1. Summary
The City of Roseville (“City”) Hedge Policy outlines the energy hedging policy (natural gas and electricity) that will guide disciplined hedging of forward energy resources. The hedge policy is designed to reduce energy rate volatility and to maintain rates within reasonable tolerances.
The primary purpose of this policy is to identify specific guidelines and criteria for procuring projected energy needs. These procurement criteria are defined for quarters, fiscal years, and calendar years as appropriate in the different parts of the policy.
The policy largely employs a price averaging strategy of declining percentage of energy supply positions held over forward time periods. This strategy protects the City from potential adverse impacts that could result from either significant energy price increases or decreases. The strategy also maintains some elements of procurement to remain flexible. For example, during times of extremely attractive market conditions, this policy allows for increasing the amount of forward energy hedged above the stated ranges with the concurrence of the City’s Risk Oversight Committee (“ROC”). A key component of the policy is a monthly report for the Risk Management Committee and a quarterly report to the City Council and ROC, which is outlined herein.
2. Hedging Policy Criteria
2.1 Rolling Monthly Hedge Ranges
One criterion of this policy is to have energy procured within defined volumetric ranges during the following rolling monthly and quarterly timeframes. These ranges identify the percentage of City’s projected total energy needs that will be procured with fixed price energy over a given time period. For use within this policy, energy needs are considered hedged or procured to the extent that the projected need is met by:
i. Authorized Transactions, as defined in the Roseville Trading Authority Policy or
Other transactions as Authorized by the City Council, using the process outlined in the Roseville Trading Authority Policy. Options with out of the money strike prices may be used to hedge forward volumes, provided that they do not account for more than 15% of the projected energy needs in any given month, and they are not more than 50% out of the money at the time of the transaction.
ENERGY HEDGE POLICY
2.2 The City will hedge projected energy needs based on the following criteria:
Lead
Time
Months
1 to 12
Quarters
5 to 8
Quarters
9 to 12
Hedging
Frequency Monthly Quarterly Quarterly
Range (%) 90-110 70-100 45-80
i. Lead Time: This is the amount of time from the current period (including the current period). It may be defined in months or quarters.
ii. Hedging Frequency: This is the frequency that the hedging period changes. This is to prevent a situation where Month 36 (the last month of Quarter 12) would have to be hedged at a time when monthly purchases are very illiquid. It also defines the purchases of hedges, indicating that a one-month hedge could be purchased for each month between Month 1 and Month 12, whereas a whole quarter hedge would be purchased for a period starting Quarter 5. In case of a conflict, monthly frequency has precedence over quarterly.
iii.Range: This is the lower and upper bounds of overall energy needs that will be required to be covered with fixed price energy, and/or up to 15% with call options. If the percentage of overall energy compared to the expected load for the total lead time is within the bounds, then Roseville is in compliance.
iv.Remediation Period on Violation is 45 Days, meaning the City has 45 days from the date of the violation notice to get back in compliance with the hedging policy.
Deviations that exceed the range will require approval of the ROC and/or City Council, and will be part of the regular reporting to the City Council.
Because the models being used to determine official compliance with this policy are being run by an external entity, the City’s first warning of being out of compliance with this policy may occur when a report is delivered showing it out of compliance. As such, the City will have 45 days to remedy the out of compliance situation before it is deemed a violation.
ENERGY HEDGE POLICY
2.3 Hedge Timing and Volumetric Minimums
In meeting the overall volumetric criteria, the City will have the following minimum percentages of energy hedged no later than the lead time as identified below:
Time Frame Months Quarters
Lead time 1-12 5-8 9-12
Minimum (%) 70 50 30
For example, on January 1, 2022, the City will have a minimum of 70% of its projected energy needs for each of the following 12 months, January 2022 through December 2022 procured. For Quarter 5, including January, February, and March 2023, a minimum of 50% of the total projected energy shall be procured, whereas minimum thresholds for individual months are not required. This minimum amount can be hedged well before that date based on the ranges in the prior section. As with the Volumetric Lead Time Criteria, a time frame in months takes precedence over a time in quarters.
The City will maintain hedges at the minimum volumetric level for the specified lead times. Any deviation from the monthly minimum volume for the specified lead time will require ROC and/or City Council approval and will be reported to the City Council. It would still be considered compliant if one month in Month 1 through Month 12 was between 70% and 90%, on condition that the average of Month 1 through Month 12 was between 90% and 110%.
The following chart illustrates the volumetric and lead time criteria for energy hedging.
ENERGY HEDGE POLICY
3 Natural Gas Hedging
Natural gas and power hedging will be a complementary hedging activity for the City’s natural gas fired generation (owned or contracted) or if it enters a transaction that uses a natural gas index price to derive its electricity cost, such as a heat rate product. Such gas related generation or purchase transactions would not be considered energy hedges until the projected gas volumes are procured. The monthly hedge criteria are measured based on total energy exposure for native load (total projected electricity needed for native load minus energy already hedged). This is the criteria required to be considered fixed price energy. There are three mechanisms for hedging gas price risk:
i. The use of NYMEX contracts.
ii. Bilateral financial hedging using ISDA Master Agreements iii. Fixed price physical gas procurement.
In order to allow flexibility in overall energy hedging decisions (e.g. economically hedging additional needs via gas contracts versus power purchases), specific sub-targets for natural gas hedging are not set within this policy.
4 Risk Measurement and Compliance Reporting
Risk measurement and policy compliance within the volumetric and lead time criteria will be demonstrated on a regular basis in the Power Management Services Agent’s (“Agent’s”) monthly portfolio model risk report. This report will generally cover three years of projections with seven-year runs performed at least once per year or when market conditions indicate the potential to cost-effectively hedge beyond three years out. 5 Responsibility
It shall be the responsibility of the City Council, Risk Oversight Committee, City Manager, and Risk Management Committee to assure compliance with this policy. Implementation of this policy shall be in accordance with the Related Polices, as referenced below. 6 Related Policies
Supporting policies and procedures are required as outlined below:
i. City of Roseville Electric Utility Risk Management Policy ii. City of Roseville Energy Trading Authority Policy
iii. City of Roseville Energy Credit Risk Policy
iv.Resolution 17-368 retaining ACES for power management services v. Resolution 16-161 declaring ACES as agent for the purposes of risk policies
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3615
File #:
0800-03
Title:
Roseville Electric - Generation - Owner's Engineer Services - On-Call Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Contact:
Nathan Ribordy 916-746-1673 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.11.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the first amendment to the on-call professional design services agreement with Integrated Engineers and Contractors Corporation dba IEC Corporation for engineering support services at Roseville’s power plants and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
BACKGROUND
Roseville Energy Park (REP) and Roseville Power Plant #2 (RPP2) are critical facilities that contribute to the electric utility’s mission by supporting system reliability and managing electricity costs. Both of Roseville’s power plants require ongoing capital improvements and rehabilitation to maintain modern and reliable generating assets. Engineering and consulting services support the plant engineering function by providing an array of specialized skill sets. Specialized tasks may include specification writing, equipment design, structural and civil engineering, engineering studies, and other support tasks as required to support operation the generating facilities.
Roseville Electric Utility solicited proposals through Request for Proposals No. 07-069 Generation Owner’s Engineer Services for both power plants. Four vendor proposals were received and evaluated based on qualifications of firm and team, experience, references, project understanding and plan, and required documents. The evaluation team reviewed and scored the vendor proposals, selecting IEC Corporation as the first firm to provide the requested scope of services as they scored the highest overall of the four vendors across the evaluated criteria. The original contract was approved on November 18, 2020 under resolution 20-449. Due to the acquisition of the Roseville Peaking (RPEAK) site adjacent to the REP, staff is requesting additional spending authority to support engineering and design work activities for RPEAK.
