Agenda — Roseville City Council, September 20, 2023 (part 6 of 8)

INTRODUCTION (Combined CEQA Document)
The City of Roseville (City) has prepared this environmental analysis document in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (“CEQA Guidelines”) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). The proposed Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project in Western Roseville (“Proposed Project” or “Project”) includes a series of related actions within two distinct planning areas in the western portion of the City: the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan (COMP) area; and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area.

Within the COMP area, the project includes a General Plan (GP) amendment, a COMP amendment, and a rezone on Parcel CO-52 to change the land use from Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial to HighDensity Residential and to change the zoning from Industrial/Business Park to Multi-Family Housing, (with some new units allocated as Low-Income Units), and both a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and an amendment to the applicable Development Agreement (DA) that reflect these proposed changes.

Within the SVSP area, the Project would make various changes affecting Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34. Specifically, the Project includes density bonuses and changes to the affordable housing obligations on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34. The Project also includes a GP amendment and rezone on Parcel WB-52 to change the land use from Park and Recreation to High-Density Residential and to change the zoning to MultiFamily Housing. The Project would require amendments to the SVSP and the applicable DAs reflecting these proposed changes. Additionally, City Council would abandon a public access easement across Parcel WB-30.

A detailed description follows in the Project Description section.

CEQA generally requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of a proposed project over which they have discretionary authority, in a single environmental document, prior to taking action to approve such a project. CEQA defines a “project” as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a)). This broad definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment (see McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143). Thus, even if a project consists of more than one project site, or if a lead agency needs to grant more than one approval for a project, a unified CEQA document should be prepared to avoid performing “piecemeal” review. “The prohibition against piecemeal review is flip side of the requirement that the whole of a project be reviewed under CEQA” (see Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208).

Here, the Applicant proposes a project that, amongst other things, would create an obligation for the development of Low-Income Housing1 on one parcel in the COMP area and then transfer that obligation to parcels in the SVSP area. These actions are inextricably related. In addition, all parcels are owned by the Applicant and shall remain under the Applicant’s ownership for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, to ensure that “the whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a)) is adequately reviewed pursuant to CEQA, the City has chosen to 1 Low-Income Units will be made available to individuals making no more than 80 percent of the average median income (AMI); and Very-Low-Income Units will be made available to individuals making no more than 50 percent AMI, pursuant to income limits established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–INTRODUCTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 2 of 3 ends

evaluate these closely related proposed actions in a single combined environmental review document2 (explained more below).

The Combined CEQA Document—Explanation and Description
The Proposed Project (described in detail below) consists of two primary components: (i) the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, including rezoning, MPP Stage 1 Modification, and DA amendment for Parcel CO-52; and (ii) the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, including rezoning for Parcel WB-52, density bonuses (see Gov.

Code, § 65915 et. seq.)3 and changed affordable housing obligations for Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34, and DA amendments for all parcels. Each component requires different City approvals and entitlements and, therefore, requires individualized CEQA analysis that is based on its site location and the previous planning conducted for that site and area. To comply with CEQA’s requirement to prepare a single environmental review document for “the whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a)), however, the City has elected to prepare a combined environmental document (“Combined CEQA Document”) that treats these two actions in two separate planning areas as a single combined project in order to avoid performing piecemeal review.

Both project areas—the COMP area and the SVSP area—have undergone environmental analysis in prior CEQA documents. For the COMP area, an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared in 1996 (COMP EIR), followed by several CEQA addenda for subsequent projects that included COMP amendments. For the SVSP area, an EIR was prepared in 2010 (SVSP EIR), which included project-level review of most of the SVSP area and program-level review of the area now known as the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area. A subsequent project-level mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared in 2012 for the Westbrook area (WSP MND).

Several addenda to those CEQA documents have been prepared for subsequent projects that included SVSP amendments. The City also certified an EIR in 2020 that addressed the GP 2035 Update (GP EIR).

As a result of this myriad of prior CEQA review documents, both Project components can be analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, in separate addenda—one to the COMP EIR, and one to the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the WSP MND). Addenda are appropriate here because, as the environmental checklists prepared for the Combined CEQA Document demonstrate, none of the conditions calling for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental EIRs or other subsequent CEQA documents are present. Both addenda, although parts of the Combined CEQA Document, have been prepared as stand-alone documents based on the City’s standard addendum checklist, as the two planning areas have distinct environmental and planning constraints that are better analyzed separately. Combining CEQA analysis of these different (but interrelated) actions located in separate planning areas into one checklist would make the document unnecessarily challenging to understand 2 See Neighbors of Cavitt Ranch v. County of Placer (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 (“At worst, the inclusion of [two distinct project] elements in a single [CEQA document] result[s] in too much information regarding environmental effects, not too little. We therefore conclude [the lead agency] did not violate CEQA...”). 3 “The Density Bonus Law incentivizes the construction of affordable housing by allowing a developer to add additional housing units to a project beyond the zoned capacity and secure other ‘incentives’ in exchange for a commitment from the developer to include deed-restricted affordable units in the project. When a developer meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, a local government is obligated to permit increased building density, grant incentives, and waive any conflicting local development standards unless certain limited exceptions apply” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 762–763). “Although application of the statute can be complicated, its aim is fairly simple:

When a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units in a housing development for low- or very-lowincome households, or to construct a senior citizen housing development, the city or county must grant the developer one or more itemized concessions and a ‘density bonus,’ which allows the developer to increase the density of the development by a certain percentage above the maximum allowable limit under local zoning law. In other words, the Density Bonus Law ‘reward[s] a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the applicable local regulations.’ When a developer agrees to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in a project, the Density Bonus Law grants that developer (1) a ‘density bonus’; (2) ‘incentives and concessions’; (3) ‘waivers or reductions of ‘development standards’; and (4) prescribed ‘parking ratios’” (id. at p. 769 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–INTRODUCTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 3 of 3 ends

and would be overly cumbersome, and likely unclear (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(b) [CEQA documents should “be organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public”]; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15006(o)−(q) [strategies for reducing paperwork]). Also, analytical integration may not allow the City to properly use prior planning efforts and commensurate tools that CEQA encourages agencies to use (see, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(a) [addenda to EIRs]). But, as explained above, these two addenda are united in this Combined CEQA Document to ensure full compliance with CEQA.

The City has previously employed this combined environmental document approach for interrelated actions in different planning areas, in a practical and good-faith effort to avoid performing piecemeal review (applicable here), and to balance the requirements of CEQA and the mandates of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“Senate Bill 330”) (Gov. Code, § 66300 et seq., added by Stats. 2019, ch. 654, § 13) (inapplicable here). This approach has successfully allowed the City to thoroughly contextualize and adequately consider multiple interrelated planning actions under its preexisting approval and entitlement processes and procedures, while also producing reader-friendly CEQA documents.

In addition to the 5th Addendum to the COMP EIR and the 12th Addendum to the SVSP EIR (combined with the WSP MND), this Combined CEQA Document includes this Introduction, a Project Description for the combined Proposed Project, an analysis of the cumulative impacts of Project components, and overall conclusions and findings. A complete Table of Contents for this Combined CEQA Document is provided above.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–PROJECT DESCRIPTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 1 of 3 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Combined CEQA Document)
The Proposed Project consists of two primary components: (i) the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, including rezoning, MPP Stage 1 Modification, and DA amendment for Parcel CO-52; and (ii) the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, including rezoning for Parcel WB-52, density bonuses and changed affordable housing obligations for Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34, and DA amendments for all parcels (described individually in detail below). As a result of density bonuses, the Proposed Project will result in an increase in housing density and in the amount of Very-Low-Income and Low-Income Units within the City.

The table below shows the density and unit changes that would occur under the Proposed Project, including the transferred obligation to provide affordable units, in both planning areas:

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.

The main purpose and goal of the Proposed Project is to respond to City and regional need for additional housing, particularly for low-income and very-low-income households, and to provide that housing within a reasonable time frame and without relying on City tax-payer funded subsidies. Importantly, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in the total number of residential units, including affordable units, thereby helping the City to fulfill 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). In total, the Project will result in an increase of 551 high-density residential units, including 266 affordable high-density units (10 additional Very-Low-Income Units and 256 additional Low-Income Units) within the City.

Proposed General Plan/Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendments Parcel CO-52 (17.65 acres): In the COMP area, Parcel CO-52 is currently designated as T/BP LI (Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial) and zoned as MP/SA (Industrial/Business Park/Special Area). The Applicant proposes to redesignate the parcel to HDR (High-Density Residential) in the GP and in the COMP and to rezone it to R3 (Multi-Family Housing), allocating 285 new housing units to the parcel in the COMP, of which 143 would be deed-restricted Low-Income Units. The obligation to develop the 143 Low-Income Units would then be transferred to Parcels WB-30 and WB-32 in the SVSP Area (discussed below). In addition to the GP amendment, COMP amendment, and rezone, the Project would require both a MPP Stage 1 Modification and a 10th amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks DA to reflect these changes.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–PROJECT DESCRIPTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 2 of 3 ends

Proposed General Plan/Sierra Vista Specific Plan Amendments In the SVSP area, on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34, the Applicant proposes the following:
• Parcel WB-30 (8.06 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 237 residential units, and is currently allocated 68 Very-Low-Income Units and 169 LowIncome Units under the SVSP. There is a 20-foot public access easement across this parcel extending from Pleasant Grove Boulevard to Parcel WB-52. The Applicant proposes to add 118 new units (all LowIncome Units), using an allowable-by-right State density bonus (see footnote 1), and to convert all currently allocated Very-Low-Income Units to Low-Income Units (transferring the obligation to provide 68 Very-Low-Income Units to Parcel FD-34), for a total of 355 Low-Income Units on the parcel, which would be restricted for use by senior citizens. This action will require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the site and to document the number of high-density residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. Additionally, the City Council would abandon the public access easement over this parcel in connection with the proposed changes to allow future development of the area encompassed by Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities, rather than as a public neighborhood park (discussed below). No redesignation or rezone is required for this parcel. • Parcel WB-32 (5.11 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 128 residential units, and is currently allocated 92 Very-Low-Income Units and 36 LowIncome Units under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to add 64 new units (all Low-Income Units), using an allowable-by-right State density bonus (see footnote 1), and to convert all currently allocated VeryLow-Income Units to Low-Income Units (transferring the obligation to provide 92 Very-Low-Income Units to Parcel FD-34), for a total of 192 Low-Income Units on the parcel. This action will require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the parcel and to document the number of high-density residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone will be required for this parcel. • Parcel WB-52 (1.5 acres): This parcel is currently designated and zoned as PR (Park) and is allocated as a public neighborhood park under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to redesignate this parcel to HDR (High-Density Residential), in both the General Plan and SVSP, and to rezone to R3. No housing units will be allocated to the parcel, however, as the applicant intends to develop the area encompassed by WB-52 for private recreational facilities to serve current and future residents of Parcels WB-30, WB31, and W-16. In-lieu fees will be required for future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland. In addition to the GP and SVSP amendments and the rezone, this action would require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA.
• FD-34 (7.04 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 172 residential units, and is currently allocated 86 Very-Low-Income Units and 86 Low-Income Units under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to add 84 new units (all Very-Low-Income), using an allowableby-right State density bonus (see footnote 1), and to convert all currently 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 total of 256 Very-Low-Income Units on the parcel. This action will require a 6th Amendment to the Federico DA to document the change in the mix of affordable units obligated on the parcel and the increase in high-density residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required.

The figure below depicts the location of the actions described in this Project Description. Additional information specific to each component of the Proposed Project is included in the subsequent CEQA addenda.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–PROJECT DESCRIPTION
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 3 of 3 ends

Location of Campus Oaks Master Plan and Sierra Vista Master Plan Areas COMP
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
5th ADDENDUM TO THE HEWLETT-PACKARD CAMPUS OAKS
MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 95112022, CERTIFIED ON JUNE 5, 1996)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) sections 15162 through 15164 deal with what is often called “subsequent review” under the statute. These sections are based on statutory language found in Public Resources Code section 21166. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 sets forth the conditions and facts that require a public agency, in considering a proposed project connected to a previously certified final environmental impact report (EIR), to prepare a so-called “subsequent EIR.” Section 15163, in turn, identifies conditions and facts in which a “supplement to an EIR” may suffice in lieu of a full subsequent EIR. Section 15164, in turn, sets forth the conditions and facts in which neither one of these two documents is necessary, so that an addendum to the previously certified final EIR may suffice. In general, an addendum to a previously certified final EIR may be prepared for a project where only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or where none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the certified final EIR for consideration by the hearing body.

Project Title/File Number: Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project in Western Roseville (File No. PL23-0064) — Proposed General Plan/Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendments
Project Location: Campus Oaks Master Plan Area, 401 Roseville Parkway:
• Parcel CO-52 (APN 481-260-036-000)
Project Description: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan and Master Plan Amendment and Rezone to modify the land use of Parcel CO-52 from T/BP LI (Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial) and MP/SA (Industrial/Business Park/Special Area) to HDR (High-Density Residential) and R3 (Multi-Family Housing) to allow the future development of 285 multifamily units (with 143 allocated as Low-Income Units). The obligation to develop the 143 Low-Income Units would be transferred to parcels within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. A Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification is requested to reflect the land use changes within the COMP, and a 10th Amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Development Agreement is requested to reflect the land use changes and document the transfer of affordable housing obligations from Parcel CO-52 to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area.

Project Applicant: Greg Bardini, Morton & Pitalo, Inc.

Property Owner: Pine Island Apartments, LLC
Contact: Scott Canel
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309 Date: August 16, 2023
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 2 of 55 ends

In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949 (“Friends”), the California Supreme Court explained that “[o]nce a project has been subject to environmental review and received approval, [Public Resources Code] section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 limit the circumstances under which a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. These limitations are designed to balance CEQA's central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency.” The subsequent review provisions, accordingly, are “designed to ensure that an agency that proposes changes to a previously approved project “explore[s] environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document” (id. at p. 951 [italics added]). “This assumes that at least some of the environmental impacts of the modified project were considered in the original environmental document, such that the original document retains some relevance to the ongoing decisionmaking process. A decision to proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions must thus necessarily rest on a determination—whether implicit or explicit—that the original environmental document retains some informational value” (ibid). Consistent with these legal principles and CEQA Guidelines provisions governing subsequent review, the City of Roseville (“City”) prepared the analysis below in order to determine whether any of the conditions described in section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

Here, the relevant final EIR was prepared and certified for the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan (COMP) in 1996 (COMP EIR). That plan covered the Campus Oaks planning area, which includes Parcel CO52. The original COMP EIR did not anticipate residential uses in the Campus Oaks area. In August 2015, the City amended the COMP, providing for a mixed-use community with tech/business park, office, commercial, residential, park and recreation, open space, and public uses. At that time, the City adopted an addendum to the COMP EIR analyzing the land use changes under the amendment.

In the following years, the City adopted additional addenda to the COMP EIR. Taken together, the COMP EIR and the various addenda that modify it constitute the environmental analysis for the COMP area, including Parcel CO-52. Thus, under the subsequent review provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the City must consider environmental impacts from further changes to the COMP that were not considered in these earlier environmental documents (Friends, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 951).

