2019, and recorded May 16, 2019, as Document No. 2019-0032321-00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

The portion of the Property so assigned by Westpark Sierra Vista and Federico to Mourier was described in Exhibit “A” to that Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement.

G. Westpark Sierra Vista assigned its interest in the Development Agreement for a portion of the Property to Solaire pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated as of June 3, 2019, and recorded June 4, 2019, as Document No. 2019-0037499-00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

H. On March 4, 2020, City approved the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) for a portion of the Property owned by Mourier. The Second Amendment was recorded on April 13, 2020, as Document No. 2020-0032961-00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

The Original Development Agreement, the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Development Agreement.”
I. On October 7, 2020, City approved the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Third Amendment”) affecting certain portions of the Property (the “Third Amendment Property”), as described in Exhibit “A” and shown in Exhibit “B” attached to the Third Amendment. The Third - 3 -
Amendment was recorded on November 10, 2020, as Document No. 2020- 0128930-00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

J. Westpark Sierra Vista assigned its interest in the Development Agreement for an additional portion of the Property to Solaire pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated October 13, 2020, and recorded October 15, 2020, as Document No. 2020-0116422-00, in the Official Records of Placer County.

K. Mourier assigned a portion of its interest in the Development Agreement with respect to the Fourth Amendment Property (as defined below) to John Mourier Construction, Inc. (“JMC”) pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated January 12, 2021, and recorded January 15, 2021, as Document No. 2021-0005796-00 in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

L. On April 21, 2021, City approved the Fourth Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Fourth Amendment”) affecting certain portions of the Property (the “Fourth Amendment Property”), as described in Exhibit “A” and shown in Exhibit “B” attached to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was recorded on July 1, 2021, as Document No. 2021-0085266-00 in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

M. On October 20, 2021, City approved the Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Fifth Amendment” affecting certain portion of the Property (the “Fourth Amendment Property”), as described in Exhibit “A” and shown in Exhibit “B” attached to the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment was recorded on December 17, 2021, as Document No. 2021- 0152422-00 in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

N. Mourier assigned a portion of its interest in the Development Agreement with respect to the Sixth Amendment Property (as defined below) to FD34 pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Development Agreement dated January 12, 2023, and recorded January 12, 2023, as Document No. 2023-0001667-00, in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

O. This Sixth Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Sixth Amendment”) affects a certain portion of the Property commonly known as SVSP Parcel FD-34 (the “Sixth Amendment Property”), as described in Exhibit “A” and shown in Exhibit “B” attached to this Sixth Amendment, and shall run - 4 -
with the land described in Exhibits “A” and “B” hereto. This Sixth Amendment does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the remainder of the Property described in the Development Agreement.

P. Concurrent with its consideration of this Sixth Amendment, City is processing a fifty percent (50%) density bonus to allow development of an increase in High Density Residential units developed on Parcel FD-34 from the allocated 172 units to a total of 256 units, with a concurrent increase in the affordable housing obligation on Parcel FD-34 from 172 units affordable to low and very-low income households to 256 units affordable to very-low income households. City and Landowner wish to enter into this Sixth Amendment in order to provide for consistency with this land use approval for the Sixth Amendment Property.

Q. City and Landowner wish to enter into this Sixth Amendment in order to amend applicable provisions of the Development Agreement for the Sixth Amendment Property.

R. The Sixth 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 of the Development Agreement are hereby amended as they pertain to the portion of the Property first assigned to Mourier and thereafter assigned to FD34:
a. REVISED SECTION 2.2. The summary table of Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement (“Vested Entitlements”) as it relates to property originally assigned to Mourier is revised as follows:
“High Density Residential *522 units on 24.4 Net Acres; *Parcel FD-34 includes 172 allocated HDR units plus a density bonus of 84 HDR units.”