FISCAL IMPACT
This amendment increases the spending authority under the agreement by $750,000, bringing the total not-to-exceed cost for the agreement to $2,000,000 over the five-year period. Funding for the current year of the agreement is included in the Electric Department's FY2024-25 budget in the Electric Fund. Future year spending is subject to approval of future year budgets.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Professional design services meet the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Nathan Ribordy, Power Generation Superintendent
Dan Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-370
First Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 24-370
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND
INTEGRATED ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS CORPORATION (DBA IEC
CORPORATION), AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a first amendment to on-call professional design services agreement for Roseville Electric – Generation – Owner’s Engineer Services, by and between the City of Roseville and Integrated Engineers and Contractors Corporation (dba IEC Corporation), has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said first amendment is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3616
File #:
0800-03
Title:
Transmission Planning Services - Master Professional Services Agreement and Data Exchange Agreement
Contact:
Ozro Corulli 916-774-5586 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.12.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Master Professional Services Agreement and Data Sharing Agreement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to perform transmission planning services for Roseville Electric Utility. Staff requests authorization to continue utilizing four (4) optional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year.
BACKGROUND
Roseville Electric Utility is required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to analyze the near and long-term transmission impacts on Roseville’s electrical system in relation to the greater Sacramento area and Bulk Electric System (BES).
The Balancing Authority of
Northern California (BANC) is the registered Planning Coordinator (PC) for its members, which is comprised of several utilities including Roseville. BANC contracts directly with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for all services related to their PC function. Roseville is required to pay for all necessary PC functions performed by SMUD, which include the transmission planning engineering work identified in this contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended agreement has an annual not-to-exceed amount of $95,000. Funding is included in the Electric Department's FY2024-25 budget in the Electric Fund. Future funding will be included in the respective years’ budget requests and contingent on City Council approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The Master Service and Data Sharing Agreements meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services.
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Ozro Corulli, Senior Power Engineer
Dan Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-371
Master Service Agreement
MSA Task Order 1
Data Sharing Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 24-371
APPROVING A MASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND DATA
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, Roseville Electric Utility is required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to analyze the near and long-term transmission impacts on Roseville’s electrical system in relation to the greater Sacramento area and Bulk Electric System (BES); and
WHEREAS, the Balancing Authority of Northern California (BANC) is the registered Planning Coordinator (PC) for its members, which is comprised of several utilities including the City of Roseville; and
WHEREAS, BANC contracts directly with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for all services related to their PC function and the City of Roseville is required to pay for all necessary PC functions performed by SMUD; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve both the Master Professional Services Agreement and Data Exchange Agreement with SMUD, for the transmission planning work as outlined in the Agreements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Master Professional Services Agreement and Data Exchange Agreement with SMUD are hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute them on behalf of the City of Roseville.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to execute Exhibit A.1 Task Order 1 – TPL Services – 2024 to the Master Services Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
MASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
ROSEVILLE ELECTRIC UTILITY
AND THE
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 EXPLANATORY RECITALS ........................................................................................................ 1 3 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 2 4 TERM AND TERMINATION ........................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Effective Date ............................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Term ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Termination ............................................................................................................................... 3 5 SUPERSEDE ..................................................................................................................................... 4 6 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 4
6.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 4
6.2 Good Utility Practices ............................................................................................................... 5
6.3 Information Assistance ............................................................................................................. 5 7 TASK ORDERS ................................................................................................................................ 5
7.1 Task Orders ............................................................................................................................... 5
7.2 Amendments .............................................................................................................................. 5 8 COSTS AND COMPENSATION .................................................................................................... 5
8.1 SMUD Cost Recovery ............................................................................................................... 6
8.2 Non-SMUD Expenses................................................................................................................ 6
8.3 Invoice ........................................................................................................................................ 6
8.4 Disputed Invoices ...................................................................................................................... 6
8.5 Late Payments ........................................................................................................................... 6
8.6 Payment Submittal.................................................................................................................... 6
8.7 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 7 9 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY....................................................................................................... 7
9.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 7
9.2 Waiver of Consequential Damages.......................................................................................... 7 10 CONFIDENTIALITY ...................................................................................................................... 7
10.1 Treatment of Confidential Information .................................................................................. 7
10.2 Required Disclosure of Confidential Information ................................................................. 8
10.3 Third Parties.............................................................................................................................. 8
10.4 Data Exchange Agreement ....................................................................................................... 8
10.5 Destruction of Data ................................................................................................................... 8 11 COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................ 8 12 RESERVED ....................................................................................................................................... 9 13 DISPUTE RESOLUTION................................................................................................................ 9
13.1 Government Claim Act............................................................................................................. 9
13.2 Continuing Performance Obligations ..................................................................................... 9
13.3 Fees ............................................................................................................................................. 9
-ii-
14 AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................................. 9 15 RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES ..................................................................................................... 9
15.1 Independent Contractor ......................................................................................................... 10
15.2 Non-Exclusive Relationship ................................................................................................... 10 16 PROHIBITED INTERESTS ......................................................................................................... 10 17 GOVERNING LAW ....................................................................................................................... 10 18 NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES ....................................................................................... 10 19 ASSIGNMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 10 20 NO EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ......................................................................................................... 11 21 INSURANCE ................................................................................................................................... 11 22 NERC MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS .............................................................. 11 23 RESERVED ..................................................................................................................................... 11 24 UNCONTROLLABLE FORCE .................................................................................................... 11
24.1 Performance ............................................................................................................................ 11
24.2 Obligation ................................................................................................................................ 12
24.3 Strike or Labor Dispute.......................................................................................................... 12
24.4 Written Notice ......................................................................................................................... 12 25 EVENT OF DEFAULT .................................................................................................................. 12
25.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 12
25.2 Result of an Event of Default ................................................................................................. 12 26 TASK ORDERS, EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND CONTROLLING TERMS ..................... 13 27 JUDGMENTS AND DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................. 13 28 COMPLIANCE WITH LAW ........................................................................................................ 13 29 NON-WAIVER ............................................................................................................................... 13 30 SEVERABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 13 31 NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 14 32 OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS ............................................................. 14 33 AUDIT RIGHTS ............................................................................................................................. 14 34 NOTICES......................................................................................................................................... 14 35 PRESERVATION OF OBLIGATIONS ....................................................................................... 15 36 APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS MADE PART OF AGREEMENT ........................................ 15 37 MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTS ................................................................................................... 15 38 SIGNATURE CLAUSE ................................................................................................................. 15 Appendix 1 – Notices ................................................................................................................................ 1 EXHIBIT A: GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................ 1 Execution Version 7-31-2024
1 1 PREAMBLE
This Master Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, by and through its electric utility, Roseville Electric (RE) and the SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (SMUD), a local publicly owned electric utility within the State of California, acting as a contractor to RE. RE and SMUD may be referred to herein individually as the “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.” 2 EXPLANATORY RECITALS
2.1 WHEREAS RE was established in 1912 and serves over 60,000 residential and business customers within the City of Roseville and further RE has transmission interconnection to the Western Area Power Administration – Sierra Nevada Region (WAPA) and its system includes 230 kilovolt (kV) buses at the Fiddyment 230 kV and Roseville 230kV substations and the underlying 60-kV transmission facilities and distribution facilities. RE also has internal generation: Roseville Energy Park (REP) which produced a maximum output of almost 216 MW in 2023 and Roseville Power Plant (RPP) with 2 25 MW thermal generating units and an all-time peak demand for RE was approximately 374 MW on September 6, 2022;
2.2 WHEREAS SMUD currently provides certain services to RE under separate agreements, in particular the letter agreement dated May 8, 2019; under which SMUD Transmission Planners perform annual studies to serve as input to the Balancing Authority of Northern California (BANC) Planning Coordinator (PC) Annual Assessment (TPL Services), which letter agreement expires in accordance with its term on June 20, 2024;
2.3 WHEREAS SMUD and RE wish to establish a more formal contractual relationship with respect to these services and additional services that RE requests of SMUD, whether for NERC compliance or other matters;
2.4 WHEREAS SMUD provides many of the same services for its internal business purposes that are required or desired by RE and has the capability to efficiently perform these services and expects to have the availability to support RE as determined on a case-by-case basis;
2.5 WHEREAS for purposes of clarity, SMUD is providing services to RE solely as a contractor subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement;
2.6 WHEREAS this Agreement is a master agreement with individual Task Orders in Exhibit A, and as may be agreed to in the future, for additions or revisions to the services, which is intended to retain flexibility for current and future services, and to permit the Parties to amend or modify the provisions of specific services without necessarily affecting other services;
Execution Version 7-31-2024
2 2.7 WHEREAS this Agreement will replace and supersede the existing agreement for services.