After conducting its analysis in light of the COMP EIR and all relevant addenda, the City determined that a new addendum to the COMP EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed land use changes, as demonstrated below. As required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum focuses on aspects of the proposed land use changes or their impacts that require additional discussion beyond the environmental analysis already found in the earlier applicable environmental documents.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 3 of 55 ends

Table of Contents for 5th Addendum to COMP EIR
Description.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose and Scope of Addendum..................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Documents Relied Upon........................................................................................... 10 Explanation of Environmental Checklist........................................................................................... 11 Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics ..................................................................................... 13 II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources................................................. 15 III. Air Quality ..................................................................................... 17 IV. Biological Resources .................................................................... 19 V. Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 21 VI. Energy .......................................................................................... 24 VII. Geology and Soils......................................................................... 26 VIII. Greenhouse Gases....................................................................... 29 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................ 31 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................ 33 XI. Land Use and Planning................................................................. 35 XII. Mineral Resources........................................................................ 37 XIII. Noise ............................................................................................ 37 XIV. Population and Housing................................................................ 39 XV. Public Services ............................................................................. 41 XVI. Recreation .................................................................................... 43 XVII. Transportation / Traffic.................................................................. 44 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................. 46 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems........................................................ 49 XX. Wildfire.......................................................................................... 52 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................. 53 Environmental Determination............................................................................................................ 55 COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 4 of 55 ends

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS As described in the introduction to the Combined CEQA Document, the proposed General Plan/Campus Oaks Master Plan Amendments (“Proposed GP/COMP Amendments”) make up one component of the proposed Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project in Western Roseville (“Proposed Project”). While the Proposed Project involves a series of actions within two distinct planning areas in the City, the actions are interrelated and therefore have been reviewed together in a single CEQA document (as explained in the introduction to the Combined CEQA Document). However, because the two components of the Proposed Project are subject to different land use plans and previously certified CEQA documents, these components are considered in two separate but coordinated addenda, to avoid confusion and ensure the most appropriate CEQA analysis is conducted.

In total, the Proposed Project will add 551 new housing units (including 266 new income-restricted units) to the City, distributed between the COMP and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) areas. The Proposed Project would also transfer affordable housing obligations from Parcel CO-52 in the COMP area to parcels in the SVSP area.

The Proposed Project would require various amendments to the COMP and SVSP, the City’s GP, and applicable development agreements (DAs), a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification to change the COMP, and zoning changes.

This Addendum addresses the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments component of the Proposed Project, which would involve various land use changes on Parcel CO-52.

Background and Environmental Setting
The Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan1 (aka, COMP) was adopted on June 5, 1996. At that time, the City of Roseville (“City”) certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the plan (COMP EIR) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). The COMP EIR analyzed the entirety of the Campus Oaks area (inclusive of Parcel CO-52), but did not originally anticipate residential uses within the plan area.

On August 5, 2015, the City amended the COMP to include a mixed-use community in the Campus Oaks area with tech/business park, office, commercial, residential, park and recreation, open space, and public uses. In connection with this action, the City also approved amendments to the City’s GP and the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Development Agreement (DA) for the COMP area. In order to comply with CEQA in taking these actions, the City adopted an addendum to the COMP EIR (“COMP EIR 1st Addendum”), which assessed any resulting deviations from the environmental impacts originally anticipated in the COMP EIR.

Three additional addenda have since been prepared for the COMP EIR and are listed below, but none involve Parcel CO-52:
• July 18, 2016, Addendum to the COMP EIR;
• October 16, 2018, Addendum to the COMP EIR; and
• March 13, 2020, Addendum to the COMP EIR.

This Addendum is intended to analyze the environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, as compared to the impacts identified in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum. 2 1 When adopted in 1996, the plan was known as the “Hewlett-Packard Master Plan.” It was later renamed the “HewlettPackard Campus Oaks Master Plan.” The COMP is available at: https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/ development_services/planning/projects_of_interest/hp_campus_oaks_master_plan. 2 The COMP EIR is the primary source of information from which this Addendum derives its analysis and conclusions, with reliance on the COMP EIR 1st Addendum as necessary. The impacts assessed in this document were considered in the COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 5 of 55 ends

Location
The approximately 234.5-acre Campus Oaks portion of the COMP is located within western Roseville in its North Industrial area (see Figure 1 below). The COMP area is not fully developed, but the undeveloped portions have been disced regularly since the 1996 COMP EIR was approved and accompanying wetland mitigation was implemented. The southern portion of the plan area (not implicated in the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments) comprises the Woodcreek Oaks Preserve, a 45-acre open space/wetland preserve. After the approval of the COMP, various projects consistent with the Master Plan were approved and constructed within portions of the COMP area that were approved for development.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments will affect only one parcel in the COMP area: Parcel CO-52. Parcel CO52 (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 481-260-036-000) is a 17.65-acre parcel south of Painted Desert Drive and east/north of Roseville Parkway (see Figure 2 below).

As summarized in Table 1 below, Parcel CO-52 is currently designated T/BP – LI (Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial) in the GP and in the COMP. It is zoned MP/SA (Industrial/Business Park/Special Area). Parcel CO-52 is largely undeveloped but has been repeatedly disturbed during the course of regular land management and maintenance, including discing and grading, as well as disturbance associated with construction and installation of various infrastructure on and through the parcel. A grading permit was issued in 2014 (EN14-0102), allowing grading on the parcel to facilitate the construction of a Pacific Gas and Electric gas main along the east property line. Additionally, an improvement permit was issued in 2016 (EN15-0173) for the construction of Roseville Parkway, and Parcel CO-52 was used for excess soil disposal from the construction.

Presently, Painted Desert Drive is being constructed along the northern parcel boundary (EN22-0518). The parcel is mostly flat with no known biological communities onsite and no native oak trees or other trees. The area, including Parcel CO-52, has historically been grazed, although the site itself has not been grazed for many years. There are no structures on Parcel CO-52. The adjacent parcels are mostly undeveloped with some housing located across Roseville Parkway to the west.
prior environmental documents and addressed in mitigation measures that continue to apply. The COMP EIR thus retains substantial relevancy and informational value (see Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 6 of 55 ends

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Parcel CO-52 Industrial/Business Park/
Special Area (MP/SA)
Tech Park/Business
Professional – Light
Industrial (T/BP - LI)
Largely undeveloped with
some infrastructure installed
North
Community Commercial (CC)
(CO-42)
MP/SA (CO-51)
Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP)
(CO-76)
Community Commercial
(CC)
T/BP
Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP)
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
South
Multi-Family Housing/
Development Standards
(R3/DS) (CO-23)
High-Density Residential
(HDR)
Developed with multi-family
housing
East Light Industrial/Special Area
(M1/SA) Light Industrial (LI)
Partially developed with
recreation fields (immediately
east)
West R3/DS (CO-22) HDR Developed with multi-family
housing
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 7 of 55 ends

Figure 1: Location of Campus Oaks Area
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 8 of 55 ends

Figure 2: Location of Parcel CO-52
Description of Proposed GP/COMP Amendments
As stated, Parcel CO-52 is currently designated as T/BP LI (Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial) and zoned as MP/SA (Industrial/Business Park/Special Area). The Applicant proposes to redesignate the parcel to HDR (High-Density Residential) in the GP and in the COMP and to rezone it to R3 (Multi-Family Housing), allocating 285 new housing units to the parcel in the COMP, of which 143 would be deed-restricted Low-Income Units.3 The obligation to develop the 143 Low-Income Units would then be transferred to Parcels WB-30 and WB-32 in the SVSP Area. In addition to the GP amendment, COMP amendment, and rezone, these actions would require both a MPP Sage 1 Modification and a 10th Amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks DA to reflect these changes.

This Addendum and all relevant applicable environmental documents will inform the City’s decision regarding the following approvals and entitlements for Parcel CO-52:
• GP amendment for redesignation from Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial (T/BP LI) to High-Density Residential (HDR);
• COMP amendment to:
o Redesignate from Tech Park/Business Professional – Light Industrial (T/BP LI) to High-Density Residential (HDR);
3 Low-Income Units will be made available to individuals making 80 percent of the average median income, pursuant to income limits established by HCD and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 9 of 55 ends

o Allocate 285 units, including 143 Low-Income Units; and o Transfer obligation to provide 143 Low-Income Units to parcels in the SVSP; • MPP Stage 1 Modification to change the COMP to reflect the proposed changes; • Rezone from Industrial/Business Park/Special Area (MP/SA) to Multi-Family Residential (R3); and • 10th Amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Development Agreement reflecting these actions.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
Basis for Addendum
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. As explained earlier, an addendum is an appropriate subsequent CEQA review document when some changes to a project are necessary, but those changes do not create new or increased significant environmental impacts that warrant major revisions to the previously certified final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(1), 15164(a); see Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946; Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668). Also, an addendum is appropriate: (i) when circumstances surrounding a project have changed but do not warrant major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(2), 15164(a)); and (ii) where there is no new information of substantial importance indicating that the project would create new significant impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(3), 15164(a)).

Notably, in assessing whether a proposed project change is eligible for an addendum, public agencies may account for mitigation measures to which an applicant has agreed (see, e.g., River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168 [“even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require … the preparation of an SEIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance”]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 809−811 [“[t]o offset the loss of four acres of burrowing owl habitat, the eight[h] addendum includes a number of mitigation measures”]; Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, 802 [discusses mitigation required in connection with addendum]).

The addition of new mitigation measures triggers the need for a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR only in two circumstances. Under the first, measures “previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)(1)(3)(C)). Under the second circumstance, measures “considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (id., subd. (a)(1)(3)(D)). Under both circumstances, an applicant’s agreement to the mitigation measures in question preserves the project’s eligibility for an addendum.

Substantial evidence presented in this Addendum demonstrates that the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, described above and analyzed below, do not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts more severe than those described in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum. Nor are there any new circumstances or new information that would create such impacts or require more robust analysis (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)). All of the impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments were examined in the applicable prior CEQA documents. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not warranted (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(e)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 10 of 55 ends

Significant and Unavoidable Impact Conclusions in the Previous EIR The COMP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts relating to:
• Loss of vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and other jurisdictional wetlands; • Potential loss of vernal pool fairy shrimp;
• Conversion of undeveloped landscape character to developed character; • Short-term construction-related emissions of air pollutants and air quality degradation; • Long-term operation-related emissions of air pollutants; • Inconsistency with the Placer County Air Quality Attainment Plan; and • Loss of biological resources.

City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts when it certified the COMP EIR.

When the City amended the COMP and adopted the accompanying COMP EIR 1st Addendum in 2015, the City determined that the impacts of the proposed mixed-use development in the Campus Oaks area did not involve any project changes or changed circumstances that would result in significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts. Nor was there new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
EIR for the Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan, certified June 5, 1996 The COMP EIR was certified by City Council on June 5, 1996. The analysis within this Addendum relies primarily on the analysis included in the COMP EIR and relevant subsequent addendum that supplemented the COMP EIR (listed below). Additionally, this Addendum relies on minor supplements or technical updates, where appropriate. As demonstrated and explained in the environmental checklist below, the impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments remain the same as, or less than, the impacts described in the COMP EIR and the relevant subsequent environmental documents. The 1996 COMP EIR is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.

First Addendum to Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Master Plan EIR, adopted July 6, 2015 The COMP EIR 1st Addendum was amended in 2015 to redesignate and rezone the Campus Oaks area for mixed use development. In connection with this amendment, the City prepared and adopted the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, which analyzed the proposed development of the Campus Oaks area (inclusive of Parcel CO52). The COMP EIR 1st Addendum relies on the analysis in the COMP EIR, along with supplements and technical updates, where appropriate. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA. 2035 General Plan Update EIR, certified August 5, 2020
The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (GP EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. When applicable, the topical sections within the checklist summarize the findings within the GP EIR. The GP EIR is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/ general_plan_development_guidelines.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 11 of 55 ends

EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of this environmental checklist is to conduct subsequent environmental review for the proposed changes to the COMP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. This checklist evaluates the environmental resources in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, applicable plan changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer in one of the checklist boxes does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

Checklist Evaluation Categories
Where Was Impact Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents? This column provides a cross-reference to the portions of the prior environmental documents containing relevant information and analysis for each resource area.

Any New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Any New Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes with respect the circumstances under which the action is undertake, such as changes to Parcel CO-52 or the surrounding area, that have occurred subsequent to the certification and adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in new significant environmental impacts from the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Notably, since certification of the COMP EIR, there have been four amendments to the COMP with four accompanying addenda. Each addendum determined that the proposed changes were within the scope of the environmental impact conclusions presented in the COMP EIR. Thus, although some circumstances have changed within the vicinity of the COMP area over time, those changes did not result in new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the COMP EIR, nor did they substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Further, no new projects or other development beyond those contemplated in the COMP EIR or GP EIR have been approved or proposed within the vicinity of Parcel CO-52 that could impact or increase the environmental effects of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.” Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 12 of 55 ends

environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the answer is “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Notably, since certification of the COMP EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019.4 This updated checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3), as it does not constitute any change in governing law or any new facts showing the existence of new significant effects or substantially more severe significant effects. Furthermore, as demonstrated below, none of the updates to the Appendix G Checklist require new analysis related to impacts that were not known or that could not have been known at the time the COMP EIR was prepared, nor is the City aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified CEQA documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of which the project proponent refuses to implement. Moreover, the City is not aware of any other new information not already included in this document that might bear relevance on this CEQA analysis. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.” Any Mitigation Measures?
Pursuant to section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “Yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time or whether it would apply to development on Parcel CO-52. If “No” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

Notably, many of the mitigation measures approved as part of the COMP EIR have already been implemented or no longer apply. Only those measures that are still active and that still apply are included in the checklist discussions below, as required for each resource area. Some supplemental measures specific to the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments are warranted and, therefore, also are included. Adding supplementary measures to an addendum is acceptable here because, as explained in the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section above, adding mitigation measures in an addendum to an EIR triggers the need for a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR only in two circumstances: (1) measures “previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)(1)(3)(C)); and (2) measures “considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (id., subd. (a)(1)(3)(D)).

Under both circumstances, an applicant’s agreement to the mitigation measures in question preserves the project’s eligibility for an addendum. Here, the project proponent has agreed to any and all supplemental mitigation measures included as part of this Addendum. A full list of mitigation measures that apply to the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments is included as Attachment D to the Combined CEQA Checklist.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 13 of 55 ends

environmental documents and their status, denoting the ones that require ongoing or future implementation and that would be required for development on Parcel CO-52. Mitigation measures that are either not relevant to the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments because they pertain to a different area or land use or have already been implemented are not discussed. Each discussion section also contains an ultimate conclusion, including whether the City can conclude that the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments do not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.7.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 36–39 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.7-4 to 4.7-7,

4.7-10 to 4.7-11;
Impact 4.7-1
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
40–41
No No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings, within
a state scenic
highway?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.7-1 to 4.7-7;
Impact 4.7-1
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
40–41
N/A No No N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 14 of 55 ends

c) In non-urbanized
areas, substantially
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an
urbanized area, would
the project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic
quality?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.7-10 to 4.7-12;
Impacts 4.7-1,

4.7-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
40–42
No No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or
glare, which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.7-12 to 4.7-13;
Impact 4.7-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
42 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would result in significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts by urbanizing undeveloped land.

The COMP EIR also concluded that adherence to applicable design guidelines would prevent any significant impacts relating to visual incompatibility between the proposed and surrounding uses. Finally, the COMP EIR concluded that any light and glare impacts resulting from the development could be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar or decreased aesthetic impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior aesthetic impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not urbanize any undeveloped land beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. Like the land use changes addressed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would replace light industrial uses with residential uses. As a result, future development on Parcel CO-52 would be more aesthetically consistent with adjacent mixed-use residential parcels (to the west and south of the parcel). Residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable design guidelines and lighting standards, as well as the applicable COMP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant aesthetic impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The COMP area is not located near a state scenic highway; therefore, checklist item (b) does not apply.

Thus, the aesthetic impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 15 of 55 ends

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.7-3: Use building orientation and materials that minimize glare.

Conclusion: With implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding aesthetics.

II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 44–45 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-2 to 4.1-5;
Impact 4.1-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
45–46
No No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Draft EIR, p.