b. REVISED SECTION 2.6.2.1. Section 2.6.2.1 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“2.6.2.1 Affordable Obligation. Landowner agrees that
twoone
- 5 -
hundred and fifty-sixseventy-two (256172) affordable rental units will be reserved within the Sixth Amendment Property, including two hundred and fiftyeighty-six (2586) units for rental to very low income households and eighty-six (86) units for rental to low income households, as follows:

Parcel Total Units
in Parcel
incl. density
bonus
Total Affordable
Unit Allocation
including
density bonus
Very Low
Income Rental
Units
Low Income
Rental Units
FD-34 256172 256172 25686 086
Total 256172 256172 25686 086
c. NEW SECTION 2.6.2.5 Section 2.6.2.5 is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:
“2.6.2.5 Welfare Exemption. City acknowledges that if Landowner undertakes the affordable project on Parcel FD-34, Landowner intends to obtain the welfare exemption from property taxes afforded under Section 214, subdivision (g), of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (the “Welfare Exemption”). Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Landowner from obtaining such Welfare Exemption, and the City agrees to provide all reasonable support and cooperation to Landowner in securing the Welfare Exemption.” d. EXHIBITS. The exhibits attached to this Sixth Amendment are for this Sixth Amendment only, as follows:

Exhibit A – Legal Description of Sixth Amendment Property Exhibit B -- Plat of Sixth Amendment Property

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has
found and determined that this Sixth Amendment of the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

3. AMENDMENT. This Sixth Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement, except as specified herein, and is limited and applies only to development of the Sixth Amendment Property, and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the development of any other property within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area, including, without limitation, any other portion of the Property. As amended hereby, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect.

4. FORM OF AMENDMENT. This Sixth Amendment is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. - 6 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Sixth 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.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
a municipal corporation
By:______________________________
Dominick Casey
City Manager
ATTEST:

By:______________________________
Carmen Avalos
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:______________________________
Michelle Sheidenberger
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

By:______________________________
Mike Isom
Development Services Director
LANDOWNER:

FD34 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company
By:____________________________
Scott I. Canel
Its: Manager
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of PARCEL FD-34 PROPERTY

SIXTH AMENDMENT PROPERTY
All that certain real property situate in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, described as follows:

Lot 14 as said lot is shown and so designated on that certain final map entitled “Final Map of Sierra Vista – Federico Large Lot Subdivision No. PL15-0192”, filed in Book EE of Maps, Page 6, Placer County Records.

Dwg: X:\2021\21-0100-00 (WESTBROOK 30)\DWG\PLAN\EXHIBITS\DA\WB_DA_BASE-FED.DWG | Saved: 07-26-23 04:31pm GBARDINI EXHIBIT 'B' DIAGRAM OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PROPERTY 6th AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN JULY 2023 LOT 14 'EE' MAPS 6 SANTUCCI BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD. PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. VISTA GRANDE BLVD. BASELINE ROAD

FIDDYMENT ROAD SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
1 OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 27383

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)

TENTH AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

AND BBC ROSEVILLE OAKS, LLC

RELATIVE TO THE

CAMPUS OAKS PROPERTY WITHIN THE

HEWLETT-PACKARD CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN
This Tenth Amendment of Development Agreement (the “Tenth Amendment”) is entered into this _____ day of_____________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and PINE ISLAND APARTMENTS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (hereinafter “Landowner”), as successor in interest to BBC ROSEVILLE OAKS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (hereinafter "BBC"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.

Recitals

1. Original Development Agreement. On August 1, 1996, the City and HewlettPackard Company entered into that certain agreement entitled “Development Agreement By and Between The City of Roseville and Hewlett-Packard Company Relative to the Roseville Master Plan” (the “Original Development Agreement”). The Original Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on August 16, 1996, as instrument No. 96- 00047544 and re-recorded on March 25, 1998 as Instrument No. 98-0019739.

2. First Amendment of Development Agreement. On May 23, 2001, the City and Hewlett-Packard Company entered into that certain agreement entitled “First Amendment of Development Agreement By and Between The City of Roseville and Hewlett-Packard Relative to the Roseville Master Plan” (“First Amendment”). The First Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on June 7, 2001, as Instrument No. 2001-0056191.