NOW THEREFORE, in view of the understandings set forth in the recitals above, which the Parties acknowledge and agree are accurate representations of the facts, the Parties agree to the terms of this Agreement that set forth the roles, obligations, and responsibilities of each Party to one another.
3 DEFINITIONS
The following terms with initial capitalization, whether singular or plural, have the meaning set forth below:
3.1 Compliance means full performance of the tasks and responsibilities and associated measures required by the Mandatory Reliability Standards and requirements, by the NERC and WECC compliance procedures.
3.2 Confidential Information means: (a) all written materials marked “Confidential,” “Proprietary,” or with words of similar import provided to a Party by another Party; (b) all observations of equipment (including computer screens) and oral disclosures related to a Party's business, systems, operations, or activities that are indicated as such at the time of observation or disclosure (or is identified as "confidential" or "proprietary" in a letter sent to another Party no later than five (5) calendar days after the disclosure), respectively, and (c) information provided under the Western Interconnection Data Sharing Agreement. Confidential Information includes portions of documents, records, and other material forms or representations that any Party may create, including but not limited to, handwritten notes or summaries that contain or are derived from such Confidential Information.
3.3 Data Exchange Agreement means the Agreement between RE and SMUD for the exchange of information for reliability purposes as described in Section 10.4.
3.4 Effective Date means the date upon which the last of the Parties has executed this Agreement.
3.5 Event of Default means any Party’s failure to perform its obligations in accordance with this Agreement as defined in Section 25.
3.6 Mandatory Reliability Standard or Reliability Standard shall mean each NERC Mandatory Reliability Standard applicable to RE functions and involve Compliance.
3.7 NERC means the North American Electric Reliability Corporation which has responsibility to develop and approve Mandatory Reliability Standards applicable to users, owners and operators of the Bulk Electric System (“BES”) and has delegated authority to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (“WECC”) to enforce Mandatory Reliability Standards applicable within the WECC.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
3 3.8 Good Utility Practice means any of the practices, methods, and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry during the relevant time period, or any of the practices, methods, and acts that, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety, and expedition. Good Utility Practice is not intended to be any one of a number of the optimum practices, methods, or acts to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be acceptable practices, methods, or acts generally accepted in the region, practice, method or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be a spectrum of possible practices, methods or acts. With respect to the provision of compliance related services, Good Utility Practice includes the judgments and determinations SMUD makes or would make regarding the compliance information used to support the same compliance requirements for itself.
3.9 Scope of Services shall mean those services described in the Task Orders to be performed by SMUD, as generally described in Sections 6 and 7, and set forth in more detail in Exhibit A to this Agreement.
3.10 Task Order shall mean an individual scope of services, as described in Section 7.
3.11 Uncontrollable Force shall mean any cause beyond the control of the Party affected, including but not limited to Act of God, change in law, flood, earthquake, storm, lightning, fire, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, labor disturbance, sabotage, and restraint by court or public authority, which by exercise of due diligence and foresight, such Party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid and that prevents fulfillment of an obligation under this Agreement. Any Party rendered unable to fulfill any obligation by reason of Uncontrollable Force shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to remove such inability with all reasonable dispatch.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Uncontrollable Force shall not include lack of financial resources, material cost increases, or other economic conditions. 4 TERM AND TERMINATION
4.1 Effective Date
The Agreement shall be effective upon the Effective Date.
4.2 Term
This Agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by either Party according to the terms of this Agreement, or upon mutual agreement of the Parties.
4.3 Termination
4.3.1 Termination for Convenience
Execution Version 7-31-2024
4 Either Party shall provide written notice to the other Party of its intent to terminate at least one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days before the termination is effective.
In the event that all Task Orders are terminated, then this Agreement shall be terminated as well.
4.3.2 Termination for Event of Default
If an Event of Default occurs, the non-defaulting party shall have a right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 25.
4.3.3 Task Orders
Task Order(s) shall be terminated according to their own terms.
4.3.4 Transition
In the event of termination of the Agreement or any Task Order, SMUD agrees to work with RE to coordinate transfer to RE or a RE contractor for any or all Task Order services provided under this Agreement.
4.3.4.1 Within thirty (30) calendar days after the termination date, SMUD shall submit an invoice to RE for all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by SMUD for the Scope of Services rendered up to the effective date of termination.
5 SUPERSEDE
This Agreement shall supersede and replace the existing services agreements between the Parties, including the TPL Services Letter of Agreement (LOA), dated May 8, 2019. Upon the Effective Date, the LOA shall terminate, and any relevant work shall be carried over into this Agreement.
6 SCOPE OF SERVICES
6.1 General
The Parties have structured this Agreement as a master agreement with individual Task Orders for specific services that will be attached to and incorporated into this Agreement in Exhibit A, pursuant to Section 7 below. Requirements and obligations under this Agreement will begin for each Task Order if or when RE and SMUD both approve the individual Task Order, at which time the general requirements of this Agreement shall apply to the services in the Task Order. In addition, from time to time, RE may desire revisions to the services or additional services that SMUD may be willing to provide. Revisions of the services or Additional services may be added to this Agreement through amending the existing Task Orders or entering into a new Task Order that is approved and executed by the Parties.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
5 6.2 Good Utility Practices
For all services related to providing utility services including compliance services related to utility services, SMUD agrees to use Good Utility Practice to perform the applicable Scope of Services set forth in the Task Orders, which are incorporated by reference herein. For all other services in the Task Orders, SMUD agrees to perform services in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with commercially reasonable efforts.