4.1-5; Impact

4.1-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
45–46
No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 16 of 55 ends

c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
46 N/A No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
46 N/A No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-2 to 4.1-5;
Impact 4.1-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
45–46
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Agricultural and forestry resources were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would have a less than significant impact on agricultural resources due to the generally low agricultural value of the area. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar agricultural resource impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior agricultural resource impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not impact any agricultural resources beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. As these impacts are site-specific, they would not change as a result of a change in use.

There are no forestry resources within the COMP area; therefore, checklist items (c) and (d) do not apply.

Thus, the agricultural and forestry resource impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 17 of 55 ends

the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding agricultural and forestry resources.

III. Air Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.10.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 48–49 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.10-12 to 4.10-
13; Impact

4.10-6
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
61 No No No Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality
standard?
Draft EIR, pp.
4-10-2 to 4.10-
13; Impacts

4.10-1 to 4.10-
4, 4.10-7
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
49–59, 61–62
No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Draft EIR, p.

4.10-2; Impacts

4.10-1 to 4.10-
4, 4.10-7 to

4.10-9
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
49–59, 61–64
No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
Draft EIR, p.

4.10-22; Impact

4.10-5
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
60 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 18 of 55 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Air quality was adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that the development of the COMP area would result in increased air pollution in the plan area and in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, increased CO concentrations at intersections, short-term emissions of ROG, NOx, SO2, and CO, and inconsistency with the Placer County Air Quality Attainment Plan. These impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the COMP EIR determined that the development would result in shortterm emissions of PM10, but that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Finally, the COMP EIR determined that impacts relating to increases in toxic air contaminants during construction and exposure of residents to criteria air pollutants generated by stationary sources, toxic air contaminants (TACs) generated by stationary sources, and odors would be less than significant. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar air quality impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR, but concluded that the change would reduce the intersection CO impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the COMP EIR 1st Addendum adopted standard air quality mitigation measures recommended by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District after the COMP EIR was certified.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior air quality impact conclusions. Air emissions associated with construction of residential development on Parcel CO-52, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and TACs, would be the same (NOx and PM10), or less than (ROG), those associated with construction of tech/business development on the same approximate acreage (see Raney Planning and Management August 2023 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Proposed Project, included herein as Attachment A to the Combined CEQA Document); and both types of development are subject to the same effective construction mitigation measures (listed below). Even without mitigation, future development of Parcel CO-52 would not exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District’s (PCAPCD’s) CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions during construction (see Table 3 of Raney Air Quality analysis).

Unmitigated air emissions associated with future everyday residential uses on and around Parcel CO-52 and the COMP area, including ROG, NOx, and PM10, would be slightly higher (ROG), or less than (NOx and PM10), those associated with everyday tech/business uses. The estimated increase in ROG, however, is incremental and can be reduced through mitigation and through state and local air district requirements (see Table 5 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Even without mitigation, at full development, Parcel CO-52 would not exceed PCAPCD’s CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions during operation (see Table 4 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Moreover, net increases in operational criteria pollutants represent only a marginal percentage increase within the COMP planning area (a 0.99 percent increase for ROG, a 1.05 percent increase for NOx, and a 2.11 percent increase for PM10) (see Table 6 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Furthermore, Raney concluded that localized CO emissions for the entirety of the Proposed Project, at full parcel buildout, would not exceed PCAPCD’s screening threshold; specifically, the Project “would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health effects” (see also analysis in COMP EIR 1st Addendum on reduced CO at nearby intersections). As well, the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within and around the COMP area would be reduced with the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, as determined in the Fehr & Peers August 2023 Transportation Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Various Parcels in the Campus Oaks Master Plan and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (included herein as Attachment B to the Combined CEQA Document, discussed more below in Section XVII), resulting in a commensurate reduction in vehicle-related air emissions.

With respect to exposure of any nearby sensitive receptors to air pollution and odor, the air quality analysis confirmed that these impacts would remain less than significant. Indeed, the conversion from light industrial to residential results in no anticipated operational TACs and therefore zero potential impacts to any nearby sensitive receptors. The same is true for potential odor impacts—residential land uses are not typically classified as odorgenerating land uses.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 19 of 55 ends

Residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable COMP EIR and Placer County Air Pollution Control District construction and operational mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or substantially more severe significant air quality impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the air quality impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.10-1: Provide dust controls.
• COMP EIR MM 4.10-2(a): Maintain construction equipment and vehicles. • COMP EIR MM 4.10-2(b): Develop and implement a Construction Employee Trip Reduction Plan.

Conclusion: With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding air quality.

IV. Biological Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.5.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 70–72 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-6 to 4.5-12;
Impacts 4.5-1,

4.5-4 to 4.5-7
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
73, 75–79
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 20 of 55 ends

b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by
the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-3 to 4.5-4;
Impacts 4.5-1,

4.5-4, 4.5-5, 4.5-
8 EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
73, 75–76, 79
No No No Yes
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-4 to 4.5-6;
Impacts 4.5-3,

4.5-8
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
74–75, 79
No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-8 to 4.5-12;
Impacts 4.5-5,

4.5-7
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
76, 78–79
No No No Yes
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-3 to 4.5-4;
Impacts 4.5-2,

4.5-8
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
73–74, 79
No No No Yes
f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
79 N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Biological resources were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would result in potentially significant and unavoidable losses of wetlands and federal threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp. Additionally, the COMP EIR concluded that the development would potentially result in loss of special-status vernal pool plant species, disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction, loss of nesting habitat for protected raptor species, and loss of wetland preserve and oak COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 21 of 55 ends

trees due to sewer construction; however, the COMP EIR identified mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Finally, the COMP EIR concluded any impacts relating to loss of grassland habitat or oak trees would be less than significant. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would not result in any new or more severe biological resource impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior biological resource impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not impact new or different biological resources beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. Moreover, all wetlands-related impacts within the COMP area have already occurred and the associated mitigation measures have been implemented. With respect to nonwetland biological resources, residential development of Parcel CO-52 would comply with all remaining applicable COMP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents. Moreover, Parcel CO-52 has been repeatedly disturbed over a period of years, having been disced and graded and otherwise disturbed for the installation of infrastructure. There is no known sensitive biological resources and habitat onsite, and no trees or other established vegetation exists onsite.

There is no habitat conservation plan that applies to the COMP area; therefore, checklist item (f) does not apply.

Thus, the biological resource impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.5-5: Develop and implement construction protocols. • COMP EIR MM 4.5-7: Conduct pre-construction survey and implement restrictions.

V. Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 82–83 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 22 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.6-5 to 4.6-6;
Impacts 4.6-1,

4.6-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
83–85
No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-5 to 4.6-6;
Impacts 4.6-1,

4.6-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
83–84
No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-5 to 4.6-6;
Impact 4.6-1
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
83–84
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Cultural resources were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that the development of the COMP area could potentially impact known and unknown cultural resources, but included mitigation measures to mitigate these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar cultural resource impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR, but clarified that no known cultural resources existed within the COMP area because in part, the area had been heavily disturbed, causing the previous elimination of two cultural resources at some time between 1991 and 2005.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not alter the prior cultural resource impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not disturb new or different cultural resources beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. While there are no cultural resources within the COMP area known to the City or Applicant, and none have been uncovered during the years of discing, grading, and other site disturbance on Parcel CO-52, unknown cultural resources still could be inadvertently discovered during construction. Residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with the applicable COMP EIR mitigation measure, and the supplemental measures included below designed to update and enhance the existing measure, thus ensuring COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 23 of 55 ends

that there would be no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the cultural resource impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.6-1: Cease work and consult a qualified archaeologist. • Parcel CO-52 MM CUL-1 (applicable only for future development on Parcel CO-52):
a) In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the find. The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. The Archaeologist shall assess whether the find to determine whether it includes historical resources of an archaeological nature or unique archaeological resources.
b) If the archaeologist determines that the find does not include cultural resources in any of one of these two categories, work may resume immediately.
c) If the archaeologist determines that the find constitutes either an historical resource of an archaeological nature or a unique archaeological resource, she or he shall immediately notify the City Development Services Director (CDSD) and the landowner/applicant, and shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the CDSD. Mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the CDSD, such measures shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the CDSD. d) Avoidance or preservation of unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the CDSD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the archaeologist, in consultation with the CDSD, shall prepare a detailed recommended a treatment plan for consideration and approval by the CDSD, which may include data recovery. If employed, data recovery strategies for unique archaeological resources that do not also qualify as historical resources of an archaeological nature shall follow the applicable requirements and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Data recovery will normally consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the CDSD to not be appropriate, then an equally effective treatment shall be proposed and implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate California COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 24 of 55 ends

Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and shall be submitted to the City of Roseville, the North Central Information Center (NCIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.
e) Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the CDSD, in consultation with the archaeologist, determines that the site either: 1) does not contain unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature; or 2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the CDSD. • Parcel CO-52 MM CUL-2 (applicable only for future development on Parcel CO-52):

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If, during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner/applicant or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
 The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.  The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation.  The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

VI. Energy
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.12.2, pages 4.12-11 to 4.12-14 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 186–187 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 25 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.12-11 to 4.12-
14; Impacts

4.12-11, 4.12-12
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
94–95, 186–
187, 197
No No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-11 to 4.12-
14; Impacts

4.12-11, 4.12-12
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
94–95, 186–
187, 197
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Although the COMP EIR and COMP EIR 1st Addendum did not include this energy checklist section because, at that time, it was not recommended by CEQA Guidelines as it is now, energy was indeed addressed in both documents. Electricity in the COMP area is provided by the City Electric Department, which obtains its electricity from sources like the Western Area Power Administration, the Northern California Power Agency, and the Cityowned Roseville Energy Park. Natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The COMP EIR concluded that development and operation of the COMP area would increase the demand for energy services, but that these impacts would be less than significant because full build-out of the plan area would not increase the overall future power needs identified by the City. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial to mixed-use residential would result in decreased energy impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR because residential uses, in general, require less electricity than light industrial uses.

This generality was confirmed in a technical memorandum prepared by the civil engineering firm Morton & Pitalo that addresses utility usage of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments (included herein as Attachment C).

Morton & Pitalo concluded that the land use change on Parcel CO-52 would result in a decrease in electricity usage (-0.39 megawatts). The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments also would result in a reduction in VMT, which correspondingly would result in an overall reduction in fuel usage (see Section XVII for more details).

During construction, the COMP EIR 1st Addendum found that energy use (fuel) would increase from that assumed in the COMP EIR, but that the annual reduction in fuel consumption from operational transportation COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 26 of 55 ends

(see the VMT discussion in Section XVII) would far outweigh the incremental increase in construction fuel consumption over the construction period for the entirety of the Campus Oaks area.

Consequently, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior energy impact conclusions. Like the land use changes addressed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, as demonstrated above, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would replace light industrial uses with residential uses, generally reducing energy demands.

In addition, residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable energy efficiency standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Energy Code, and the development would be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both energy providers to purchase energy-efficient appliances and systems, further reducing anticipated operational energy demands. At the same time, compliance with Placer County Air Pollution Control District standard mitigation measures addressing air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, such as a prohibition on construction truck idling for more than five minutes and the use of water efficient landscaping, would increase energy efficiency during construction and operations. These standards, programs, and measures would ensure that the development would neither result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy nor conflict with or obstruct state or local energy plans. Mitigation to reduce air emissions during construction (listed below) would also result in more energy (fuel) efficiency during construction.

Thus, the energy impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: Prior CEQA documents did not include mitigation measures specific to energy reduction and efficiency because no significant impacts existed; however, the following mitigation measures will further increase fuel efficiency during construction:
• COMP EIR MM 4.10-2(a): Maintain construction equipment and vehicles. • COMP EIR MM 4.10-2(b): Develop and implement a Construction Employee Trip Reduction Plan.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding energy.

VII. Geology and Soils
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.3.2 and 4.6.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 87–88 and 82–83 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 27 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the area
or based on other
substantial evidence
of a known fault?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-4 to 4.3-7;
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 88–89
No No No No
ii. Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-4 to 4.3-7;
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 88–89
No No No No
iii. Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-4 to 4.3-7;
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 88–89
No No No No
iv. Landslides?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-4 to 4.3-7;
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 88–89
No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 28 of 55 ends

b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-7 to 4.3-11;
Impact 4.3-4
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 89–90
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-7 to 4.3-11;
Impact 4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
89 No No No Yes
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-7 to 4.3-11;
Impact 4.3-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
89 No No No Yes
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
EIR 1st
Addendum p.
90 N/A No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-2 to 4.3-3;
Impact 4.6-1
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 83–84
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Geology and soils were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would have less than significant impacts related to seismic activity and topographic changes.

The COMP EIR also determined that the development would have potentially significant impacts related to construction on low permeability, low strength, or high shrink-swell soils, but identified a mitigation measure to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar geology and soils impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR. Additionally, while the COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that the COMP EIR mitigation for cultural resources would also mitigate potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources, it nevertheless incorporated an additional mitigation measure to specifically address paleontological resources.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 29 of 55 ends

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior geology and soils impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not encounter new or different soils or geologic features beyond what were already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. As these impacts are site-specific, they would not change as a result of a change in use from industrial to residential. Moreover, residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable mitigation measures from the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant geology and soils impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments do not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, checklist item (e) does not apply.

Thus, the geology and soils impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.3-2: Site-specific geotechnical evaluation to assess development on soils characterized by slow permeability, low strength and high shrink-swell potential. • COMP EIR MM 4.6-1: Cease work and consult a qualified archaeologist. • COMP EIR 1st Addendum MM 5-1: Paleontological mitigation program.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
For the environmental setting, refer to page 93 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any MMs?
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment?
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 93–95
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 30 of 55 ends

b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
95 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Consistent with the near-universal approach at the time it was prepared, the COMP EIR did not explicitly address or assess effects associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or climate change. In the years since, however, new legislation has incorporated these issues into CEQA’s requirements. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum incorporated a GHG emissions analysis comparing the proposed conversion of part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential to the original land uses assessed in the COMP EIR.5 The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that development of the COMP area would have significant GHG emissions impacts, but concluded that converting part of the COMP area to mixed-use residential would reduce these impacts considerably. Additionally, the COMP EIR 1st Addendum incorporated Placer County Air Pollution Control District standard operational mitigation measures to further reduce GHG emission impacts.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior GHG emissions impact conclusions.

Indeed, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would reduce weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below what would be expected with a tech/business use (see Attachment B to the Combined CEQA Document, discussed more below in Section XVII), with an assumed commensurate reduction in GHG emissions, and would convert part of the COMP area to mixed-use residential, which would, per the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, reduce these impacts considerably. Raney Planning & Management performed a GHG emissions analysis for the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments (see Attachment A to the Combined CEQA Document) and determined that, although proposed GP/COMP Amendments would result in an increase in construction-related GHG emissions (see Attachment A, Table 9), these emissions would still fall well below PCAPCD’s CEQA GHG construction thresholds. Thus, future construction on Parcel CO-52 would not constitute a new significant GHG emissions impact or substantially increase the severity of an existing significant impact.

Operationally, and as predicted in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would yield a reduction of GHG emissions as a result of the change in land use from business/light industrial to residential (see Attachment A, Table 10). And while operational emissions would exceed PCAPCD’s CEQA GHG operational de minimis thresholds (as would the existing approved land use), they would not exceed PCAPCD’s bright-line threshold or PCAPCD’s efficiency metric threshold for residential urban projects (see Attachment A, Tables 9 and 10). Furthermore, residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District mitigation measures, which would help to reduce GHG emissions during both construction and operation.
5 The GHG analysis was provided for informational purposes only. As explained in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, the potential impacts of the development of the COMP area relating to GHG emissions do not constitute significant new information that would require additional environmental analysis. CEQA case law holds that agencies cannot and need not require supplemental environmental review in connection with proposed project changes solely because the earlier environmental documents for the projects at issue had not dealt with global warming/climate change as a CEQA topic (see COMP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 91, citing Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v.