PC EXHIBIT N

2 3. Subdivision of Hewlett-Packard Property. Hewlett-Packard subdivided the Master Plan Property into four Parcels. Subsequent to that time, Hewlett-Packard transferred and/or sold the Parcels to other landowners. Therefore, there are multiple landowners with legal interest in the existing Development Agreement.

4. Campus Oaks Master Plan. On August 5, 2015, the City approved the HewlettPackard Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendment that amended the Master Plan for Parcel 1 and Parcel 4.

5. Second Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcels 1 and 4. On August 19, 2015, the City approved entering into a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for Parcel 1 and Parcel 4 with Hewlett-Packard and BBC Roseville Oaks, LLC. The Second Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on August 21, 2015, as Instrument No. 2015-0073371.

6. Third Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 1. On August 19, 2015, the City approved entering into a Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for Parcel 1 with Hewlett-Packard. The Third Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on September 16, 2015, as Instrument No. 2015-0081192, and was not applicable to Parcel 4.

7. Fourth Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 4. On August 19, 2015, the City approved entering into a Fourth Amendment to the Development Agreement for Parcel 4 with BBC Roseville Oaks, LLC. The Fourth Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on September 16, 2015, as Instrument No. 2015-0081193.

8. Fifth Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 4. On October 7, 2016, the City approved entering into a Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement for Parcel 4 with BBC Roseville Oaks, LLC. The Fifth Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on October 17, 2016, as Instrument No. 2016-0088960.

9. Sixth Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 3. On May 18, 2017, the City approved entering into a Sixth Amendment to the Development Agreement for Parcel 3 with Quality Investment Properties Roseville, LLC, Quality Investment Properties Roseville II, LLC, and Quality Investment Properties Roseville Land Company, LLC. The Sixth Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on May 26, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017- 0038715, and was not applicable to Parcel 4.

10. Seventh Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 4. On January 18, 2019, the City approved entering into a Seventh Amendment to the Development Agreement with BBC Roseville Oaks, LLC, for the portion of Parcel 4 planned for commercial development.

The Seventh Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on January 23, 2019, as Instrument No. 2019-0003961.

11. Eighth Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 2. On December 4, 2019, the City approved entering into an Eighth Amendment to the Development Agreement for

3 Parcel 2 with R10 Foothill, LLC. The Eighth Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on January 13, 2020, as Instrument No. 2020-0002586, and was not applicable to Parcel 4.

12. Ninth Amendment of Development Agreement for Parcel 4. On June 3, 2020, the City approved entering into a Ninth Amendment to the Development Agreement for a portion of Parcel 4 (the “Campus Oaks South Property”) with BBC. The Ninth Amendment was recorded in the Official Records of Placer County on July 6, 2020, as Instrument No 2020-0066871-00.

13. Campus Oaks Property Subject to Tenth Amendment. The subject of this Tenth Amendment is the development of Campus Oaks Parcel CO-52, as more particularly described in Exhibit 1 attached and incorporated hereto and diagrammed in Exhibit 2 also attached and incorporated hereto (herein, the “Parcel CO-52 Property”). Landowner represents that it owns all of the Parcel CO-52 Property in fee and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in Parcel CO-52 shall be bound by this Tenth Amendment. The Original Development Agreement, as amended by the First through Tenth Amendments, shall be referred to herein as the “Development Agreement.” Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement unless otherwise provided herein. All references to “Section” herein, unless otherwise noted, shall mean and refer to the corresponding Section of the Development Agreement.

14. Purpose of Amendment. The purpose of this Tenth Amendment is to reflect the modification of the land use and zoning for Parcel CO-52 from Tech Park/Business Park to High Density Residential, with an allocation of 285 High Density Residential units to Parcel CO-52, consistent with the amendments to the General Plan, Master Plan and zoning approved by the City as described below.