6.3 Information Assistance
Upon SMUD’s request, RE shall provide such information and assistance as is reasonably required for SMUD to provide the tasks set forth in the Scope of Services. If RE fails to provide SMUD with such requested information or assistance, then SMUD shall continue to provide in a timely manner any such portion(s) of the affected Task Order that SMUD can reasonably provide to the extent possible in the absence of such information or assistance.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, failure by RE to provide SMUD with such information or assistance shall not constitute an Event of Default; provided, however, that SMUD’s performance or lack of performance under this Agreement shall be excused to the extent that it is hindered, prevented, or impacted as a result of RE’s failure to provide such information or assistance as is reasonably available to RE and not otherwise reasonably available to SMUD. In any case, the Parties shall timely inform each other of any such deficiencies in writing and correct such situation(s) as soon as reasonably practicable. 7 TASK ORDERS
7.1 Task Orders
Pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, SMUD shall provide certain Services to RE as described and implemented in the Task Orders as set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement.
Subsequent Task Orders shall be executed by the Parties and attached hereto. Each Task Order by this reference is incorporated as part of this Agreement.
7.2 Amendments
Upon mutual agreement of the Parties, Task Orders may be amended, or new Task Orders issued, for additional services. Each Party may delegate authority to individuals (such as an executive or management member or staff member) to agree to any amended or new Task Orders.
8 COSTS AND COMPENSATION
RE agrees to compensate SMUD for its performance of the Scope of Services in the Task Orders under this Agreement in accordance with the following:
Execution Version 7-31-2024
6 8.1 SMUD Cost Recovery
For time and materials activities, SMUD will track and record the hours and material costs incurred that are associated with the Task Orders. For fixed fee activities under the Task Orders, the amount is predetermined according to the labor rates and estimated workloads in the applicable Task Order. Labor rates include SMUD’s costs of benefits and support services.
8.2 Non-SMUD Expenses
SMUD is authorized to pay, and unless alternative arrangements are made, shall pass through without mark-up, any and all regulatory and market expenses incurred by SMUD that are required to perform services for RE.
8.3 Invoice
SMUD will submit to RE an invoice by e-mail and/or U.S. Mail for such SMUD cost recovery, and Non-SMUD Expenses. The invoice procedure may vary for each Task Order; as such, the Task Orders shall include the specific invoicing process for that Task Order.
8.4 Disputed Invoices
RE shall pay SMUD according to the timeline(s) in each Task Order. RE shall give notice to SMUD of any disputed invoice charges before the applicable payment deadline or ten (10) business days, whichever occurs first, in accordance with this Section 8.4. RE shall pay all undisputed portions of invoices to SMUD according to the timeline(s) in each Task Order. Upon resolution of the invoice dispute, RE shall remit any amount owed with ten (10) calendar days from date of the resolution of the invoice dispute. If the invoice dispute cannot be resolved within a period ending no longer than thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which RE notifies SMUD of a dispute or such longer period as the Parties may agree to, then the dispute resolution process in Section 13 shall commence with executive negotiation.
Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall payment of any invoice be a waiver of RE’s rights to challenge an invoiced amount, invoke the dispute resolution proceedings in Section 13, file suit, or otherwise seek recovery of improper billings.
8.5 Late Payments
Late payments of undisputed amounts hereunder shall accrue interest at an annual rate equal to the weekly average one year constant maturity United States Treasury yield at the time of the delinquency plus 2%, but not to exceed 7% per annum, commencing on the first day when such payment is delinquent, or, in the case of disputed amounts, ten (10) calendar days after such dispute is resolved.
8.6 Payment Submittal
Payments will be submitted via electronic wire pursuant to instructions provided by SMUD.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
7 8.7 Performance
SMUD shall be under no obligation to perform services under Task Orders unless RE has agreed through execution of the Task Order to pay for the services as set forth in the Task Order or the Parties have agreed through a Task Order to defer payment for the services pursuant to Section 8.4.
9 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
9.1 General
Except for any loss, damage, claim, cost, charge, or expense resulting from gross negligence or intentional misconduct, or for the nonpayment of monies due, neither Party, its directors, members of governing bodies, officers, employees, or agents shall be liable to the other Party for any death, injury, loss, damage, claim, cost, charge, or expense of any kind or nature incurred by the other Party, including, without limitation, direct, indirect, or consequential loss, damage, claim, cost, charge, or expense; and whether or not resulting from the negligence of any Party, its directors, members of governing bodies, officers, employees, or any person or entity whose negligence would be imputed to such Party from the performance or non-performance of the obligations under the Agreement, provided that any such liability to SMUD shall be limited to the amount of payments made during the period of occurrence of such liability.
9.2 Waiver of Consequential Damages
Neither Party hereunder shall be liable for special, incidental, exemplary, indirect or consequential damages, whether based on contract or tort (including such Party’s own negligence) and including, but not limited to, loss of profits or revenue, loss of use of the equipment or any associated equipment, cost of capital, cost of purchased power, cost of substitute equipment, facilities or services, downtime costs, or claims of customers of either Party for such damages.
10 CONFIDENTIALITY
10.1 Treatment of Confidential Information
The Parties recognize that for the purposes of carrying out the Scope of Services, SMUD and RE may receive information from each other that is considered Confidential Information.
Except as set forth herein, the Parties agree to keep in confidence and not to voluntarily disclose, disseminate, or distribute outside of SMUD and RE any Confidential Information or any part thereof, without the prior written permission of the other Party.
For information/data exchanged under the Western Interconnection Data Sharing Agreement, that agreement shall control. This Agreement shall control all other information/data.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
8 10.2 Required Disclosure of Confidential Information
As provided in the WECC Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP), or as required by subpoena, the California Public Records Act, or other legal or regulatory process, the Parties may be required to disclose Confidential Information so designated by the other Party. Compliance with a subpoena, request under the California Public Records Act, or other legal or regulatory process shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. If either Party is required to disclose any Confidential Information so designated by the other Party, the disclosing Party shall notify the other Party in writing as promptly as feasible so that the other Party may, if it so chooses and at its own expense, challenge the disclosure or seek a protective order. The disclosing Party shall reasonably cooperate in resolving the dispute.
10.3 Third Parties
Except as set forth herein, each Party shall keep Confidential Information in confidence and shall not disclose such information or otherwise make it available, in any form or manner, to any other person or entity other than its employees, consultants, or attorneys without the prior written consent of the other Party. Each Party will cause each of its employees, contractors, sub-contractors, sub-contractors' employees, and agents who will have access to Confidential Information, if any, to acknowledge that they have read this Agreement and agree to abide by all of its terms regarding the use and disclosure of Confidential Information. Disclosure of Confidential Information to SMUD’s Compliance Officer, does not constitute a breach of this Agreement.
10.4 Data Exchange Agreement
The Parties have executed a data exchange agreement dated August, __2024to apply to certain non-public data used in SMUD’s power system studies which is considered to be Covered Data under the Western Interconnection Data Sharing Agreement or similar agreement from the applicable Reliability Coordinator (“Data Exchange agreement”). The confidentiality provisions in the sections above shall also apply to the Covered Data. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between this Section 10.4 and any provision in the Data Exchange Agreement, the provisions of the Data Exchange Agreement shall prevail.
10.5 Destruction of Data
Except when necessary to comply with the record retention laws of the State of California, upon termination of this MSA or a Task Order, the Confidential Information relevant to the applicable scope of services shall be destroyed or returned to the other Party, as soon as reasonably practicable.