City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, and Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788). Those cases hold that, going back as far as the 1970s, climate change was a matter of public discussion and could have been raised as a CEQA issue by persons exercising reasonable diligence.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 31 of 55 ends

Therefore, there would be no new significant GHG emissions impacts or substantially more severe significant GHG emissions impacts compared with the impacts identified in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum. Thus, the GHG emissions impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding GHG emissions.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.8.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and page 98 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.8-2 to 4.8-6;
Impacts 4.8-1
to 4.8-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
99–101
No No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-2 to 4.8-6;
Impacts 4.8-1,

4.8-4
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
99–100, 101–
103
No No No No
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed
school?
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
103–104
N/A No No N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 32 of 55 ends

d) Be located on a site
which is included on a list
of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-2 to 4.8-3;
Impact 4.8-4
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
101–103
No No No No
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a
plan has not been
adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project result in a
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
104
N/A No No N/A
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-6 to 4.8-7;
Impact 4.8-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
101, 104
No No No No
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
104
N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hazards or hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials that would require mitigation. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixeduse residential would result in decreased hazards and hazardous materials impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior hazards and hazardous materials impact conclusions. Like the land use changes addressed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would replace light industrial uses with residential uses, reducing potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials because residential uses store and use far fewer hazardous materials than tech/business and light industrial uses. Moreover, as the proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, all site-specific hazards were addressed in the prior environmental documents. Moreover, construction for future residential development on the site would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations that apply to construction of all kinds to reduce and avoid hazards and hazardous waste (see, for example, GP Policies SE-3 and SE-4 to reduce the frequency of occurrence of accidental spills). As a result, development on Parcel CO-52 would not result in new COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 33 of 55 ends

or more severe significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents and no mitigation is required.

Parcel CO-52 is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, Parcel CO52 is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Finally, Parcel CO-52 is not located in an area susceptible to wildland fires. Therefore, checklist items (c), (e), and (g) do not apply.

Thus, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding hazards and hazardous materials.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.4.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and page 106 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.4-7; Impacts

4.4-4, 4.4-5
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
109–110
No No No Yes
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?
Draft EIR, p.

4.4-7; Impact

4.4-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, p
109.

No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 34 of 55 ends

c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-6 to 4.4-7;
Impact 4.4-4
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
109–110
No No No Yes
ii. Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site;
Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-1 to 4.4-7;
Impact 4.4-2
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
108
No No No Yes
iii. Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned storm water
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-6 to 4.4-7;
Impact 4.4-4
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
109–110
No No No Yes
iv. Impede or redirect
flood flows?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-1 to 4.4-6;
Impact 4.4-1
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
107
No No No Yes
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or
seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
111
N/A No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Not Addressed No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would not result in significant impacts related to flood flows within a designated 100-year floodplain, groundwater recharge and supply, or urban runoff pollution. Additionally, the COMP EIR concluded that the development would result in potentially significant impacts related to storm water runoff and erosion and sedimentation during construction, but identified mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 35 of 55 ends

from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar hydrology and water quality impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior hydrology and water quality impact conclusions. As the proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, all site-specific impacts were addressed in the prior environmental documents. After the COMP EIR and COMP EIR 1st Addendum were prepared, the West Placer County Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted the North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, applicable to parts of Sutter, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, including the COMP area. Thus, neither of these documents addressed potential conflicts with the applicable groundwater management plan resulting from development of the COMP area. As explained in the GP EIR, the City’s potable water is primarily supplied from surface water from Folsom Reservoir. While the City operates several groundwater wells, groundwater is a backup water supply that the City uses only in times of water shortage. Moreover, the City injects surplus water into the underlying aquifer during normal and wet years, which can later be extracted and used during dry years as needed. Accordingly, the GP EIR concluded that full buildout under the GP would not impede implementation of the applicable groundwater sustainability plan. No element of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would change this conclusion; thus, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not impede implementation of the North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Moreover, residential development on Parcel CO52 would comply with all applicable COMP EIR mitigation measures, as well as all state and local requirements associated with water efficiency (discussed more below), ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Due to its topography and location, the COMP area is not at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, checklist item (d) does not apply.

Thus, the hydrology and water quality impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR MM 4.4-2(a): Identify adequate detention facilities locations. • COMP EIR MM 4.4-2(b): Contribute fair share fees to regional flood control facilities. • COMP EIR MM 4.4-4: Implement erosion control plan.

XI. Land Use and Planning
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 112–113 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 36 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Physically divide an
established community?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
117
No No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-2 to 4.1-3,

4.1-7, 4.1-11;
Appendix C;
Impacts 4.1-1,

4.1-3, 4.1-4
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
114–117
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Land use and planning were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that developing the COMP area would result in less than significant impacts relating to land use conversion, conflicts with adjacent uses, and conflicts between internal uses. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum confirmed that the development would not physically divide an established community and determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar land use and planning impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior land use and planning impact conclusions. Like the land use changes addressed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would replace light industrial uses with residential uses. The undeveloped parcel is situated between other undeveloped land to the north, recreational fields to the east, and multi-family residential parcels (to the west and south). Developing the site with residences instead of tech/business uses would not physically divide an established community, because the areas immediately surrounding the parcel vary in use and do not constitute a cohesive community. In fact, future development on Parcel CO-52 would be more consistent with adjacent multi-family residential parcels (to the west and south) than the existing land use. Moreover, any future development would comply with all applicable COMP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant land use compatibility impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the land use and planning impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 37 of 55 ends

addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding land use and planning.

XII. Mineral Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.3.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and page 118 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.3-2; Impact

4.3-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
118–119
N/A No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?
Draft EIR, p.

4.3-2; Impact

4.3-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
118–119
N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

There are no significant mineral resources within the COMP area, as detailed in the COMP Draft EIR and COMP EIR 1st Addendum; therefore, this checklist topic does not apply.

XIII. Noise
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.11.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 120–123 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 38 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Generate a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance or
applicable standards of
other agencies?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.11-5 to 4.11-7,

4.11-9 to 4.11-
11; Impacts

4.11-1 to 4.11-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
125–132
No No No Yes
b) Generate excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
132–133
No No No No
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
133
N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Noise was adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR did not identify any potentially significant noise impacts that would require mitigation. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would introduce new noise-sensitive uses into the COMP area. Additionally, the COMP EIR 1st Addendum explained that new development after the COMP EIR was certified increased the ambient noise within the COMP area. However, modeling showed that after converting some of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential, traffic noise would decrease at nine out of sixteen studied roadway segments and would only cause incremental increases at the other locations (the greatest being 0.1 dBA) (see COMP EIR 1st Addendum, Table 12-5). These incremental increases would not breach the commonly applied 3dBA threshold for significant impacts (id., p. 127). Indeed, the transportation evaluation memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers determined that there would be a reduction in vehicle miles travelled in the COMP area (see Attachment B), with a commensurate reduction in traffic noise.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 39 of 55 ends

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior operational noise impact conclusions. It would, eventually, insert residential units onto a parcel that was already planned for full buildout for by-right tech/business and other light industrial uses, which could create far more noise than residential units (e.g., from hundreds of day and evening delivery truck trips, industrial equipment, loading docks, truck backup alarms, etc., see COMP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 129; GP EIR, p. 4.6-21). By contrast, residential noise sources would most likely occur primarily during daytime hours and would be typical and expected in a residential environment. And, as demonstrated in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, traffic noise associated with a conversion from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in only incremental noise increases on only some roadway segments, whereas other segments would see decreases. Thus, operational noise would likely end up being less under the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments than it would have been under the approved existing use.

Moreover, construction of residential uses would result in noise impacts similar to those that would result from construction of by-right industrial uses on the same acreage. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum identified construction-related mitigation measures to mitigate any potential noise impacts associated with construction to a less-than-significant level. At the same time, construction activities would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits construction noise to between 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 8 PM on weekends, outside of time periods when residents are sleeping or are otherwise particularly sensitive to noise.

Residential development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant construction or operational noise impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The COMP area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport; therefore, checklist item (c) does not apply.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on Parcel CO-52:
• COMP EIR 1st Addendum MM 12-1(a): Limit construction activities to daytime hours. • COMP EIR 1st Addendum MM 12-1(b): Provide information at construction sites. • COMP EIR 1st Addendum MM 12-1(c): Measures for construction within 800 feet of a residence. • COMP EIR 1st Addendum MM 12-2(a): Acoustical review (only applicable for future development including rooftop mechanical equipment within 300 feet of residential uses).

XIV. Population and Housing
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.2.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 136–137 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 40 of 55 ends

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.2-1 to 4.2-6,
6-18; Impacts

4.2-1 to 4.2-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
138–140
No No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
140–141
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Population and housing were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would not result in significant impacts relating to employment, housing supply, or the jobs/housing balance within the City. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum confirmed that development of the COMP area would not displace any existing housing, and determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in similar population and housing impacts compared to those identified in the COMP EIR.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior population and housing impact conclusions. Parcel CO-52 does not currently include residential using that would be displaced. While the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would increase the number of residential units within the plan area, this would contribute to the City’s substantial unmet regional housing needs allocation of 12,066 housing units (including 6,178 Very-Low-Income/Low-Income Units) for 2021 through 2029. Moreover, the increase would not exceed planned growth under full buildout of the City’s GP, which could accommodate 22,300 additional housing units through 2035 (see GP EIR, pp. 4.2-10 to 4.2-11).

Additionally, marginal increases in growth alone do not translate into adverse effects on the environment; rather, the impacts associated with growth relate to the resulting physical changes to various kinds of natural resources.

As discussed throughout this Addendum, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not increase the amount of developed acreage planned for Parcel CO-52; therefore, the resulting physical impacts to various natural resources would not significantly differ from those identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the population and housing impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 41 of 55 ends

Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding population and housing.

XV. Public Services
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.12.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 143–146 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

4.12-9 to 4.12-
10, 4.12-16;
Impact 4.12-8
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
148
No No No No
Police protection?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-8 to 4.12-9,

4.12-16 to 4.12-
17; Impact

4.12-7
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
147–148
No No No No
Schools?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-14 to 4.12-
15, 4.12-17;
Impact 4.12-14
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
149–150
No No No No
Parks?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
154
No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 42 of 55 ends

Other public facilities?
Draft EIR, p.

4.12-15; Impact

4.12-15
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
150–151
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Public Services were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that development of the COMP area would not result in potentially significant impacts to public services requiring mitigation. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixeduse residential would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts compared with the impacts identified in the COMP EIR.

For fire protection infrastructure, existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville.

The Applicant is required to pay a fire service construction fee, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the City Fire Department. For police and fire protection services, properties in the COMP provide funding via the Municipal Services Community Facilities District (CFD), CFD No. 3, in addition to funding generated by sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development that will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for those police and fire services. For park maintenance (among other services), the Applicant will be required to provide funding via Community Facilities District No. 2, which provides funding for park maintenance (and other public services). For other public facilities, the COMP area would be adequately served by existing libraries, and the City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and green waste collection, in order to fund those services.

For schools, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments involve an increase in residential units within the COMP area and, therefore, a potential slight increase in students. Consistent with City policy, the original Campus Oaks developer was required under the Campus Oaks Development Agreement to enter into mutual benefit impact fee agreements with the Roseville City School District and the Roseville Joint Union High School District to fully mitigate school impacts from development of the Campus Oaks project. If those agreements were not recorded against the Parcel CO-52 property, the applicant, in accordance with the Campus Oaks Development Agreement, will need to enter into separate mutual benefit fee agreements with the respective school district(s).

As a result, any increase in students associated with the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not translate into a more severe environmental impact than what was anticipated in the COMP EIR and COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Regarding parks, the Applicant would be required to pay the Citywide Park Fee and Neighborhood Park Fee, established in 1989 by Chapter 4.38 of the Roseville Municipal Code. These fees are collected from all new residential dwelling units within the Roseville City limits and are adjusted every year based on the inflation rate for construction costs. The Citywide Park Fee is allocated for large-scale active recreation facilities intended to serve the entire City and is typically located within identified Citywide parks (see COMP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 153). The Applicant would also be required to pay the Neighborhood Park Fee to fund construction of neighborhood parkland in Campus Oaks. Payment of these fees would ensure that there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to existing parks compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior public service impact conclusions and fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 43 of 55 ends

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding public services.

XVI. Recreation
For the environmental setting, refer to pages 152–153 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any MMs?
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or
be accelerated?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
154
No No No No
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect
on the environment?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
154
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

As the original master plan did not anticipate residential development or parks and recreation facilities within the COMP area, the COMP EIR did not address recreational impacts. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would not result in any new recreation impacts.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior recreation impact conclusions. The Applicant would be required to pay the Citywide Park Fee and the Neighborhood Park Fee, established in 1989 by Chapter 4.38 of the Roseville Municipal Code. These fees are collected from all new residential dwelling units within the Roseville City limits and are adjusted every year based on the inflation rate for construction costs. The Citywide Park Fee is allocated for large-scale active recreation facilities intended to serve the entire City and is COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 44 of 55 ends

typically located within identified Citywide parks (see COMP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 153). The Neighborhood Park Fee funds construction of neighborhood parkland in Campus Oaks. Payment of these fees would ensure that there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to existing parks compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments do not, at this time, include the development of any recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment.

Thus, the recreation impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding recreation.

XVII. Transportation/Traffic
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.9.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 158–168 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

4.9-2 to 4.9-20,

4.9-22 to 4.9-
23; Impacts

4.9-1 to 4.9-8
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
169–179
No No No Yes
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
180.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 45 of 55 ends

c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(for example, sharp curves
or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (for
example, farm
equipment)?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
180
No No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
180
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Transportation and traffic were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR addressed impacts at various roadway segments and intersections within the City and concluded that some of those impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and that others would not require mitigation. Additionally, the COMP EIR concluded that the development would not result in significant impacts to roadways outside of the City or to demand for transportation-related bicycle trips. Finally, the COMP EIR concluded that the development would have a potentially significant impact on transit service demand, but identified mitigation measures to mitigate that impact to a less-than-significant level. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum confirmed that the development would not result in hazards from geometric design features or inadequate emergency access, and identified additional mitigation measures to ensure that potential impacts resulting from recent roadway and transit changes would remain less than significant. Additionally, the COMP EIR 1st Addendum included an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)6 comparing the proposed conversion of part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixeduse residential to the original land uses assessed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum concluded that the changes would reduce VMT by 38 percent.