15. Amendments to Master Plan for Campus Oaks Property. In connection with Landowner’s land use entitlements for Parcel CO-52, Landowner has prepared and processed with the City, and the City has approved as provided below, certain amendments to the HewlettPackard Campus Oaks Master Plan for the Campus Oaks Property (the “Fourth Amended HPCO Master Plan”). The purpose of this Tenth Amendment is to amend the Development Agreement and the Entitlements vested thereby, including incorporating the Fourth Amended HPCO Master Plan as part of the Revised Entitlements described herein, as applied to development of the Parcel CO-52 Property, to facilitate the planned development of the Parcel CO-52 Property.

16. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, et seq., of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the City of Roseville and an applicant for a development project to enter into a development agreement establishing certain development rights in and obligations with respect to the property which is the subject of the development project application. In addition to this statutory authorization, Section 1.4 of the Development Agreement allows amendments to the Development Agreement that affect less than the entire Master Plan Area to be approved by the owner(s) in fee of the portions of the Master Plan Area that is subject to or affected by such amendment. In accordance with Section 1.4 of

4 the Development Agreement, Landowner proposes hereby to amend the terms and conditions for development only as to the Parcel CO-52 Property described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, which amendments are limited to the Parcel CO-52 Property, do not impose any new burdens or obligations on any other property in the Master Plan Area, and do not affect or impair the development rights of any other properties within the Master Plan Area.

17. Hearing. On _____________, 2023, the City Planning Commission, designated by Roseville Ordinance No. 3014 as the planning agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, considered this Tenth Amendment and recommended that the City Council approve this Tenth Amendment for the Parcel CO-52 Property.

18. Environmental Review. On August 5, 2015, in connection with its approval of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Development Agreement, the City Council adopted the Addendum to the Plan FEIR (the “First Addendum”) for development of the residential, business professional, commercial, light industrial (tech/business park), park, open space and public/quasipublic uses within the Campus Oaks Property consistent with the Entitlements vested by the Development Agreement. An Initial Study prepared in support of the First Addendum identified mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts which were incorporated into the Amended Master Plan for the Campus Oaks Property and in the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, which continue to apply, as applicable, to the development of the Campus Oaks Property.

On August 17, 2016, in connection with its approval of the First Amended HPCO Master Plan and the Fifth Amendment, the City Council adopted the Second Addendum to the Plan FEIR (the “Second Addendum”) for development of the Campus Oaks Property consistent with the reconfigured land uses approved for the Campus Oaks Property. An Initial Study prepared in support of the Second Addendum identified no new environmental impacts and accordingly no additional mitigation measures were required.

On December 5, 2018, in connection with its approval of the Second Amended HPCO Master Plan and the Seventh Amendment, the City Council considered the Third Addendum to the Plan FEIR (the “Third Addendum”) for development of the Campus Oaks Property consistent with the reconfigured land uses approved for the Campus Oaks Property. An Initial Study prepared in support of the Third Addendum identified no new environmental impacts and accordingly no additional mitigation measures were required.

On May 20, 2020, in connection with its approval of the Third Amended HPCO Master Plan and the Ninth Amendment, the City Council considered the Fourth Addendum to the Plan FEIR (the “Fourth Addendum”) for development of the Campus Oaks South Property consistent with the reconfigured land uses approved for the Campus Oaks South Property. An Initial Study prepared in support of the Fourth Addendum identified no new environmental impacts and accordingly no additional mitigation measures were required.

On ________, 2023, in connection with its approval of the Fourth Amended HPCO Master Plan and this Tenth Amendment, the City Council considered the Fifth Addendum to the Plan

5 FEIR (the “Fifth Addendum”) for development of the Parcel CO-52 Property consistent with the amended land use and zoning approved for the Parcel CO-52 Property. An Initial Study prepared in support of the Fifth Addendum identified no new environmental impacts and accordingly no additional mitigation measures are required.