11 COMMUNICATION
Each Party shall designate a Primary Project Representative with sufficient knowledge about the services provided under this Agreement to serve as the primary point of contact. The Party’s Primary Project Representative shall be identified in Appendix 1 to this Agreement. The Execution Version 7-31-2024
9 Primary Project Representative shall be kept apprised of developments relevant to the services being provided.
12 RESERVED
13 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of any dispute regarding the terms, conditions, and performance of this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to promptly resolve any such dispute informally by the operating personnel of each Party. If the dispute cannot be settled through such negotiations within a period ending no longer than thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which one Party notifies the other in writing of a dispute or such longer period as the Parties may agree to, the executive representative(s), or his or her delegate, from each Party, will personally and in good faith seek to resolve the dispute through negotiation (Negotiation Period). If the matter cannot be resolved through the executive negotiation, any Party may pursue a remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
13.1 Government Claim Act
Prior to initiating litigation against the other Party, the complaining Party must comply with all requirements and deadlines of the Government Claim Act, California Government Code Sections 810 et seq.; provided, however, that the Negotiation Period shall toll any presentment deadline or statute of limitations.
13.2 Continuing Performance Obligations
While a dispute, controversy, or claim is pending, each Party will continue to perform its respective obligations under the Agreement, unless such Party is otherwise entitled to suspend its performance hereunder or terminate the Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.
13.3 Fees
Each Party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs with respect to any dispute. 14 AMENDMENT
This Agreement may only be amended or otherwise modified with the written agreement of the Parties, and approved by each Party’s governing body where required by law or policy. 15 RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
Execution Version 7-31-2024
10 15.1 Independent Contractor
SMUD shall perform the Scope of Services as an independent contractor, and SMUD or any of its officers, employees, or agents shall not be treated as an employee of RE for federal, state, or local tax purposes, workers’ compensation purposes, or any other purpose. The Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to create or constitute an employer-employee relationship, a partnership, or a joint venture between the Parties.
15.2 Non-Exclusive Relationship
RE hereby expressly acknowledges that SMUD may provide the same or similar services as contemplated under this Agreement to other entities. However, SMUD’s performance of the Scope of Services will not be adversely affected by work for other entities. In addition, the parties agree that RE may seek and obtain services from other entities that may supplement or be similar to services that SMUD may provide under this Agreement, so long as RE has not contracted with SMUD to provide the same service(s). 16 PROHIBITED INTERESTS
SMUD further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, no company or person having any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Scope of Services under this Agreement shall be employed.
17 GOVERNING LAW
The rights and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 18 NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
No right or obligation contained in this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any person or entity not a Party to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any duty to, any standard of care with reference to, or any liability to any third party. 19 ASSIGNMENTS
RE or SMUD may make an assignment of its rights and obligations under this Agreement only after obtaining the written consent of the other Party, which consent may be withheld in the non- assigning Party’s sole discretion. A Party’s assignee shall expressly assume, in writing, the duties and obligations of such Party under this Agreement and shall immediately furnish or cause Execution Version 7-31-2024
11 to be furnished to the other Party a true and correct copy of the documents evidencing such assignment and assumption of duties and obligations. The assigning Party shall give notice to and provide the other Party with a copy of the documents evidencing such proposed assignment no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed effective date of the assignment. 20 NO EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
Subject to the provisions of Section 13 (Dispute Resolution), no remedy in this Agreement conferred upon or reserved to any Party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy or remedies available under this Agreement or existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or otherwise provided by statute. The pursuit by any Party of any specific remedy shall not be deemed to be an election of that remedy to the exclusion of any other or others, whether provided hereunder or at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise.
21 INSURANCE
SMUD and RE shall each at its own expense maintain an insurance program which adequately protects against liabilities and claims arising out of the performance of this agreement. Each Party acknowledges that the other party is a self-insured public entity and agree that this coverage fulfills any and all insurance requirements.
22 NERC MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS
RE is the registered entity for purposes of the NERC Mandatory Reliability Standards for which SMUD is performing the Scope of Services. RE acknowledges that it is entirely responsible for Compliance and any penalties, fines, corrective measures, etc. it receives from an enforcement agency such as WECC, NERC, and/or FERC. SMUD may provide services to RE which RE will use for RE’s Compliance purposes, and SMUD is not directly accountable to FERC, NERC, WECC or other regulatory entity for RE’s Compliance. RE expressly releases SMUD from any and all liability for any violations or non-compliance with Mandatory Reliability Standards 23 RESERVED
24 UNCONTROLLABLE FORCE
24.1 Performance
No Party shall be considered to be in default in the performance of any of its obligations when a failure to perform is due to an Uncontrollable Force.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
12 24.2 Obligation
No Party shall be considered to be in default in respect to any obligation hereunder if prevented from fulfilling such obligation by reason of an Uncontrollable Force.
24.3 Strike or Labor Dispute
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require a Party to settle any strike or labor dispute in which it may be involved.
24.4 Written Notice
In the event a Party is rendered unable to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement by reason of an Uncontrollable Force, such Party shall give prompt written notice of such fact the other Party, and describe in detail the efforts made to remove such inability. 25 EVENT OF DEFAULT
25.1 General
Each of the following shall constitute an “Event of Default” with respect to a Party (the “Defaulting Party”) under this Agreement:
25.1.1 the failure to make, when due, any payment or funding obligation required pursuant to this Agreement if such failure is not remedied within ten (10) business days after written notice of such a breach;
25.1.2 any representation or warranty made by such Party herein is false or misleading in any material respect when made or when deemed made or repeated.
25.1.3 the failure to perform any covenant or obligation set forth in this Agreement if such failure is not remedied within ten (10) business days after written notice of such as breach;
25.1.4 a Party becomes Bankrupt.
25.2 Result of an Event of Default
If an Event of Default with respect to a Defaulting Party has occurred, and if the Event of Default is not caused by an Uncontrollable Force as described in Section 25 hereof, then the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to (i) suspend performance or payment, (ii) designate an early termination date, or (ii) immediately terminate this Agreement subject to any surviving obligations. Both Parties shall continue to perform their obligations or make payments then due or becoming due with respect to performance or payment obligations which arose prior to the date of termination.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
13 26 TASK ORDERS, EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND CONTROLLING TERMS All Task Orders, exhibits, schedules and related attachments which are attached to this Agreement are incorporated by reference, as if set out in full herein. The provisions of each Task Order including exhibits, schedules and related attachments are subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement between the Parties. If any provisions of any Task Order including any exhibit, schedule or related attachment conflicts or is inconsistent with any provisions in the Agreement, the provisions of the Task Order shall take precedence unless otherwise expressly stated otherwise.
27 JUDGMENTS AND DETERMINATIONS
When the terms of this Agreement provide that an action may or must be taken, or that the existence of a condition may be established, based on a judgment or determination of a Party, such action or judgment shall be exercised or such determination shall be made in good faith and where applicable in accordance with Good Utility Practice, and shall not be arbitrary or capricious.
28 COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Each Party shall be responsible for compliance with all laws or regulations applicable to the Scope of Services being provided under this Agreement. If either Party's activities hereunder become subject to law or regulation of any kind, which renders the activity illegal, unenforceable, or which imposes additional costs on such Party for which the Parties cannot mutually agree upon an acceptable price modification, then such Party shall at such time have the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the other Party with respect to the illegal, unenforceable, or uneconomic provisions only; the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Any such termination shall not constitute a basis for Termination for Event of Default as defined in Section 25. 29 NON-WAIVER
Any waiver at any time by a Party of its rights with respect to any default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement. Any delay short of the statutory period of limitations in asserting or enforcing any right shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver.