The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior transportation and traffic impact conclusions. Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation evaluation memorandum for the COMP area and the entirety of the Proposed Project (see Attachment B). Fehr & Peers concluded that VMT in and around the COMP area would be reduced by 4,889 VMT with an overall net reduction for the entirety of the Proposed Project of approximately 2,376 VMT.
7 This decrease is in part attributable to the fact that, for Parcel CO-52, average vehicle trip length would decrease from 7.6 miles to 5.0 miles due to the change in use, more than offsetting an increase in daily trips.
6 Here (and in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum), the VMT analysis is for informational purposes only, as a conservative measure, to provide decisionmakers with as much information as possible. Its inclusion in these addenda is not required under CEQA because it was not required or included in the COMP EIR. CEQA’s VMT analysis requirement, which went into effect on July 1, 2020, only applies to documents released to the public after that date (see CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064.3(c), 15007, 15008). The COMP EIR, on which this Addendum primarily relies, was prepared in 1996; thus, a VMT analysis was not required in the COMP EIR, and nor is it required in this Addendum (see Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) (case no. G061427; 2023 WL 4399077, currently awaiting formal citation). 7 The Proposed Project would modestly increase the number of daily vehicle trips, which is not relevant to VMT analysis but rather is relevant to analysis of level of service (LOS), which is a factor that is no longer a CEQA issue. As of December 28, 2018, “automobile delay, as described solely by [LOS] or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625−626).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 46 of 55 ends

Additionally, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would neither introduce any hazards resulting from circulation design nor present any significant safety risks associated with emergency access because no circulation design or site access is being proposed for Parcel CO-52 at this time and, nevertheless, any future development on Parcel CO-52 would comply with City and COMP design criteria and all applicable state standards associated with emergency access.

Thus, the transportation and traffic impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents, and indeed would reduce VMT below what would occur under conditions predicted previously.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding transportation and traffic.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 82–83 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

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

4.6-5 to 4.6-6;
Impacts 4.6-1,

4.6-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
83–85
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 47 of 55 ends

(ii) A resource
determined by the
lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence,
to be significant
pursuant to criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American tribe.

Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-5 to 4.6-6;
Impacts 4.6-1,

4.6-3
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
83–85
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

After the COMP EIR was certified, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (2014), which requires specific consideration of impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources resulting from projects subject to CEQA review. Thus, the COMP EIR and COMP EIR 1st Addendum did not specifically address impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources resulting from development of the COMP area. Instead, these impacts were addressed as part of the general cultural resources analysis, as was common practice prior to AB 52. As discussed above, the COMP EIR concluded that, with mitigation, development in the COMP area would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, inclusive of all known Tribal Cultural Resources in the area of potential effect at that time.

Since the prior environmental documents were prepared, the COMP area has been disturbed and no Tribal Cultural Resources have been identified in the area. However, it is possible that construction activities on Parcel CO-52 will uncover currently unknown Tribal Cultural Resources. In June 2023, as part of tribal consultation required under Senate Bill 18 (requiring local governments to consult with tribes prior to amending a general plan), the City sent notification to several tribes that had previously requested notification. On June 7, 2022, a representative for the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) responded and requested consultation and stated that they were aware of Tribal Cultural Resources on or near the affected area and suggested that they likely would need to conduct a survey for Tribal Cultural Resources and possibly request additional measures prior to development. Per the Tribe (verbatim), the UAIC is a federally recognized Tribe comprised of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The Tribe has a deep spiritual, cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes. The Tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. It is the Tribe’s goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generation. On June 9, 2022, the City responded and informed the UAIC that no development is being proposed as part of the application and that the Project site(s) have been environmentally assessed. The City also provided website links to the appropriate environmental documents. The City followed up two additional times and on July 10, 2023, UAIC responded, again suggested that surveys may be required prior to any development design and also indicating that the resource(s) may have already been destroyed.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 48 of 55 ends

On August 7, 2023, staff met with representatives from the UAIC on Parcel CO-52 for a project site visit, so that the Tribe could have an opportunity to identify any Tribal Cultural Resources that may be present onsite. As well, per the Tribe (verbatim), UAIC conducted background search for the identification of Tribal Cultural Resources for this project, which included a review of pertinent literature, historic maps, and a records search using UAIC’s Tribal Historic Information System (THRIS). UAIC’s THRIS database is composed of UAIC’s areas of oral history, ethnographic history, and places of cultural and religious significance, including UAIC Sacred Lands that are submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The THRIS resources shown in this region also include previously recorded indigenous resources identified through the California Historic Resources Information System Center (CHRIS) as well as historic resources and survey data. During the site visit, the UAIC representatives expressed the opinion that there did not appear to be any Tribal Cultural Resources present on the project site. The UAIC later suggested a measure for inclusion in this document to mitigate for any unanticipated discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources, which was thereafter revised in consultation with the Tribe and finalized upon tribal approval.

As discussed above in the Description of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments and Section V, Cultural Resources, the COMP area has been heavily disturbed, resulting in the elimination of two cultural resources at some time between 1991 and 2005. Parcel CO-52, in particular, has undergone years of years of discing, grading, and other site disturbance associated with the installation of infrastructure, with no cultural resources or Tribal Cultural Resources being inadvertently discovered in the process. California Public Resources Code section 15064.5 requires that “[w]hen an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.” Here, however, no previously certified or adopted environmental review, study, or site survey has identified any Tribal Cultural Resources.

Nevertheless, compliance with supplemental mitigation measure Parcel CO-52 MM TCR-1 will ensure that any future development on Parcel CO-52 would not result in new impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources or more severe impacts to those same resources than impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the Tribal Cultural Resources impacts of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on Parcel CO-52:
• Parcel CO-52 MM TCR-1: Unanticipated discoveries:

The following mitigation measure is intended to address the evaluation and treatment of inadvertent/unanticipated discoveries of potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) during a project’s ground disturbing activities.
a) If any suspected TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC §21074). The Tribal Representative will make written recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary. b) When avoidance is infeasible, preservation in place is the preferred option for mitigation of TCRs under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort shall be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign, if feasible. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 49 of 55 ends

objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Permanent curation of TCRs will not take place unless approved in writing by UAIC or by the California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area.
c) The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the resource, including, but not limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. The City will consult with the tribe(s) and implement appropriate treatment measures. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction, consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Public Resources Code. d) Work at the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the CEQA, including AB52, have been satisfied.

Conclusion: With implementation of the mitigation measure, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding Tribal Cultural Resources.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.12.2 and 4.4.2 of the COMP Draft EIR and pages 184–187 of the COMP EIR 1st Addendum.

Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Any MMs?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded
water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Draft EIR, pp.
4-4-6, 4.12-6 to

4.12-8, 4.12-11
to 4.12-16;
Impacts 4.4-2,

4.12-3, 4.12-5,

4.12-6, 4.12-11
to 4.12-13
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 188–189,
191–193, 195–
197
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 50 of 55 ends

b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development during
normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-1 to 4.12-
7, 4.12-15 to

4.12-16;
Impacts 4.12-
1, 4.12-2, 4.12-
4 EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 189–191,
192
No No No No
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater
treatment provider which
serves or may serve the
project that it has
adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-7 to 4.12-
8, 4.12-16;
Impacts 4.12-
5, 4.12-6
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 192–193
No No No No
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.12-10 to

4.12-11, 4.12-
17; Impacts

4.12-9, 4.12-10
EIR 1st
Addendum,
pp. 193–195
No No No No
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
EIR 1st
Addendum, p.
197
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Utilities and services systems were adequately addressed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR concluded that the development of the COMP area could result in a potentially significant impact relating to storm water drainage but identified mitigation measures to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Otherwise, the COMP EIR did not identify any other potentially significant utilities and service system impacts. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum determined that converting part of the COMP area from light industrial uses to mixed-use residential would result in utilities and service system impacts similar to those identified in the COMP EIR.

A technical memorandum addressing utilities demands of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments was prepared by the civil engineering firm Morton & Pitalo (see Attachment C). Morton & Pitalo concluded that the land use change on Parcel CO-52 would result in a decrease in the following: drainage flows (same as demonstrated in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum); solid waste (same as demonstrated in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum); and electricity usage (-0.39 megawatts).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 51 of 55 ends

Drainage flows decrease, primarily, because high-density residential land uses consist of approximately 65 percent impervious surfaces, while tech/business/light industrial land uses consist of approximately 85 percent impervious surfaces, resulting in a 20 percent increase in the amount of area that can absorb onsite stormwater flows. Solid waste decreases because tech/business/light industrial land uses result in a higher tonnage of waste produced than high-density residential land uses. Additionally, the life of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill, which serves the area, was recently extended from 2058 to 2110. Likewise, electricity usage decreases when converting land from a tech/business/light industrial land use to a high-density residential land use.

Consequently, the impacts associated with stormwater drainage, electricity, and solid waste would not alter the prior impact conclusions associated with these utilities and would fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Morton & Pitalo concluded that the land use change on Parcel CO-52 would result in slight increases in: water demand (+ 5.1 acre-feet per year [AFY]); sewer demand (+0.139 million gallons per day [MGD] during peak weather flow [PWWF]); and recycled water demand (+4.95 AFY]). However, these slight increases would not result in a significantly increased impact (explained below).

Water in the City of Roseville comes primarily from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation via Folsom Lake, but the City also maintains contracts with the Placer County Water Agency to obtain additional water as needed (see GP EIR, p. 2-33). Through these surface water sources, the City’s is able to adequately supply water, and will continue to be able to adequately supply water into the foreseeable future, as the City’s projected water use in 2040 is 50,907 AFY and it will have the capacity to provide 66,000 AFY (see GP EIR, p. 2-34). Additionally, the City maintains several groundwater wells that, if necessary, can deliver up to 17,000 AFY supplemental water to the City (see GP EIR, p. 2-34). Thus, the City has more than enough water for any future development on Parcel CO-52. In any event, the 2015 change in COMP area land uses (addressed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum) reduced the water demand of the area from the original 1996 land uses by 196.93 AFY. This current increase in water demand, therefore, would result in the COMP area still demanding less water (191.83 AFY less) than in 1996. Accordingly, per Morton & Pitalo, “[t]he additional 5.1 AFY should not be a significant impact to the City of Roseville Water Supply.”
The increase in wastewater (sewer usage), likewise, would not result in an increased impact. Per Morton & Pitalo:
[t]here is an existing 42” sewer trunk line within Woodcreek Oaks Blvd that has sufficient capacity to receive additional flows. The existing Campus Oaks sewer collection system has been reviewed and there is sufficient capacity within the Painted Dessert and Crimson Ridge sewer pipelines to convey the project flows to Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. (Refer to Appendix A). All collection pipelines operate within the City of Roseville Design standards except for the 10-inch line within Painted Dessert Drive. The allowable depth of flow for a 10-inch pipe is 70% depth or 7 inches. The resulting depth of flow in this pipe segment is 7.08 inches which will no[t] adversely affect the pipeline and within standard engineering tolerances.

Accordingly, the additional wastewater produced by the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly impact the City’s conveyance and collection facilities.

Recycled water was not available in the City at the time the 1996 COMP was approved, so it was not assessed in the COMP EIR. The COMP EIR 1st Addendum found that approximately 65.90 AFY of recycled water would be used for the 2015 COMP amended land uses at that time. The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would increase this demand by 4.95 AFY. Per the GP EIR, “[a]ccording to the South Placer Wastewater Authority, on an annual average basis through 2050, there is sufficient supply for all future demand [of recycled water] within the sewer service area” (GP EIR, p. 2-35). Although some concerns exist for future supplies of recycled water, recycled water plants are being expanded, have been expanded, or will be expanded to fulfill future needs (GPR EIR, p. 2-36). No matter, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would overall reduce water demand from what was approved in the 2015 land use amendments and analyzed in the COMP EIR 1st Addendum. Thus, the COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 52 of 55 ends

Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior utilities and service system impact conclusions and fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on Parcel CO-52. • COMP EIR MM 4.4-2(a): Identify adequate detention facilities locations.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding utilities and service systems.

XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose
project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 53 of 55 ends

d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The COMP area is not located within or near a state responsibility area and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (see GP EIR, p. 4.10-27); therefore, this checklist topic does not apply.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior COMP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Have the potential to
substantially degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially
reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-3 to 4.5-12,

4.6-5 to 5.6-6;
Impacts 4.5-1,

4.5-4 to 4.5-8,

4.6-1 to 4.6-3
See Sections
IV, V, VII, and
XVIII, above
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 54 of 55 ends

b) Have impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of
other current projects, and
the effects of probable
future projects.)
Draft EIR pp. 6-
1 to 6-19
EIR 1st
Addendum, pp.
200–205
No No No Yes
c) Have environmental
effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-2 to 4.8-6,

4.10-2 to 4.10-
13, 4.11-5 to

4.11-7, 4.11-9 to

4.11-11;
Impacts 4.8-1
to 4.8-4, 4.10-1
to 4.10-4, 4.10-
7, 4.11-1 to

4.11-3
See Sections

III, VIII, XI, X,
and XIII, Above
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum and listed in this document, and permit conditions, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments will not exceed the scope of any impact contemplated in the prior environmental documents associated with habitat, species, historic/prehistoric resources, or adverse effects on human beings. Furthermore, cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not exceed those contemplated in the COMP EIR and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum because no individual impact exceeds the scope of that same impact in those environmental documents. Nevertheless, the cumulative effects of the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments and the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments (aka, the Proposed Project) are analyzed in a separate section of the Combined CEQA Document.

Mitigation Measures: See above checklist sections for applicable mitigation measures.

Conclusion: With the implementation of the applicable mitigation measures listed in this Addendum checklist, the Proposed GP/COMP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the COMP EIR, as modified by its various addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding the mandatory findings of significance.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–5th ADDENDUM to COMP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 55 of 55 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Based on analysis conducted in this Addendum, the previously certified COMP EIR, and the COMP EIR 1st Addendum, it is determined that implementation of Proposed GP/COMP Amendments, as described herein, would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts, either directly or as a result of new circumstances or information. The City may take the following actions in compliance with CEQA:
• Adopt the Addendum;
• Approve the COMP amendment, MPP Stage 1 Modification, and rezone for Parcel CO-52; • Approve the General Plan amendment for Parcel CO-52; and • Approve the Amended Development Agreement.

In reviewing the site-specific information provided for these Proposed GP/COMP Amendments and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this action and determined that the findings of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR and the findings of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the HEWLETT-PACKARD CAMPUS OAKS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 95112022, certified June 5, 1996), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed to the COMP which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. [ X ] No changed circumstances would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. [ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance of the kind set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(3), that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete.

Addendum Prepared by:
____________________________________________
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services–Planning Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
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) — Proposed General Plan/Sierra Vista Specific Plan Amendments
Project Location: 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 Description: Applicant requests:
• Density bonuses and changes to the affordable housing obligations on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 to: (i) allow 118 additional LowIncome Units on Parcel WB-30; (ii) allow 64 new Low-Income Units on Parcel WB-32; (iii) allow 84 new Very-Low-Income Units on Parcel FD-34; (iv) convert all currently allocated Very-Low-Income Units on Parcels WB30 and WB-32 to Low-Income Units (transferring the Very-Low-Income Unit obligation to Parcel FD-34); and (v) convert all currently allocated Low-Income Units on Parcel FD-34 to Very-Low-Income Units (receiving transfer of the Very-Low-Income Unit obligation from Parcels WB-30 and WB-32);
• A General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone to modify the land use of Parcel WB-52 from Park and Recreation to High-Density Residential and to change the zoning to Multi-Family Housing; • Abandonment of the 20-foot public access easement on Parcel WB-30; and
• A 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook Development Agreement and a 6th Amendment to the Federico Development Agreement to reflect the proposed changes to the affordable housing obligations, density bonuses, and land use changes.

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
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 2 of 54 ends

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) sections 15162 through 15164 deal with what is often called “subsequent review” under the statute. These sections are based on statutory language found in Public Resources Code section 21166. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 sets forth the conditions and facts that require a public agency, in considering a proposed project connected to a previously certified final environmental impact report (EIR), to prepare a so-called “subsequent EIR.” Section 15163, in turn, identifies conditions and facts in which a “supplement to an EIR” may suffice in lieu of a full subsequent EIR. Section 15164, in turn, sets forth the conditions and facts in which neither one of these two documents is necessary, so that an addendum to the previously certified final EIR may suffice. In general, an addendum to a previously certified final EIR may be prepared for a project where only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or where none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the certified final EIR for consideration by the hearing body.