19. No New Impacts Associated with Approval of Amendment. The City Council has determined that the adoption of this Tenth Amendment involves no new impacts not considered in the Plan FEIR and Addenda described above; therefore, no further environmental documents relating to the adoption of this Tenth Amendment are required.

20. Development Agreement Ordinance. City and Landowner have taken all actions mandated by and fulfilled all requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Chapter 19.84 of the Roseville Municipal Code. This Tenth Amendment, to the extent it amends and affects the terms of the Development Agreement for the Parcel CO-52 Property, is consistent with and authorized by the amendment provisions of Section 1.4 of the Development Agreement.

21. Consistency with Amended General Plan and Amended HPCO Master Plan.

Having duly examined and considered this Tenth Amendment and the Revised Entitlements to be vested hereby, and having held properly noticed public hearings hereon, City finds and declares that this Tenth Amendment is consistent with the Amended General Plan of the City of Roseville and the HPCO Master Plan, as amended by the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendments thereto.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Amendment of Development Agreement. The following sections of the Development Agreement for the Parcel CO-52 Property are hereby amended as follows:

Revised Section 2.2 (Vested Entitlements). The land use acreage allocation set forth in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement, as applied to the Parcel CO-52 Property, is hereby revised to read as follows:
“2.2 Vested Entitlements. Subject to the provisions and conditions of this Agreement, City agrees that City is granting, and grants herewith, a fully vested entitlement and right to develop the Campus Oaks Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Entitlements. City acknowledges that the Entitlements include the following land uses (with approximate acreages) for the Campus Oaks Property:

Low/Med Density Residential 78.65 acres/552 units
High Density Residential 35.4917.84 acres/681396
units*
Commercial/Retail 29.68 acres/240,000 sq.ft.

Light Industrial (Tech Park/Business Park) 15.2032.85
acres32.85/1530300,000 sq.ft.

Parks 11.12 acres
Paseos 3.67 acres
Open Space 1.70 acres

6 Fire Station/Well Site (P/QP) 2.47 acres
Roads 10.7 acres
TOTAL 188.68 acres
*City required obligation to develop 50 percent of the 285 units allocated to Parcel CO-52 for low-income households (for a total obligation of 143 low-income units) due to the change in land use designation and zoning for Parcel CO-52 to HDR and R3 is being transferred to Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcels WB-30 and WB-32. all as set forth in Exhibit B. Such uses shall be developed in accordance with the Entitlements, as such Entitlements provide on the effective date of the Development Agreement, or as they may provide from time-to-time by amendment of the Master Plan.

Landowner's vested right to proceed with the development of the Parcel CO-52 Property shall be subject to subsequent approvals as defined and as provided for in the Master Plan, provided that any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for such subsequent approvals shall not prevent development of the Parcel CO-52 Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of development or rate of timing of development set forth in this Agreement so long as any limitations set forth in the Master Plan applicable to the Parcel CO-52 Property have not been reached and further provided Landowner is not in default under this Agreement. “For purposes of development of Parcels CO-51 and CO-52 of the Campus Oaks Property pursuant to the Master Plan, the intensity Thresholds for the planned High Density Residential uses for Parcel CO-52 and the Light Industrial (Tech Park/Business Park) uses described for Parcels CO-51 and CO-52 of the Campus Oaks Property in the Master Plan are as follows:

Property Gross
Sq. Ft. or
HDR units
Water
(Max Daily
Demand)
Sewer
(Max Daily
Flow)
Electric
(Peak
Annual
Demand)
Traffic
(PM Peak Hour
Trips)
CO Parcels
51 and 52
30150,000 0.07917
mgd

0.026 mgd 0.932.02
MW
145291
CO Parcel
52 285 units 0.101 mgd 0.074 mgd 1.00 MW 165
CO 51 & 52 150,000/285
units

0.180 mgd 0.100 mgd 1.93 MW 310
“Landowner and City acknowledge that, as more particularly described in the Master Plan and as analyzed in the Addendum, nothing in this Agreement or the Entitlements vested hereby for the Campus Oaks Property affects or reduces the vested development rights of the other properties within the Master Plan Area. Landowner acknowledges and agrees that the

7 uses described in the Master Plan for the other properties within the Master Plan Area are compatible with the vested uses planned for development of the Campus Oaks Property. “Landowner acknowledges that it shall have no right to seek to amend the zoning of the portion of the Campus Oaks Property identified on Exhibit B as Parcels CO-51 and CO-52 from Light Industrial (Tech/Business Park) use for a period of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date of this Fourth Amendment.”