30 SEVERABILITY
If any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or the application or effect of any such term, covenant, or condition shall be held invalid as to any person, entity, or circumstance, or is Execution Version 7-31-2024
14 determined to be unjust, unreasonable, unlawful, imprudent, or otherwise not in the public interest, by any court or government agency of competent jurisdiction, then such term, covenant, or condition shall remain in force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law, and all other terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement and their application shall not be affected thereby but shall remain in force and effect and the Parties shall be relieved of their obligations only to the extent necessary to eliminate such determination unless a court or governmental agency of competent jurisdiction holds that such provisions are not separable from all other provisions of this Agreement.
31 NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES
Any undertaking by a Party under any provision of this Agreement is rendered strictly as an accommodation and shall not constitute the dedication of its electric system by the undertaking Party to the public, to the other Party, or to any third party, and any such undertaking by a Party shall cease upon the termination of all such Party’s obligations under this Agreement. The electric system of a Party shall at all times be, and remain, in the exclusive ownership, possession, and control of that Party, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give the other Party any right of ownership, possession, or control of such electric system. 32 OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by SMUD and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement for inspection by RE.
33 AUDIT RIGHTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for three (3) years following the effective date of termination, each Party may audit the other Party’s books and records for the sole purpose of verifying the calculation of payments made or received, including the calculation of pricing or compensation due pursuant to this Agreement. Any such audit shall be conducted at the audited Party’s offices during its normal business hours, at the auditing Party’s own expense. The auditing Party shall be responsible for the audited Party’s expenses to accommodate such audit.
Each Party shall maintain the confidentiality of the other Party’s accounting records and supporting documents in compliance with Section 9 (Confidentiality) of this Agreement and shall use them only for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of billings and payments under this Agreement.
34 NOTICES
Execution Version 7-31-2024
15 Any notice, demand, or request in accordance with this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly served, given, or made if delivered in person or sent by first class United States mail postage prepaid, by confirmed electronic facsimile, or by prepaid commercial courier service to a Party via its representative or alternate representative at the address set forth in Appendix 1, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. Any Party may at any time change the designation or address of a person specified in Appendix 1 upon written notice to the other Party designated for such notice. Such a change to Appendix 1 shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement.
35 PRESERVATION OF OBLIGATIONS
Upon termination of this Agreement, all unsatisfied obligations of each Party shall be preserved until satisfied.
36 APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS MADE PART OF AGREEMENT
Referenced Appendices and Exhibits shall become a part of this Agreement; however, may be amended as provided individually therein. The initial Appendix 1 and Exhibits A-C are attached hereto, and shall be in force and effect in accordance with their respective terms until superseded by a subsequent appendix or exhibit or modified in accordance with this Agreement and the terms thereof.
37 MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement and any exhibit or appendix may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed an original, but all constitute one and the same instrument. 38 SIGNATURE CLAUSE
The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have been appropriately authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom they sign. The Parties agree that this Agreement may be executed by handwritten signature or digitally signed using Adobe Sign or Adobe E-Signature. An electronic or digital signature is the same as a handwritten signature and shall be considered valid and acceptable.
Execution Version 7-31-2024
16 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement and it is effective as of the Effective Date set forth in Section 4.1.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Approved as
to Form:
Roseville City Attorney
SMUD Legal Counsel
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Approved as
to Form:
Appendix 1-1
Appendix 1 – Notices
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Primary Project
Representative
Name: Frankie McDermott
Title: Chief Operations Officer
Company: SMUD
Address: 6201 S Street, M.S. B308
City/State/Zip Code: Sacramento, CA 95817
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: 916-732-5303
Alternate Project
Representative
Name: Christiaan Hofmann
Title: Director Transmission Planning and Operations
Company: SMUD
Address: 6001 S Street, M.S. D105
City/State/Zip Code: Sacramento, CA 95817
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: 916-732-4812
City of Roseville
Primary Project
Representative
Name: Ozro Corulli
Title: Sr. Power Engineer
Company: City of Roseville Electric Utility
Address: 2090 Hilltop Circle
City/State/Zip Code: Roseville, CA 95747
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 774-5586
Alternate Project
Representative
Name: Chris Porter
Title: Assistant Electric Utility Director
Company: City of Roseville Electric Utility
Address: 2090 Hilltop Circle
City/State/Zip Code: Roseville, CA 95747
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 774-5615
This Appendix 1 may be updated as needed by either Party. Any changes will be provided to all individuals listed herein. Email may be used to communicate the revisions.
Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT A: GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Exhibit A incorporates the services under this Agreement, identified as Task Orders to be performed by SMUD.
General Terms of Services Provided under Task Orders.
The following terms apply to all Task Orders incorporated under this Agreement unless otherwise specifically agreed upon in the Task Order.
1. SMUD acts as a Services Provider and does not assume to take on any of RE’s compliance obligations.
2. SMUD will coordinate the performance of its work with the Western Area Power Administration – Sierra Nevada Region (WAPA-SNR), the applicable Balancing Authority operator and the applicable Reliability Coordinator and promptly communicate Balancing Authority operator, WAPA-SNR operator and Reliability Coordinator notifications applicable to RE in accordance with communications protocols including study and data submittals.
3. SMUD will use existing or modify or develop procedures and report templates applicable to the scope of services performed.
4. SMUD will create, store, and produce documentation necessary to provide evidence of compliance related to services performed to a reliability regulator or enforcement authority.
5. RE will provide applicable procedures, operating plans and applicable updated system status information in support of SMUD performing its work under the Task Orders.
6. RE retains responsibility for conducting all transmission facility switching functions, equipment status monitoring, communications to and from SMUD and associated compliance with its procedures and applicable Reliability Standards.
Performance Standard.
SMUD agrees to perform the Services specified in these Task Orders to a degree of competency comparable to what SMUD would do for its own self-performed equivalent services as a registered Transmission Operator. When providing compliance evidence requested by RE in response to a compliance monitoring or enforcement activity undertaken by a compliance enforcement authority (e.g. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)), SMUD shall make commercially reasonable efforts, to provide such compliance evidence in order for RE to comply with the requests by the compliance enforcement authority and meet any deadline set by the compliance enforcement
Exhibit A-2
authority. SMUD shall perform its services in proper coordination as required for operations adequate to conform to the industry practices within the Balancing Authority of Northern California Balancing Authority area and within the jurisdiction of the RC West Reliability Coordinator.
Compliance Responsibility
By virtue of RE’s compliance obligations in accordance with its applicable registrations or compliance arrangements associated with the Task Orders performed by SMUD hereunder, RE retains the compliance responsibilities and any resulting violations thereof. Accordingly, SMUD in its performance of the Services Provider role under the Task Orders, is not directly accountable to FERC, NERC, or WECC, for RE’s compliance responsibilities or liable for any violations thereof. RE expressly releases SMUD from any and all liability associated with such compliance in SMUD’s role as the TOP Services Provider under this LOA, except solely as provided in section 9 of the Agreement.
1 SMUD-RE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A.1 TASK ORDER 1 – TPL SERVICES – 2024
1. Agreement
SMUD and City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, by and through its electric utility, Roseville Electric (RE) (“Parties”) agree to the following services, terms and conditions described in this Task Order related to transmission planning (TPL) services (TPL Services). This TPL Services Task Order 1 2024 is for TPL Services (“Task Order 1”), the provisions of which are subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) between the Parties. If any provisions of this Task Order 1 conflict with any provisions in the Agreement, the provisions of this Task Order 1 shall take precedence. For purposes of providing the TPL Services under this Task Order 1, capitalized terms have the meanings set forth in NERC definitions.