Here, the relevant final EIR was prepared and certified for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) in 2010 (SVSP EIR). That document combined project-level review for most areas (including Parcel FD-34) and program-level review for the so-called Urban Reserve (UR) land use (including what later became Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and WB-52). Subsequently, in 2012, the entire UR area was given General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning designations anticipating a mix of residential, retail, commercial, public space, and open space uses, named the Westbrook Area, after being environmentally analyzed in a mitigated negative declaration (MND) that included project-level review of the Westbrook area (WSP MND). Taken together, the programmatic analysis of the UR area in the SVSP EIR and the project-level analysis for the former UR area in the WSP MND create the practical equivalent of a project-level EIR for the former UR area, matching the project-level analysis for the rest of the SVSP area found in the SVSP EIR. Additionally, the City adopted several addenda to the SVSP EIR and one to the WSP MND in connection with various plan, zoning, and development agreement amendments.

For the purposes of analyzing the Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (“Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments”), the prior EIR under consideration is the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the project-level analysis for the former UR areas set forth in the WSP MND (and any applicable addenda). For purposes of the subsequent review provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, these two documents are treated as the practical equivalent a single, complete, integrated project-level EIR for the former UR areas, in which three of the four subject parcels are located. After conducting its analysis in light of the SVSP EIR and WSP MND, the City determined that an addendum to the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the WSP MND) is the appropriate environmental document for the SVSP project, as discussed and demonstrated below. This Addendum appropriately focuses only on those aspects of the SVSP project or its impacts that require additional discussion in light of the environmental analysis already found in the SVSP EIR and related CEQA documents (see Friends, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 951).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 3 of 54 ends

Table of Contents for 12th Addendum to SVSP EIR
Description ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose and Scope of Addendum ...................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Documents Relied Upon ............................................................................................ 11 Explanation of Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................ 12 Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics ...................................................................................... 14 II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ................................................. 16 III. Air Quality ...................................................................................... 18 IV. Biological Resources ..................................................................... 20 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 22 VI. Energy............................................................................................ 23 VII. Geology and Soils.......................................................................... 25 VIII. Greenhouse Gases........................................................................ 28 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................. 29 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................... 32 XI. Land Use and Planning.................................................................. 35 XII. Mineral Resources ......................................................................... 36 XIII. Noise.............................................................................................. 36 XIV. Population and Housing................................................................. 38 XV. Public Services .............................................................................. 40 XVI. Recreation...................................................................................... 42 XVII. Transportation / Traffic................................................................... 43 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................. 45 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................... 47 XX. Wildfire........................................................................................... 50 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................... 52 Environmental Determination.............................................................................................................. 54 COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 4 of 54 ends

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS As described in the introduction to the Combined CEQA Document, the Proposed General Plan/Sierra Vista Specific Plan Amendments (“Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments”) make up one component of the proposed Campus Oaks and Sierra Vista Land Use Amendments Project in Western Roseville (“Proposed Project”). While the Proposed Project involves a series of actions within two distinct planning areas in the City, the actions are interrelated and therefore have been reviewed together in a single CEQA document (as explained in the introduction to the Combined CEQA Document). However, because the two components of the Proposed Project are subject to different land use plans and previously certified CEQA documents, these components are considered in two separate but coordinated addenda, to avoid confusion and ensure the most appropriate CEQA analysis is conducted.

In total, the Proposed Project will add 551 new housing units (including 266 new income-restricted units) to the City, distributed between the SVSP and Campus Oaks Master Plan (COMP) areas. The Proposed Project would also transfer affordable housing obligations from Parcel CO-52 in the COMP area to parcels in the SVSP area.The Proposed Project would require various amendments to the SVSP and COMP, the City’s GP, and applicable development agreements (DAs), a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification to change the COMP, and zoning changes.

This Addendum addresses the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments component of the Proposed Project, which would involve various land use changes on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34 (the “affected parcels”).

Background and Environmental Setting
The Sierra Vista Specific Plan (aka, SVSP) was adopted on May 5, 2010.1 At that time, the City of Roseville (“City”) certified an environmental impact report (EIR) for the plan (SVSP EIR) and adopted a mitigation monitoring program (MMP). The SVSP EIR analyzed most of the SVSP area on a project level, but analyzed the Westbrook portion of the SVSP area (then identified as “Urban Reserve”) on a program level. On June 15, 2012, the City approved the Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to the SVSP (WSP) to change land uses for the Westbrook area. The City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the WSP (WSP MND). The WSP MND analyzed the Westbrook area on a project level, updating the programmatic Westbrook-specific environmental analysis contained in the SVSP EIR. At that time, the WSP MND applied all project-level SVSP EIR mitigation measures to the Westbrook area.

In the years since, the City has adopted various addenda to the SVSP EIR and the WSP MND. In 2016, the City amended the GP and SVSP, amongst other entitlements, to reconfigure the land use designation of 240.4 acres within the Westbrook Area. This action included the transfer of a 162-unit affordable housing obligation from Parcel WB-16 to Parcels WB 30 and WB-32. These actions were analyzed in a first addendum to the WSP MND (“WSP MND 1st Addendum”) that was adopted on February 26, 2016. In 2017, the City approved various changes to land use designations, zoning, parcel boundaries, and other entitlements within the SVSP area for several parcels, including Parcel FD-34. These actions were analyzed in a first addendum to the SVSP EIR (“SVSP EIR 1st Addendum”) that was adopted on November 2, 2017.2 1 The current version of the SVSP is available at: https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/ development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan. 2 Parcel FD-34 is identified in the SVSP EIR 1st Addendum as Parcel FD-60, which was its number prior to parcel renumbering and land use changes that took effect several years ago.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 5 of 54 ends

Several other addenda have since been prepared for the SVSP EIR and are listed below, but none involve the affected parcels:
• December 5, 2019, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• November 9, 2020, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• February 9, 2021, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• August 16, 2021, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• November 5, 2021, Addendum to the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the WSP MND); • March 8, 2022, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• April 28, 2022, Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• June 23, 2022 Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
• April 4, 2023, Addendum to the SVSP EIR; and
• June 13, 2023, Addendum to the SVSP EIR.

This Addendum is intended to analyze and disclose any new or more severe significant environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, as compared to the impacts identified in the SVSP EIR, as updated by the WSP MND and modified by the various relevant addenda.3 Location
All of the affected parcels are located in the SVSP area (see Figures 1 and 2 below). The approximately 2,075-acre SVSP area is located on the western edge of the City, bounded by Fiddyment Road to the east, Baseline Road to the south, the West Roseville Specific Plan area to the north, and unincorporated Placer County to the west. The SVSP area is characterized by mostly flat topography and annual grasslands. While the area was historically used for grazing and dry farming, these uses had primarily ceased by the time the SVSP was originally adopted.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments involve the following four parcels within the SVSP area:
• Parcel WB-30 (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 496-100-027-000), an 8.06-acre parcel north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard; • Parcel WB-32 (APN 496-100-034-000), a 5.11-acre parcel north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard;
• Parcel WB-52 (APN 496-100-028-000), a 1.5-acre parcel north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard; and
• Parcel FD-34 (APN 498-020-014-000), a 7.04-acre parcel south of Federico Drive and east of Westbrook Boulevard.

The current land use designation, zoning, and actual use of each of these parcels and their surrounding uses are summarized in Table 1 below. Notably, the affected parcels are undeveloped but have been repeatedly disturbed due to regular discing, grading, and other land management and maintenance activities. Recently, the parcels were used as excess soil disposal areas for the construction of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Santucci 3 The SVSP EIR serves as the primary source of information from which this Addendum derives its analysis and conclusions, with reliance on the WSP MND and relevant addenda as necessary. The environmental impacts assessed in this document were considered in detail in the earlier environmental documents and were addressed in numerous mitigation measures that apply to the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments. The SVSP EIR therefore retains substantial relevance and informational value to this action. (See Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 6 of 54 ends

Boulevard (EN19-0245). The parcels are mostly flat with no known biological communities, native oak trees, or other trees. There are no structures on the affected parcels. The adjacent parcels are mostly undeveloped as well, with some housing north and east of Parcel WB-32.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Parcel WB-30 Multi-Family Housing (R3) High-Density Residential (HDR) Undeveloped North Open Space (OS) (WB-80) Open Space (OS) Open space South Small Lot Residential/Development
Standards (RS/DS) (WB-41)
Medium-Density Residential
(MDR)
Under construction for
single-family housing
East R3 (WB-31)
Park and Recreation (PR) (WB-52)
HDR
Park and Recreation (PR)
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
West Specific Plan (SPL-RUSP) Unincorporated Placer
County
Parcel WB-32 R3 HDR Undeveloped
North
Small Lot Residential/Development
Standards (RS/DS) (WB-21, WB22)MDR Developed with singlefamily housing South Urban Reserve (UR) Urban Reserve (UR) Undeveloped East RS/DS (WB-21, WB-22) MDR Developed with singlefamily housing West Farm (F-B-X 80 Acre Min.) Unincorporated Placer
County
Parcel WB-52 PR PR Undeveloped
North OS (WB-80) OS Undeveloped
South R3 (WB-30, WB-31) HDR Undeveloped
East R3 (WB-31) HDR Undeveloped
West R3 (WB-30) HDR Undeveloped
Parcel FD-34 R3 HDR Undeveloped
North OS (FD-72A, FD-72B, FD-73A) OS Open space
South Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) (FD-61) Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) Developed with electrical substation
East OS (FD-84) OS Open space
West RS/DS (FD-21) MDR Undeveloped
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 7 of 54 ends

Figure 1: Location of Sierra Vista Area
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 8 of 54 ends

Figure 2: Location of Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34 Description of Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments
In the SVSP area, on Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34 in SVSP, the Applicant proposes the following:
• Parcel WB-30 (8.06 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 237 residential units, and is currently allocated 68 Very-Low-Income Units and 169 LowIncome Units under the SVSP. There is a 20-foot public access easement across this parcel extending from Pleasant Grove Boulevard to Parcel WB-52. The Applicant proposes to add 118 new units (all Low-Income Units), using an allowable-by-right State density bonus, and to convert all currently allocated Very-Low-Income Units to Low-Income Units (transferring the obligation to provide 68 VeryLow-Income Units to Parcel FD-34), for a total of 355 Low-Income Units on the parcel, which would be restricted for use by senior citizens. This action will require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the site and to document the number of high-density COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 9 of 54 ends

residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. Additionally, City Council would abandon the public access easement over this parcel in connection with the proposed changes to allow future development of the area encompassed by Parcel WB-52 for private recreational facilities, rather than as a public neighborhood park (discussed below). No redesignation or rezone is required for this parcel. • Parcel WB-32 (5.11 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 128 residential units, and is currently allocated 92 Very-Low-Income Units and 36 LowIncome Units under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to add 64 new units (all Low-Income Units), using an allowable-by-right State density bonus, and to convert all currently allocated Very-Low-Income Units to Low-Income Units (transferring the obligation to provide 92 Very-Low-Income Units to Parcel FD-34), for a total of 192 Low-Income Units on the parcel. This action will require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA to change the mix of affordable units obligated on the parcel and to document the number of high-density residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone will be required for this parcel.
• Parcel WB-52 (1.5 acres): This parcel is currently designated and zoned as PR (Park) and is allocated as a public neighborhood park under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to redesignate this parcel to HDR (High-Density Residential), in both the General Plan and SVSP, and to rezone to R3. No housing units will be allocated to the parcel, however, as the applicant intends to develop the area encompassed by WB-52 for private recreational facilities to serve current and future residents of Parcels WB-30, WB31, and W-16. In-lieu fees will be required for future development of Parcel WB-31 to offset the loss of public parkland. In addition to the GP and SVSP amendments and the rezone, this action will require a 3rd Amendment to the Westbrook DA.
• FD-34 (7.04 acres): This parcel is currently designated/zoned as HDR/R3 with a total unit allocation of 172 residential units, and is currently allocated 86 Very-Low-Income Units and 86 Low-Income Units under the SVSP. The Applicant proposes to add 84 new units (all Very-Low-Income), using an allowableby-right State density bonus, and to convert all currently 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 total of 256 Very-Low-Income Units on the parcel. This action will require a 6th Amendment to the Federico DA to document the change in the mix of affordable units obligated on the parcel and the increase in high-density residential units allocated to the parcel via density bonus. No redesignation or rezone is required.

This Addendum and all relevant applicable environmental documents will inform the City’s decision regarding the above approvals and entitlements for Parcels WB-30, WB-32, WB-52, and FD-34.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
Basis for Addendum
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. As explained earlier, an addendum is an appropriate subsequent CEQA review document when some changes to a project are necessary, but those changes do not create new or increased significant environmental impacts that warrant major revisions to the previously certified final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(1), 15164(a); see Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946; Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668). Also, an addendum is appropriate: (i) when circumstances surrounding a project have changed but do not warrant major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(2), 15164(a)); and (ii) where there is no new information of substantial importance indicating that the project would create new significant impacts or COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 10 of 54 ends

increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a)(3), 15164(a)).

Notably, in assessing whether a proposed project change is eligible for an addendum, public agencies may account for mitigation measures to which an applicant has agreed (see, e.g., River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168 [“even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require … the preparation of an SEIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance”]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 809–811 [“[t]o offset the loss of four acres of burrowing owl habitat, the eight[h] addendum includes a number of mitigation measures”]; Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, 802 [discusses mitigation required in connection with addendum]).

Substantial evidence presented in this Addendum demonstrates that the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, described above and analyzed below, would not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts more severe than those described in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND and relevant addenda. Nor are there any new circumstances or new information that would create such impacts or require more robust analysis (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)). All of the impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments were examined in the applicable prior CEQA documents. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not warranted (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(e)).

Significant and Unavoidable Impact Conclusions in the Previous EIR The SVSP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts within the SVSP area relating to:
• Potential incompatibility with overflight operations at McClellan Airfield; • Inducement of substantial population growth;
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways;
• Increased traffic volumes on Placer County roadway segments and intersections; • Increased traffic volumes on Sacramento County roadway segments; • Increased traffic volumes on Sutter County roadway segments and intersections; • Increased traffic volumes on State Highways;
• Short-term construction-related air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions; • Long-term operation-related air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions; • Inconsistency with plans and policies;
• Short-term construction noise;
• Traffic noise outside the plan area;
• Inconsistency with the General Plan Noise Element;
• McClellan overflight noise exposure;
• Potential disturbance of unknown archeological resources or human remains during construction; COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 11 of 54 ends

• Potential disturbance of historical resources during construction; • Increased demand for solid waste services at the landfill; • Expansion of the landfill;
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity; • New sources of light and glare; and
• Degradation of scenic resources and scenic vistas
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts when it certified the SVSP Final EIR.

When the City amended the SVSP to include the Westbrook area and adopted the accompanying WSP MND in 2012, it incorporated the project-level mitigation measures in the SVSP EIR. The WSP MND concluded that the potential impacts in the Westbrook area relating to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems were adequately considered in the SVSP EIR. With respect to air quality, noise, and transportation/traffic, the WSP MND determined that there could be potentially significant impacts in the Westbrook area; thus, supplemental studies were conducted to update the analyses contained in the SVSP EIR.

These studies confirmed that the potential project-level Westbrook impacts were consistent with the project-level SVSP impacts identified in the SVSP EIR.