2. Exhibits. The following Revised Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and hereby replace and supersede the respective Exhibits previously attached to the Development Agreement with respect to the Parcel CO-52 Property. Accordingly, all references to the applicable Exhibits in the Development Agreement with respect to the Parcel CO-52 Property, as amended hereby, shall mean and refer to the corresponding Revised Exhibits below:

Exhibit 1 -- Legal Description of Parcel CO-52 Property Exhibit 2 -- Land Use Map of Parcel CO-52 Property
Exhibit B -- Land Use Map of Property/Phasing (land use change for CO-52 only) Exhibit B-1 – Affordable Housing Sites (land use change for CO-52 only)

3. Consistency with General Plan. The City hereby finds and determines that execution of this Tenth Amendment is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the General Plan.

4. Amendment Limited to Parcel CO-52 Property. This Tenth Amendment is limited to and applies only to development of the Parcel CO-52 Property and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the development of any other property within the Master Plan Area, including without limitation, any other portion of the Campus Oaks Property.

5. Amendment; Balance of Development Agreement In Full Force. This Tenth Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict, the language of this Tenth Amendment shall be controlling in all events or circumstances.

Except as modified hereby, all other terms and provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

6. Form of Amendment; Execution in Counterparts. This Tenth Amendment is executed in duplicated originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be executed in counterparts.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement 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.

CITY: LANDOWNER:

8 CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
a municipal corporation
By:

Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTEST:

Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

Mike Isom, Development Services Director

PINE ISLAND APARTMENTS, LLC,
an Indiana limited liability company
By:

Name: Scott I. Canel
Title: Manager

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of _________________
County of _______________
On _____________________, 2023, before me, _______________________________________ (Here insert Name and Title of Officer)
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________, Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

EXHIBIT “1”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of PARCEL CO-52 PROPERTY
All that certain real property situate in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, described as follows:

Lot 11 as said lot is shown and so designated on that certain final map entitled “Large Lot Final Map Campus Oaks Subdivision No. PL14-0373”, filed in Book DD of Maps, Page

4.7, Placer County Records.

EXISTING CAMPUS FOOTHILLS BLVD.

CRIMSON RIDGE WAY

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PAINTED DESERT DRIVE

NEW MEADOW DRIVE

WOODCREEK OAKS BOULEVARD

BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY
P/QP
CO-83 CO-3
CO-6
LDR
HDR
CO-51
CO-81
P/R
LI
HP-1
HP-2
CO-82 OS
OS
MDR
CO-76
CO-23
CO-12
CO-21
CO-31
CO-41
CC CO-42
CC

OPEN SPACE
CO-75
P/QP

5.45 AC. 6.13 AC. 15.20 AC.

0.32 AC.

16.53 AC.

0.86 AC.

0.84 AC.

8.7 AC.

13.16 AC.

2.15 AC.
114.0 AC.

13.23 AC.

2.01 AC.

HP-3
HP-4
LDR
LI
LI

44.65 AC.
186 du
42 du
86 du
RE-1 P/QP

0.5 AC.

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

T/BP-LI

10.40 AC. 6.26 AC.

8.95 AC.

MDR
CO-22
CO-16
HDR
CO-4
MDR
CO-21

1.44 AC.

8.89 AC.

13.79 AC.

4.94 AC.
132 du
210 du
12 du
CC
CC
CO-63 P/R 0.94 AC.

CO-2
LDR
59 du 9.52 AC.