2. Effective Date Term and Termination
2.1. Task Order 1 is effective as of date of last execution by the Parties and shall remain in effect until terminated as set forth in Section 2.2 of this Exhibit A.1.
2.2. This Task Order 1 may be terminated on not less than 180 days advance notice by either party or as it may be superseded by a subsequent TPL Services provider or by RE self-performing one or more TPL Services, provided that the Parties shall coordinate the transition to a successor TPL Services provider or RE TPL self-performance.
3. Scope of Services
3.1. Scope of Parties’ Tasks
SMUD will provide TPL Services to RE as provided herein (Scope of TPL Services). The Parties have discussed the TPL Services to be performed by SMUD and this Task Order 1 describes the most significant and broad scope tasks to be performed by SMUD, it does not preclude specific or detailed tasks related to these activities to be discussed by the Parties. RE will provide applicable data, processes, procedures, operating plans and applicable system information for SMUD transmission planners, if and when requested.
3.2. Compliance Roles
SMUD is a contractor for RE and is not a registered delegate for TP compliance for RE. The Parties have discussed the TPL Services to be performed by SMUD transmission planners and the anticipated coordination Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
2 required. SMUD and RE shall, in support of RE’s TP compliance goals, perform TPL related studies under the applicable requirements (and sub- requirements) of the prevailing North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Reliability Standards on behalf of RE. The Parties continue to review the tasks that each performs to support the performance of RE’s compliance goals and will update this Task Order as appropriate to reflect material changes in TPL work activities they each perform.
3.3. Compliance Tasks
SMUD's transmission planners will document, collect, track, store, and/or perform the necessary activities/studies on behalf of RE and compare to what it performs for itself with respect to compliance with NERC Reliability Standards for the applicable TPL Services tasks performed. SMUD shall assist RE with compliance documentation as reasonably requested by RE. As necessary, the Parties shall jointly coordinate, review the request, and assess the response to be developed. For each TPL Services task the intent is that SMUD transmission system planners will perform the work necessary to satisfy the prevailing requirements and sub-requirements of the applicable TPL Reliability Standards. When providing compliance evidence requested by RE in response to a compliance monitoring or enforcement activity taken by a compliance enforcement authority (e.g., Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), NERC or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), SMUD shall make commercially reasonable efforts, to provide such compliance evidence in order for RE to comply with the requests by the compliance enforcement authority and meet any deadline set by the compliance enforcement authority.
3.4. Compliance Responsibility
By virtue of RE's compliance obligations in accordance with its applicable registrations or compliance arrangements associated with the TPL Services performed by SMUD under this Task Order 1, RE retains the compliance responsibilities including responsibility for any resulting violations thereof.
Accordingly, SMUD in its performance of the TPL Services Provider role under this Task Order 1, is not directly accountable to FERC, NERC, or WECC, for RE's compliance responsibilities or liable for any violations thereof. RE expressly releases SMUD from any and all liability associated with such compliance in SMUD's role as the TPL Services Provider under this Task Order 1, except solely as provided in the liability provision of the Agreement.
3.5. TPL Services Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements
3.5.1. RE shall maintain System models within its respective area for performing the studies needed to complete its Planning Assessment.
The models shall use data consistent with that provided in accordance with the applicable MOD standards (currently MOD-032), supplemented Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
3 by other sources as needed, including items represented in any Corrective Action Plan, and shall represent projected System conditions.
3.5.2. SMUD shall prepare an annual Planning Assessment of the applicable portion of the BES for RE’s System. This Planning Assessment shall use current or qualified past studies assumptions, and document summarized results of the steady state analyses, and Stability analyses.
3.5.3. SMUD shall perform studies for the Near-Term and Long-Term Transmission Planning Horizons in the applicable TPL requirements and sub-Requirements for RE’s system. The studies shall be based on computer simulation models using data provided by RE.
3.5.4. For the Stability portion of the Planning Assessment, SMUD shall perform the applicable Contingency analyses. The studies shall be based on computer simulation models using data provided by RE applicable to the Reliability Standard.
3.5.5. SMUD will follow the applicable prevailing NERC Criteria, WECC Regional Criteria (currently WECC Criterion TPL-001-WECC-CRT), and applicable TP’s Voltage Criteria in performing and determining RE’s acceptable System steady state thermal and voltage limits, post- Contingency voltage deviations, and the transient voltage and frequency response for its System.
3.5.6. SMUD will define and document, within the Planning Assessment, the criteria or methodology used in the analysis to identify System instability for conditions such as Cascading, voltage instability, or uncontrolled islanding, as applicable.
3.5.7. SMUD will perform the required studies for the Planning Assessment.
3.5.8. RE shall distribute its Planning Assessment results to adjacent Planning Coordinators and adjacent Transmission Planners within 90 calendar days of completing its Planning Assessment, and to any functional entity that has a reliability related need and submits a written request for the information within 30 days of such a request.
3.5.9. RE will provide qualified short circuit studies to SMUD for compliance with applicable prevailing Requirements associated with TPL Services.
3.6. Facility Interconnection Studies Performance Requirements
3.6.1. RE shall identify and notify SMUD when there is a potential need to conduct an FAC-002-2 facility impact study.
3.6.2. SMUD on behalf of RE, shall study the reliability impact of interconnecting new or material modified existing BES-level generation, Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
4 transmission, or electricity end-user facilities on affected system(s) (Requirement 1.1).
3.6.3. SMUD will follow the NERC Criteria, WECC Regional Criteria (currently WECC Criterion TPL-001-WECC-CRT-3.1), and applicable TP’s Voltage Criteria in performing to determine RE’s acceptable System steady state thermal and voltage limits, post-Contingency voltage deviations, and the transient voltage and frequency response for its System (Requirement 1.2).
3.6.4. SMUD shall perform steady state and transient stability analysis to evaluate system performance under both normal and emergency conditions. The contingencies used for prevailing FAC-002 studies shall include contingencies created for the TPL assessment.
3.6.5. The study may include short circuit studies, if necessary. Typically, this portion of the study is performed for generation interconnection projects. The short circuit studies would be performed by RE if required (Requirement 1.3).
3.6.6. SMUD will define and document, within the report, study assumptions, criteria and methodology used in the analysis, system performance, alternatives to be considered, and coordinated recommendations shall be included in the study report (Requirement 1.4).
3.6.7. The studies must be completed in a timely manner (before the new project in service date) as participation from other stakeholders may be required and is detailed in Requirement 2 through Requirement 5 of the Reliability Standard. These are not the responsibilities of the TP, but of the stakeholders mentioned in those requirements.
3.7. Reserved
4. Costs and Payment
Services performed under this Task Order 1 are charged based on estimated workload and SMUD labor rates associated with the work performed. SMUD shall receive compensation for services rendered under this Task Order 1 at the charges set forth in the subsections below. The not-to-exceed amount of this Task Order 1 shall be $95,000 annually, based on a calendar year measured from the Effective Date.
The SMUD charges in this task order are applicable to work performed by SMUD under Task Order 1. Such charges are fixed through December 31, 2024 and are subject to escalation as set forth below.
4.1. TPL Services - Prevailing TPL-001 2024
Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
5 Initial Setup $0, Annual cost $40,120. (2024 charge)
Annual estimated forecast cost based on a 4% annual labor escalation rate.