When the City later adopted the various addenda to the WSP MND and the SVSP EIR, the City similarly determined that the impacts of the actions addressed in those documents were adequately analyzed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND, and determined that there were no changes to the original project or new circumstances that would result in significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts. Nor was there any new information requiring new analysis or verification.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
EIR for Sierra Vista Specific Plan, certified May 5, 2010 The SVSP EIR was certified by City Council on May 5, 2010. The analysis within this Addendum relies primarily on the analysis included in the SVSP EIR and relevant subsequent environmental documents that augmented and modified the SVSP EIR (listed below). Additionally, this Addendum relies on minor supplements or technical updates, where appropriate. As demonstrated and explained in the environmental checklist below, the impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments remain the same as, or less than, the impacts described in the SVSP EIR and the relevant subsequent environmental documents. The 2010 SVSP EIR is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA, or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/ government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_areas/ sierra_vista_specific_plan.

MND for Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, adopted June 15, 2012 The City amended the SVSP in 2012 to include the Westbrook area. In connection with this amendment, the City prepared and adopted the WSP MND, which analyzed the Westbrook area at a project level and augmented the prior environmental analysis for the Westbrook area contained in the SVSP EIR. The analysis within this Addendum relies in part on the WSP MND, where applicable. The WSP MND is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA, or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/ specific_plans_planning_areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 12 of 54 ends

First Addendum to the Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment MND, adopted February 26, 2016 In 2016, the City approved amendments to the General Plan, the SVSP, and Development Agreements, a rezone, and two tentative subdivision maps within the Westbrook portion of the SVSP. The City prepared and adopted the WSP MND 1st Addendum in connection with these approvals. The WSP MND 1st Addendum relies on the analyses contained in the SVSP EIR and the WSP MND, with minor supplements and technical updates where appropriate. The WSP MND 1st Addendum is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.

First Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, adopted November 2, 2017 In 2017, the City approved amendments to the General Plan, the SVSP, and the SVSP Development Agreement, a rezone, and a tentative subdivision map affecting various parcels within the SVSP. The City prepared and adopted the SVSP EIR 1st Addendum in connection with these approvals. The SVSP EIR 1st Addendum relies primarily on the analysis contained in the SVSP EIR, with minor supplements and technical updates where appropriate. The SVSP EIR 1st Addendum is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.
2035 General Plan Update EIR, certified August 5, 2020
The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (GP EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. When applicable, the topical sections within the checklist summarize the findings within the GP EIR. The GP EIR is available for review during business hours at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines.

EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of this environmental checklist is to conduct subsequent environmental review for the proposed changes to the SVSP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. This checklist evaluates the environmental resources in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, applicable plan changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer in one of the checklist boxes does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

Checklist Evaluation Categories
Where Was Impact Analyzed in Prior EIR?
This column provides a cross-reference to the portions of the prior environmental documents containing relevant information and analysis for each resource area.

Any New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals or would result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Any New Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(2), of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes with respect to the circumstances under which the action is undertaken, such as changes to the affected parcels or the surrounding areas, that have occurred subsequent to the certification and adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in new significant environmental impacts from the Proposed COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 13 of 54 ends

GP/SVSP Amendments that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that would substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Notably, since the certification of the original SVSP EIR, there have been a number of amendments to the SVSP, with accompanying environmental documents. Each of these documents determined that the proposed changes were within the scope of the environmental impact conclusions presented in the SVSP EIR. Thus, although some circumstances have changed within the SVSP area over time, those changes did not result in new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the SVSP EIR, nor did they substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Further, no new projects or other development beyond those contemplated in the SVSP EIR or GP EIR have been approved or proposed within the vicinity of the affected parcels that could impact or increase the environmental effects of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.” Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the answer is “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Notably, since the certification of the original SVSP EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019.4 This updated checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3), as it does not constitute any change in governing law or any new facts showing the existence of new significant effects or substantially more severe significant effects.

Furthermore, as demonstrated below, none of the updates to the Appendix G Checklist require new analysis related to impacts that were not known or that could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared, nor is the City aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of which the project proponent refuses to implement. Moreover, the City is not aware of any other new information not already included in this document that might bear relevance on this CEQA analysis. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.” Any Mitigation Measures?
Pursuant to section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “Yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time or whether it would 4 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decisionmakers and the public (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 14 of 54 ends

apply to development on the affected parcels. If “No” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

Notably, many of the mitigation measures approved as part of the SVSP EIR have already been implemented or no longer apply. As part of the SVSP EIR’s program-level analysis of development in the UR area, it imposed program-level mitigation measures that were all implemented when the SVSP was amended to include the Westbrook area. At that time, the WSP MND augmented the prior environmental analysis for the Westbrook area contained in the SVSP EIR and applied all of the SVSP EIR’s project-level mitigation measures to the Westbrook area. A full list of mitigation measures that apply to the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments is included as Attachment D to the Combined CEQA Checklist.

Discussion of Checklist Answers
A discussion is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue and how the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments relate to the issue. The discussion also provides details on applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental documents and their status, denoting the ones that require ongoing or future implementation and that would be required for development on the affected parcels. Programmatic mitigation measures that have already been implemented are not discussed, nor are mitigation measures that are not relevant to the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments; however, information about these mitigation measures can be found in the prior environmental documents. Each discussion section also contains an ultimate conclusion, including whether the City can conclude that the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.14.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any MMs?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Final EIR, pp. 4.14-
21 to 4.14-22;
Impact 4.14-3
WSP MND, pp. 10–
11 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 15 of 54 ends

b) Substantially
damage scenic
resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings,
and historic
buildings, within a
state scenic
highway?
Final EIR, pp. 4.14-
21 to 4.14-22;
Impact 4.14-3
WSP MND, pp. 10–
11 N/A No No N/A
c) In non-urbanized
areas, substantially
degrade the
existing visual
character or quality
of public views of
the site and its
surroundings?
(Public views are
those that are
experienced from
publicly accessible
vantage point). If
the project is in an
urbanized area,
would the project
conflict with
applicable zoning
and other
regulations
governing scenic
quality?
Final EIR, pp. 4.14-
13 to 4.14-17;
Impact 4.14-1
WSP MND, pp. 10–
11 No No No No
d) Create a new
source of
substantial light or
glare, which would
adversely affect
day or nighttime
views in the area?
Final EIR, pp. 4.14-
17 to 4.14-20;
Impact 4.14-2
WSP MND, pp. 10–
11 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.5 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts by introducing new structures and sources of light and glare to undeveloped land. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, but anticipated that the impacts would remain significant.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior aesthetic impact conclusions. The City of Roseville is an urbanized area (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15387). The proposed density and land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for high-density residential development, and thus would not urbanize any undeveloped land beyond what was already anticipated in the 5 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, p. 8; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 7.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 16 of 54 ends

prior environmental documents. Additionally, the proposed changes would not introduce new or different types of structures on the affected parcels compared with those addressed in the prior environmental documents.

Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable zoning regulations, design guidelines, and lighting standards, as well as the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new significant aesthetic impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts compared with the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The SVSP area is not located near a state scenic highway; therefore, checklist item (b) does not apply.

Thus, the aesthetic impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the significant and unavoidable impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.14-1(a): Site lighting to minimize nuisance.

Conclusion: With implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND and modified by the various relevant addenda.

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Final EIR, pp.

4.1-70 to 4.1-
72; Impact 4.1-
5 WSP MND, pp.
11–12
No No No Yes
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Final EIR, pp.

4.1-64 to 4.1-
68; Impact 4.1-
3 WSP MND, pp.
11–12
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 17 of 54 ends

4.1-6, 4.8-10
WSP MND, p. 5
N/A No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of
forest land or conversion
of forest land to nonforest use?
Final EIR, pp.

4.1-6, 4.8-10
WSP MND, p. 5
N/A No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Final EIR, pp.

4.1-64 to 4.1-
68, 4.1-70 to

4.1-72; Impacts

4.1-3, 4.1-5
WSP MND, pp.
11–12
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Agricultural and forestry resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.6 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in the loss of grazing land, but determined that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through preservation of grazing land in the region at a 1:1 ratio.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior agricultural resource impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not impact any agricultural resources beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. The SVSP EIR concluded that developing the SVSP area would preclude any future agricultural uses. As these impacts are site-specific, they would not change as a result of a change in density or use. Moreover, the applicable SVSP mitigation measure has already been implemented. Thus, there would be no new or more severe significant agricultural resource impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

There are no forest resources within the SVSP area; therefore, checklist items (c) and (d) do not apply.

Thus, the agricultural and forestry resource impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: None.
6 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, p. 9; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 8.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 18 of 54 ends

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding agricultural and forestry resources.

III. Air Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.4.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.4-26 to 4.4-
40, 4.4-42 to

4.4-44; Impacts

4.4-1 to 4.4-4,

4.4-6
WSP MND, pp.
13–18
No No No Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
Final EIR, pp.

4.4-26 to 4.4-
40, 4.4-42 to

4.4-44; Impacts

4.4-1 to 4.4-4,

4.4-6
WSP MND, pp.
13–18
No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Final EIR, pp.

4.4-26 to 4.4-
31; Impacts

4.4-1, 4.4-4
WSP MND, pp.
13–18
No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
Final EIR, pp.

4.4-41 to 4.4-
42; Impact 4.4-
5 WSP MND, pp.
13–18
No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 19 of 54 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Air quality was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.7 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in both short-term construction emissions and longterm operational emissions. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, but concluded that they would remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the SVSP EIR concluded that the development would have potentially significant impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants or construction, but identified mitigation measures to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Finally, the SVSP EIR concluded that the development would not result in significant impacts related to carbon monoxide emissions at local intersections or odors.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior air quality impact conclusions. The land uses on the affected parcels would remain the same; while Parcel WB-52 would be redesignated and rezoned, it would still ultimately be used for park and recreation purposes. The current action is subject to the same effective mitigation measures (listed below). Emissions associated with construction on the affected parcels would be the same as (NOx and PM10), or slightly more than (ROG), those previously identified in the prior environmental documents (see Raney Planning and Management August 2023 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Proposed Project, included herein as Attachment A to the Combined CEQA Document).

However, any future construction on the affected parcels would be subject to the same construction-related mitigation measures and Placer County Air Pollution Control District construction mitigation measures that would reduce construction-related emissions (see Raney Air Quality analysis) and ensure that there is no substantially more severe significant impact. Even without mitigation, future development of the affected parcels would not exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District’s (PCAPCD’s) CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions during construction (see Table 3 of Raney Air Quality analysis).

The added density to Parcels WB-30, WB-32, and FD-34 would also not result in a substantially more severe significant impact during operation. While unmitigated air emissions associated with future everyday residential uses on and around the affected parcels in the SVSP area, including ROG, NOx, and PM10, would be higher with the increased density bonus units, at full development, the affected parcels would not exceed PCAPCD’s CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions during operation (see Table 4 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Notably, however, the estimated increase in criteria pollutants is incremental and can be reduced through mitigation and through state and local air district requirements (see, e.g., Table 5 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Moreover, net increases in operational criteria pollutants represent only a marginal percentage increase within the SVSP planning area (a 0.28 percent increase for ROG, a 0.33 percent increase for NOx, and a 0.28 percent increase for PM10) (see Table 6 of Raney Air Quality analysis). Furthermore, Raney concluded that localized CO emissions for the entirety of the Proposed Project, at full parcel buildout, would not exceed PCAPCD’s screening threshold; specifically, the Project “would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health effects.”
With respect to exposure of any nearby sensitive receptors to air pollution and odor, the air quality analysis confirmed that these impacts would remain well within the scope of the prior analysis. Indeed, residential land uses are not anticipated to produce operational TACs and also are not typically classified as odor-generating land uses; therefore, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in any increases in related potential impacts to sensitive receptors.

Thus, the air quality impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.
7 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 10–11; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 9–10.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 20 of 54 ends

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1: Dust and construction control measures. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.4-3: Measures to reduce operational emissions. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.4-7: Risk assessment and site specific measures.

Conclusion: With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND and modified by the various relevant addenda.

IV. Biological Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.8.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-46 to 4.8-
59, 4.8-63 to

4.8-68, 4.8-71
to 4.8-75;
Impacts 4.8-2
to 4.8-7, 4.8-10,

4.8-11, 4.8-13
to 4.8-17

WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No Yes
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by
the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-46 to 4.8-
59, 4.8-63 to

4.8-68, 4.8-71
to 4.8-75;
Impacts 4.8-2
to 4.8-7, 4.8-10,

4.8-11, 4.8-13
to 4.8-17

WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 21 of 54 ends

c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-38 to 4.8-
47, 4.8-65 to

4.8-68; Impacts

4.8-1, 4.8-2,

4.8-11

WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-59 to 4.8-
62; Impact 4.8-
8 WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No Yes
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-62 to 4.8-
63; Impact 4.8-
9 WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No No
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Final EIR, pp.

4.8-68 to 4.8-
71; Impact 4.8-
12 WSP MND,
pp.18–21
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Biological resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.8 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in potentially significant impacts to wetlands, grasslands, riparian areas, vernal pool species, protected bird species, and wildlife movement; however, it identified mitigation measures to mitigate all of these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior biological resource impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not impact new or different biological resources beyond what were already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. Moreover, all wetlands-related impacts within the SVSP area have already occurred and the associated mitigation measures have been implemented. Additionally, as there is no riparian habitat on or near the affected parcels, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in any riparian impacts requiring mitigation. With respect to all other biological resources, development on the affected parcels would comply with all remaining applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there 8 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 12–13; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 10–11.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 22 of 54 ends

would be no new or more severe significant impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents. Notably, all affected parcels have been repeatedly disturbed over a period of years due to land management, maintenance, and construction activities on or near the parcels. The parcels do not contain any known biological communities or trees of any kind.

Thus, the biological resource impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-2: Relocate western spadefoots.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-3: Avoid nesting sites.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4: Off-site and on-site preservation of grassland habitat. • SVSP EIR MM 4.8-7: Off-site surveys.

V. Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.9.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.9-17 to 4.9-
21, 4.9-23 to

4.9-25; Impacts

4.9-1, 4.9-2,

4.9-4
WSP MND, pp.
21–22
No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Final EIR, pp.

4.9-17 to 4.9-
18, 4.9-23 to

4.9-25; Impacts

4.9-1, 4.9-4
WSP MND, pp.
21–22
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 23 of 54 ends

c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Final EIR,
pp.4.9-17 to

4.9-18, 4.9-23
to 4.9-25;
Impacts 4.9-1,

4.9-4
WSP MND, pp.
21–22
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.9 The SVSP EIR found that no known cultural resources exist in the SVSP area, but acknowledged that subsurface remains or deposits could be found during construction. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to undiscovered cultural resources, but concluded that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior cultural resource impact conclusions.

The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and thus would not disturb new or different cultural resources beyond what was already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. While there are no known cultural resources within the SVSP area, unknown cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during construction. Development on the affected parcels would comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the cultural resource impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1: Cease work and consult with a qualified archaeologist. • SVSP EIR MM 4.9-5: Conduct appropriate off-site studies.

VI. Energy
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.12.5.2 of the SVSP Final EIR. 9 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, p. 14; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 12.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 24 of 54 ends

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or
operation?
Final EIR, pp.

4.12.5-7 to

4.12.5-12;
Impacts 4.12.5-
1, 4.12.5-2
No No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Final EIR, pp.