LDR
CO-7
70 du 10.33 AC.

CO-64 P/R

2.46 AC.

CO-61 P/R

6.27 AC.

CO-65 P/R

2.73 AC.

CO-13

6.09 AC. 51 du MDR
CO-11

4.29 AC. 38 du MDR
62 du

2.39 AC. P/R
CO-62
CO-52 HDR

17.65 AC. 285 du
Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-00\DWG\PLAN\EXHIBITS\DA\DA_10\DA-EXHIBITS-GPA10-20230707.DWG | Saved: 03-18-20 09:20am SBRYSON EXHIBIT 2

LAND USE MAP OF PARCEL
CO-52 PROPERTY
LEGEND
Parcel ID
Land Use
Acerage
10th AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CAMPUS OAKS SUBJECT PROPERTY JULY 2023

BOUNDARY OF AMENDMENT

EXISTING CAMPUS
FOOTHILLS BLVD.

CRIMSON RIDGE WAY

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PAINTED DESERT DRIVE

NEW MEADOW DRIVE

WOODCREEK OAKS BOULEVARD

BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY
P/QP
CO-83 CO-3
CO-6
LDR
HDR
CO-51
CO-81
P/R
LI
HP-1
HP-2
CO-82 OS
OS
MDR
CO-76
CO-23
CO-12
CO-21
CO-31
CO-41
CC CO-42
CC

OPEN SPACE
CO-75
P/QP

5.45 AC. 6.13 AC. 15.20 AC.

0.32 AC.

16.53 AC.

0.86 AC.

0.84 AC.

8.7 AC.

13.16 AC.

2.15 AC.
114.0 AC.

13.23 AC.

2.01 AC.

HP-3
HP-4
LDR
LI
LI

44.65 AC.
186 du
42 du
86 du
RE-1 P/QP

0.5 AC.

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

T/BP-LI

10.40 AC. 6.26 AC.

8.95 AC.

MDR
CO-22
CO-16
HDR
CO-4
MDR
CO-21

1.44 AC.

8.89 AC.

13.79 AC.

4.94 AC.
132 du
210 du
12 du
CC
CC
CO-63 P/R 0.94 AC.

CO-2
LDR
59 du 9.52 AC.

LDR
CO-7
70 du 10.33 AC.

CO-64 P/R

2.46 AC.

CO-61 P/R

6.27 AC.

CO-65 P/R

2.73 AC.

CO-13

6.09 AC. 51 du MDR
CO-11

4.29 AC. 38 du MDR
62 du

2.39 AC. P/R
CO-62
CO-52 HDR

17.65 AC. 285 du
Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-00\DWG\PLAN\EXHIBITS\DA\DA_10\DA-EXHIBITS-GPA10-20230707.DWG | Saved: 03-18-20 09:20am SBRYSON EXHIBIT "B"

LAND USES OF

PROPERTY/PHASING
LEGEND

PHASE LINE

PHASE 'A'

PHASE 'D'

PHASE 'B'

PHASE 'C'

PHASE 'A'

PHASE 'D'

PHASE 'B'

BOUNDARY OF AMENDMENT
10th AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CAMPUS OAKS SUBJECT PROPERTY JULY 2023

EXISTING CAMPUS
FOOTHILLS BLVD.

CRIMSON RIDGE WAY

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PAINTED DESERT DRIVE

NEW MEADOW DRIVE

WOODCREEK OAKS BOULEVARD

BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY
P/QP
CO-83 CO-3
CO-6
LDR
HDR
CO-51
CO-81
P/R
LI
HP-1
HP-2
CO-82 OS
OS
MDR
CO-76
CO-23
CO-12
CO-21
CO-31
CO-41
CC CO-42
CC