4.12.5-7 to

4.12.5-12;
Impacts 4.12.5-
1, 4.12.5-2
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Energy was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND. The City Electric Department, which provides electricity to the area, relies on approximately 40% renewable resources and has sufficient capacity to provide electrical services to the SVSP area. Pacific Gas & Electric, which provides natural gas to the area, has sufficient capacity to provide natural gas to the SVSP area. The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would not result in significant energy impacts.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior energy impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not add new or different types of structures on the affected parcels compared with the impacts addressed in the prior environmental documents. While density increases could marginally increase energy demand, this would not exceed existing capacity, and in fact would potentially improve longterm energy efficiency.10 Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable energy efficiency standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Energy Code, including efficiency standards relating to heating and cooling equipment, insulation, and appliances. Additionally, the development would be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both energy providers to purchase energy-efficient appliances and systems, reducing anticipated operational energy demands (see GP EIR, p. 4.15-11). At the same time, compliance with SVSP EIR mitigation measures addressing construction emissions and operational greenhouse gas emissions impacts would incidentally improve energy efficiency during construction and operations. These standards, programs, and measures would ensure that development on the affected parcels would neither result 10 In light of the requirement under Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7), for housing elements to consider “opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development,” the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) notes that promoting higher residential density reduces average per-household energy consumption compared to new sprawling developments. This HCD guidance is available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/opportunities-energy-conservation.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 25 of 54 ends

in inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy nor conflict with or obstruct state or local energy plans.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments also would result in a reduction in VMT, which correspondingly would result in an overall reduction in fuel usage (see Section XVII for more details). Additionally, energy usage during construction would not significantly differ from that anticipated in the prior environmental documents, as required construction activities would not change in any significant way.

Thus, the impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already addressed in the SVSP EIR, the WSP MND, and their relevant addenda.

Mitigation Measures: Prior CEQA documents did not include mitigation measures specific to energy reduction and efficiency because no significant impacts existed; however, the following mitigation measures will further increase fuel efficiency during construction and operation:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1: Dust and construction control measures. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.4-3: Measures to reduce operational emissions. • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2: Additional measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Conclusion: The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND and modified by the various relevant addenda. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding energy.

VII. Geology and Soils
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.7.2 and 4.9.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 26 of 54 ends

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the
area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-23 to 4.7-
24; Impact 4.7-
4 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
ii. Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-23 to 4.7-
24; Impact 4.7-
4 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
iii. Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-23 to 4.7-
24; Impact 4.7-
4 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
iv. Landslides?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-23 to 4.7-
24; Impact 4.7-
4 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 27 of 54 ends

b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-19 to 4.7-
20, 4.7-22 to

4.7-23; Impacts

4.7-1, 4.7-3
WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in onor off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-21 to 4.7-
22; Impact 4.7-
2 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
Final EIR, pp.

4.7-21 to 4.7-
22; Impact 4.7-
2 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
Final EIR, pp.

4.12.3-13 to

4.12.3-15;
Impact 4.12.3-2
WSP MND, p.
51 N/A No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature?
Final EIR, pp.

4.9-21 to 4.9-
22; Impact 4.9-
3 WSP MND, pp.
22–24
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Geology and soils were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.11 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in a potentially significant impact to undiscovered paleontological resources, but identified mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. The SVSP EIR concluded that the development would not otherwise result in any potentially significant impacts related to geology, soils, or seismicity.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior geology and soils impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned 11 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 15–16; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 13–14.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 28 of 54 ends

for development, and thus, development on the affected parcels would not encounter any new or different soils or geologic features beyond what were already anticipated in the prior environmental documents. As these impacts are site-specific, they would not change as a result of changes in density or use. Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measure, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant paleontological resource impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, checklist item (e) does not apply.

Thus, the geology and soils impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already addressed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.9-3: Cease work until review is conducted by a qualified paleontologist and recommendations are implemented.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.5.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.5-29 to 4.5-
39; Impacts

4.5-1 to 4.5-2
WSP MND, pp.
17–18
No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Final EIR, pp.

4.5-29 to 4.5-
34; Impact 4.5-
1 WSP MND, pp.
17–18
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 29 of 54 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.12 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would result in both short-term construction GHG emissions and long-term operational GHG emissions. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, but concluded that they would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior greenhouse gas emission impact conclusions. Raney Planning & Management performed a GHG emissions analysis for the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments (see Attachment A to the Combined CEQA Document) and determined that, although the proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would result in an increase in construction-related GHG emissions (see Attachment A, Table 9), these emissions would still fall well below PCAPCD’s CEQA GHG construction thresholds. Thus, future construction on the affected parcels would not constitute a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of an existing significant impact.

Operationally, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would yield an increase in GHG emissions above approved existing density, as a result of the density bonus units. But, while these emissions would exceed PCAPCD’s CEQA GHG operational de minimis thresholds (as would the existing approved density), they would not exceed PCAPCD’s bright-line threshold or PCAPCD’s efficiency metric threshold for residential urban projects (see Attachment A, Tables 9 and 10). Furthermore, residential development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District mitigation measures and SVSP EIR mitigation measures, which would help to reduce GHG emissions during both construction and operation.

Therefore, there would be no new significant GHG emissions impacts or substantially more severe significant GHG emissions impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents, which previously determined that development of the SVSP area would have significant GHG emissions impacts. Thus, the GHG emissions impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1: Dust and construction control measures. • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2: Additional measures to reduce GHG emissions.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.10.2 of the SVSP Final EIR. 12 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 10–11; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 10.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 30 of 54 ends

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.10-24 to 4.10-
26, 4.10-32 to

4.10-34, 4.10-
37 to 4.10-40;
Impacts 4.10-1,

4.10-4, 4.10-6,

4.10-7
WSP MND, pp.
24–26
No No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
Final EIR, pp.

4.10-24 to 4.10-
34; Impacts

4.10-1 to 4.10-4
WSP MND, pp.
24–26
No No No No
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed
school?
Final EIR, pp.

4.10-13 to 4.10-
14, 4.10-16
N/A No No N/A
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a list
of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment?
Final EIR, pp.

4.10-34 to 4.10-
36; Impact

4.10-5
WSP MND, pp.
24–26
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 31 of 54 ends

e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a
plan has not been
adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project result in a
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
Final EIR, p.

4.10-1
WSP MND, p.
26 N/A No No N/A
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Final EIR, pp.

4.10-27 to4.10-
28; Impact

4.10-2
WSP MND, pp.
24–26
No No No No
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Final EIR, pp.

4.11-11 to 4.11-
14; Impact

4.11-2
WSP MND, pp.
24–26
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hazards or hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.13 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area could result in a potentially significant impact due to previous soil or groundwater contamination, but identified a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The SVSP EIR concluded that all other potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials were less than significant.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior hazards and hazardous materials impact conclusions. The proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development; thus, all site-specific impacts addressed in the prior environmental documents would be unaffected. The increase in density proposed on three of the affected parcels would not generate any significant increases in hazards or hazardous materials beyond predicted conditions such that it would alter the SVSP EIR impact conclusion, which determined that the then-proposed land uses would not generate sufficient hazardous materials to constitute even a potentially significant impact. At the same time, the City has adequate resources and facilities to respond to emergencies within the SVSP area and to provide household hazardous waste removal services in the SVSP area. These existing City services would minimize risks associated with operational hazards and hazardous materials within the SVSP area.

Similarly, as construction activities on the affected parcels would not significantly differ from those anticipated in the SVSP EIR, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from construction are consistent with those analyzed in prior environmental documents. Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measure, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant 13 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 16–17; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 14–16.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 32 of 54 ends

hazards or hazardous materials impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

The affected parcels are not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.14 Additionally, the affected parcels are not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, checklist items (c) and (e) do not apply.

Thus, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1: Identify potential hazardous materials (soil contamination, tank or well sites, lead based paint and/or asbestos).

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.13.2 and 4.12.1.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.13-28 to 4.13-
35; Impacts

4.13-4, 4.13-5
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No Yes
14 See SVSP, Chapter 7 (Public Services), p. 7-23, available online at: https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/ departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 33 of 54 ends

b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?
Final EIR, pp.

4.12.1-52 to

4.12.1-65,

4.12.1-75 to

4.12.1-80;
Impacts 4.12.1-
2, 4.12.1-6 to

4.12.1-7
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
Final EIR, pp.

4.13-28 to 4.12-
31; Impact

4.13-4
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No Yes
ii. Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site;
Final EIR, pp.

4.13-22 to 4.13-
27; Impacts

4.13-2 to 4.13-3
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No Yes
iii. Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned storm water
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Final EIR, pp.

4.13-18 to 4.13-
24, 4.13-31 to

4.13-35;
Impacts 4.13-1,

4.13-2, 4.13-5
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No Yes
iv. Impede or redirect
flood flows?
Final EIR, pp.

4.13-24 to 4.13-
27; Impact

4.13-3
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
No No No No
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or
seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Final EIR, p.

4.13-18
WSP MND, pp.
26–28
N/A No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Not Addressed No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 34 of 54 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.15 The SVSP EIR concluded that development within the SVSP area would potentially increase surface runoff volume, resulting in flooding, erosion, and water quality degradation, and that these impacts would be significant.

The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior hydrology and water quality impact conclusions. As the proposed land use changes would not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, all site-specific drainage and floodplain impacts have already been addressed (see also Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems).

After the SVSP EIR was prepared, the West Placer County Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted the North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, applicable to parts of Sutter, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, including the SVSP area. Thus, the SVSP EIR did not address potential conflicts with the applicable groundwater management plan resulting from development of the SVSP area. As explained in the GP EIR, the City’s potable water is primarily supplied from surface water from Folsom Reservoir. While the City operates several groundwater wells, groundwater is a backup water supply that the City uses only in times of water shortage. Moreover, the City injects surplus water into the underlying aquifer during normal and wet years, which can later be extracted and used during dry years as needed. Accordingly, the GP EIR concluded that full buildout under the GP would not impede implementation of the applicable groundwater sustainability plan. No element of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would change this conclusion; thus, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not impede implementation of the North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Due to its topography and location, the SVSP area is not at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; thus, checklist item (d) does not apply.

Thus, the hydrology and water quality impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-2: Pay fair share of Roseville regional stormwater retention facility improvements.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1: Implement construction activity stormwater protection standards.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 35 of 54 ends

XI. Land Use and Planning
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.1-64 to 4.1-
68; Impact 4.1-
3 WSP MND, pp.
29–30
No No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
Final EIR, pp.

4.1-51 to 4.1-
57, 4.1-69 to

4.1-70; Impacts

4.1-1 and 4.1-4
WSP MND, pp.
29–30
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Land use and planning were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.16 The SVSP EIR concluded that while development of the SVSP area would not interfere with any applicable land use plans or divide an established community, it could result in potentially significant incompatibilities between the SVSP area and adjacent uses. Specifically, the SVSP EIR determined that construction activities associated with the new development could generate noise, dust, and traffic that disrupts nearby residential areas. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. Finally, the SVSP EIR explained that occasional flights over the SVSP area could be annoying to future residents, and concluded that this was a significant and unavoidable land use compatibility impact that would need to be disclosed to future residents.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior land use and planning impact conclusions. The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments involve the same use types, within the same overall development footprint, as those addressed in the prior environmental documents. While overhead flight noise could be a source of occasional annoyance to future residents living on the affected parcels, this impact was already considered in the SVSP EIR, and would be disclosed to future residents, and is nevertheless not an impact that need be consider under CEQA, which is generally concerned with a project’s impact on the environment but not the environment’s impact on a project (see California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378). 16 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, p. 20; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 18–19.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 36 of 54 ends

Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures, including the one listed below, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe significant land use compatibility impacts compared with the impacts identified in the prior environmental documents.

Thus, the land use and planning impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure applies to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1: Construction noise reduction.

XII. Mineral Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.7.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

4.7-12
WSP MND, pp.
30–31
N/A No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?
Final EIR, p.

4.7-12
WSP MND, pp.
30–31
N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

There are no significant mineral resources within the SVSP area; therefore, this checklist topic does not apply.

XIII. Noise
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 37 of 54 ends

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
Final EIR, pp.

4.6-25 to 4.6-
44; Impacts

4.6-1 to 4.6-7
WSP MND, pp.
31–33
No No No Yes
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise
levels?
Final EIR, pp.

4.6-25 to 4.6-
28; Impact 4.6-
1 WSP MND, pp.
31–33
No No No Yes
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has
not been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing
or working in the project
area to excessive noise
levels?
Final EIR, pp.

4.6-4 to 4.6-7
WSP MND, p.
33 N/A No No N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Noise was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.17 The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would cause short-term construction noise as well as long-term traffic noise exceeding the GP noise element threshold for transportation noise. The SVSP EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, but concluded that they would remain significant and unavoidable.

As noted above, the SVSP EIR also concluded that overhead flight noise would constitute a significant and avoidable impact. Additionally, the SVSP EIR concluded that the potentially significant park activity and 17 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, pp. 22–23; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, pp. 20–21.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 38 of 54 ends

commercial noise impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Finally, the SVSP EIR concluded that the development would not result in significant impacts related to noise from schools or fire stations.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior noise impact conclusions. While construction on the affected parcels would result in noise impacts, these impacts were previously analyzed, as construction was already planned to occur on the affected parcels. Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures to reduce construction noise, as well as the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits construction noise to between 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 8 PM on weekends, outside of time periods when residents are sleeping or are otherwise particularly sensitive to noise.

With respect to operations, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not change the eventual residential use of the affected parcels, and thus would not produce different types of noise from those anticipated in the prior environmental documents. No existing or proposed commercial activities or large community-wide parks exist near the affected parcels; thus, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not result in any noise impacts requiring mitigation related to these uses. For traffic noise, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of the existing impact. Although there would be a modest increase in trip generation that could potentially increase traffic-related noise levels (see Attachment B), those marginal increases would not substantially increase the severity of the impact, which is already significant and unavoidable. Moreover, development on the affected parcels would comply with all applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise, ensuring that there would be no new or more severe noise impacts than those identified in the prior environmental documents.

The affected parcels are not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport; therefore, checklist item (c) does not apply.

Thus, the noise impacts of the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments fall within the scope of the impacts already analyzed in the prior environmental documents.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures apply to development on the affected parcels:
• SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1: Construction noise reduction.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.6-4: Traffic noise attenuation.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-8: On-site traffic noise attenuation.

XIV. Population and Housing
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.2.2 of the SVSP Final EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 39 of 54 ends

Would the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior SVSP
Environmental
Documents?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (for example,
through extension of
roads or other
infrastructure)?
Final EIR, pp.

4.2-18 to 4.2-
19; Impact 4.2-
4 WSP MND, pp.
33–34
No No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Final EIR, pp.

4.2-17 to 4.2-
18; Impact 4.2-
3 WSP MND, pp.
33–34
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Population and housing were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR, as augmented by the WSP MND.18 The SVSP EIR determined that development of the SVSP area would not result in significant impacts related to the jobs/housing balance, displacement of existing housing, or provision of affordable housing. The SVSP EIR concluded, however, that the development would induce substantial population growth, and that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would not significantly alter the prior population and housing impact conclusions. The affected parcels do not currently include residential uses that would be displaced. While the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would increase the number of residential units within the SVSP area, this outcome would contribute to the City’s substantial unmet regional housing needs allocation of 12,066 housing units (including 6,178 Very-Low-Income/Low-Income Units) for 2021 through 2029. Moreover, the increase would not exceed planned growth under full buildout of the City’s GP, which could accommodate 22,300 additional housing units through 2035 (see GP EIR, pp. 4.2-10 to 4.2-11).

Additionally, as explained in the prior environmental documents, marginal increases in growth alone do not translate into adverse effects on the environment; rather, the impacts associated with growth relate to the resulting physical changes to various kinds of natural resources. As discussed throughout this Addendum, the Proposed GP/SVSP Amendments would change neither the type of land use nor the development footprint; 18 See also WSP MND 1st Addendum, p. 24; SVSP EIR 1st Addendum, p. 22.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT–12th ADDENDUM to SVSP EIR
August 16, 2023
COMP & SVSP Land Use Amendments Project; File No. PL23-0064

Page 40 of 54 ends

Roseville City CouncilSeptember 20, 2023

Roseville City Council
September 20, 2023