OPEN SPACE
CO-75
P/QP

5.45 AC. 6.13 AC. 15.20 AC.

0.32 AC.

16.53 AC.

0.86 AC.

0.84 AC.

8.7 AC.

13.16 AC.

2.15 AC.
114.0 AC.

13.23 AC.

2.01 AC.

HP-3
HP-4
LDR
LI
LI

44.65 AC.
186 du
42 du
86 du
RE-1 P/QP

0.5 AC.

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

THIS AMENDMENT

NOT A PART OF

T/BP-LI

10.40 AC. 6.26 AC.

8.95 AC.

MDR
CO-22
CO-16
HDR
CO-4
MDR
CO-21

1.44 AC.

8.89 AC.

13.79 AC.

4.94 AC.
132 du
210 du
12 du
CC
CC
CO-63 P/R 0.94 AC.

CO-2
LDR
59 du 9.52 AC.

LDR
CO-7
70 du 10.33 AC.

CO-64 P/R

2.46 AC.

CO-61 P/R

6.27 AC.

CO-65 P/R

2.73 AC.

CO-13

6.09 AC. 51 du MDR
CO-11

4.29 AC. 38 du MDR
62 du

2.39 AC. P/R
CO-62
CO-52 HDR

17.65 AC. 285 du
Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-00\DWG\PLAN\EXHIBITS\DA\DA_10\DA-EXHIBITS-GPA10-20230707.DWG | Saved: 03-18-20 09:20am SBRYSON EXHIBIT "B-1"

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES
LEGEND
Affordable Housing Sites

BOUNDARY OF AMENDMENT
10th AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CAMPUS OAKS SUBJECT PROPERTY JULY 2023
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

CAMPUS OAKS AND SIERRA VISTA LAND USE AMENDMENTS

PROJECT IN WESTERN ROSEVILLE

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT
5th ADDENDUM TO THE HEWLETT-PACKARD CAMPUS OAKS
MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 95112022, CERTIFIED ON JUNE 5, 1996)
&
12th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2008032115, CERTIFIED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project in Western Roseville (File No. PL23-0064)
Project Locations: Campus Oaks Master Plan Area, 401 Roseville Parkway:
• Parcel CO-52 (APN 481-260-036-000)
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area, 3380 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, 4201 Santucci Boulevard, and 1600 Westbrook Boulevard:
• Parcel WB-30 (APN 496-100-027-000)
• Parcel WB-32 (APN 496-100-034-000)
• Parcel WB-52 (APN 496-100-028-000)
• Parcel FD-34 (APN 498-020-014-000)
Project Applicant: Greg Bardini, Morton & Pitalo, Inc.

Property Owners: Pine Island Apartments, LLC and FD34 Development LLC Contact: Scott Canel
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309 Date: August 16, 2023

CC EXHIBIT A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–TABLE OF CONTENTS
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064 Page i of i
Table of Contents (Combined CEQA Document)
Introduction
Document Description
Project Description
Proposed General Plan/Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendments Proposed General Plan/Sierra Vista Specific Plan Amendments 5th Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan EIR Description of Proposed General Plan/Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendments Purpose and Scope of Addendum
Other Environmental Documents Relied Upon
Explanation of Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Determination
12th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Description of Proposed General Plan/Sierra Vista Specific Plan Amendments Purpose and Scope of Addendum
Other Environmental Documents Relied Upon
Explanation of Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Determination
Cumulative Considerations
Methodology
Environmental Issue Areas Excluded from this Assessment Cumulative Assessment and Conclusions
Conclusions and Findings
Attachments
Attachment A (Combined CEQA Document)—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project (Raney Planning & Management, August 2023)
Attachment B (Combined CEQA Document)—Transportation Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Various Parcels in the Campus Oaks Master Plan and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (Fehr & Peers, July 2023)
Attachment C (Combined CEQA Document)—General Plan Amendment Water, Sewer and Drainage Demands (Morton & Pitalo, May 2023)
Attachment D (Combined CEQA Document)—List of Applicable Mitigation Measures COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–INTRODUCTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 1 of 3 ends

Roseville City CouncilSeptember 20, 2023

Roseville City Council
September 20, 2023