SMUD will provide an updated charge if the actual escalation in its business planning costs exceeds the forecast amount shown below. 2024: $40,120
2025: $41,720
2026: $43,390
2027: $45,130
2028: $46,930
4.2. Facility Interconnection Study
The scope of work to be performed for this TPL Service and the charges shall be described in writing and agreed upon by the Parties. If the scope of work materially exceeds that anticipated by SMUD in developing the charge, SMUD shall advise RE of its revised scope and charge as provided in paragraph 4.5.
4.3. PRC-010 Study
Cost: $10,030. (2024 charge).
The scope of work to be performed for this TPL Service shall be described in writing and agreed upon by the Parties. If the scope of work materially exceeds that anticipated by SMUD in developing this charge, SMUD shall advise RE of its revised scope and charge as provided in paragraph 4.5. The 2024 charge may increase at up to 4% per year without action required by the Parties. SMUD will provide an updated charge if the actual escalation in its business planning costs exceeds the forecast amount shown below. 2024: $10,030
2025: $10,430
2026: $10,850
2027: $11,280
2028: $11,730
4.4. MOD 025/026 Study
Cost: $1,500 per validation report tendered, estimated. (2024 charge).
4.5. Work Review
The Parties may review SMUD’s work effort required annually or when study effort materially exceeds SMUD’s estimated basis for the work to assess that Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
6 the level of SMUD’s work effort is reasonably consistent with the work effort used to develop the costs above.
4.6. Additional Compliance Support
Upon request by RE for additional compliance support service for work beyond the routine documentation associated with the services performed under this Task Order 1, SMUD will review the request and may provide an estimated cost if such request creates work effort beyond that contemplated in the charges set forth above.
4.7. Annual Updates
In addition to adjustment for scope of work due to a material change in the work scope, SMUD may adjust its charges annually based on in its assessment of the costs of performing the work under this Task Order, such as changes in its personnel costs, support services, software or equipment costs. For a year-to-year change of up to a 4% change in its personnel costs, SMUD may advise RE and implement the change in charges without the need to update or replace this Task Order 1. SMUD will provide an updated charge if the actual escalation in its business planning costs exceeds the 4% annual escalation forecast increase amount.
4.8. Change Notice
In the event of a change in charges due to work effort, scope or costs of performing Services under this Task Order 1, SMUD shall, unless otherwise agreed, provide written notice 60 days in advance of the date of change with an explanation of the changes and if the changes in costs exceed the limits in Section 4.7 or as requested by RE will provide an updated Task Order 1 to replace the current Task Order 1.
4.9. Payment Terms
For services under this Task Order 1, RE shall pay all undisputed invoices within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the invoice. RE shall remit payment as directed in the invoice.
SMUD shall remit invoices to the contact for invoices shown in Appendix 1:
5. Task Amendment
This Task Order 1 may be amended or otherwise modified by the Parties as provided in the Agreement. It is mutually understood that business requirements, resources, and dates may change subject to the applicable terms of Task Order 1.
Any material changes to the scope defined in Task Order 1 will be addressed through a task order amendment process.
Task Order 1 – July 31, 2024
7 6. Signatures
The Parties have executed this Task Order 1 and it is effective as of the date of last signature below.
Roseville Electric
By:
Name: Dominick Casey
Title: City Manager
Date:
Approved as
to Form:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
By:
Name: Chris Hofmann
Title: Director, Transmission Planning and Operations
Date:
Approved as
to Form:
SMUD Contract K-801
Task Order 1 – July31 2024
Appendix 1 - 1
Appendix 1 - Contacts
SMUD Contacts:
Transmission Planning and Operations Staff:
Director, Transmission Planning and Operations 916-732-5794 (Chris Adam Hofmann) Manager, Transmission Planning 916-732-6804 (Janice Zewe) Transmission Planning Engineers 916-732-8592 (Ryan Price) 916-732-5811 (Chue Thor)
916-732-7041 (Foung Mua)
916-732-5267 (Patrick Truong)
916-732-5450 (Miguel Garcia)
916-732-5615 (Prabal Singh)
SMUD Contacts for Task Order Notices:
Chris Hofmann
Director, Transmission Planning and Operations
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6001 S Street, Mailstop D109, Sacramento, CA 95817
P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, CA 95852-0830
w.916-732-4812 | c.775-846-4442. [email protected]
SMUD Contact for Billing (as provided in invoice)
RE Contacts:
Power Engineering Staff:
Assistant Director 916-774-5615 (Chris Porter)
Sr. Power Engineers 916-774-5586 (Ozro Corulli)
916-746-1601 (Mitch Larkin)
Power Engineers 916-774-5661 (Austin Kurth)
916-774-5641 (Vince Bottoni)
RE Contact for Task Order Notices and Invoices:
Ozro Corulli
Sr. Power Engineer
2090 Hilltop Circle, Roseville CA 95747
916-774-5586 | [email protected]
SMUD Contract K-801
Task Order 1 – July31 2024
Appendix 2 - 1
Appendix 2 – Reserved
Execution Version 7/31/2024
Data Exchange Agreement
between the
Roseville Electric Utility
and the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
This Data Exchange Agreement (Agreement) between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, by and through its electric utility, Roseville Electric (RE) and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) (individually “Party” and collectively the “Parties”) sets forth the mutual understandings of the Parties whereby RE agrees to keep certain data and information provided by SMUD, described further below, in confidence and to be used solely for the purposes set forth herein. The data provided by SMUD is provided to support the reliability of the Balancing Authority of Northern California (BANC) Balancing Authority as contemplated under the applicable TOP-001, TPL-001, and FAC-002 Reliability Standard requirements and related or additional reliability purposes. As such, this Agreement is made in accordance with the following:
1. Term and Termination
Subject to Section 2, below, the Term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both Parties and may be terminated by either Party upon no less than thirty (30) days written notice.
2. Agreement
SMUD may provide RE with power system planning and operations data including data using forecasted day-ahead and real-time generation dispatch and system outage (GDSO) information and other data as described in Section 3 below. RE agrees to abide by the WIDSA terms as described herein. Specifically, unless otherwise authorized in writing by SMUD, all GDSO provided by SMUD to RE shall be deemed to be “Covered Data” and therefore shall be treated as such in accordance with applicable provisions of the WIDSA, including, but not limited to, Article V (Data Sharing and Use), Article VI (Protection of Covered Data), and Article IX (Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability). Unless it first obtains SMUD’s written consent, RE shall not make any other use or representation(s) based on the GDSO other than with SMUD, the Western Area Power Administration – Sierra Nevada Region and RE staff.
Furthermore, in the event of termination of this Agreement in accordance with Section 1 above, RE shall continue to protect the GDSO consistent with the obligations to protect Covered Data established in Article VIII (Term and Termination) of the WIDSA.
3. Power System Data
Execution Version 7/31/2024
2 SMUD, at its sole discretion and for “Permitted Uses” as described in the WIDSA, may provide RE with GDSO described as follows:
Power system studies and study results and reports including mitigation actions for future periods within the applicable planning and operating time horizon or real-time associated with studies of future conditions that impact the RE electric system or an electric system neighboring the RE electric system. Such power system studies use detailed power system input information, including:
a. Generation facility dispatch,
b. Scheduled power transfers between balancing authority areas, c. Transmission and generation facility equipment outage status, d. Equipment ratings and operating limits.
e. Any other data that may be considered proprietary of confidential non-public transmission information, such as that which is so understood by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s standards of conduct.
4. Notice
SMUD shall send any notice, including notice of termination as described in Section 1, to the following address:
Roseville Electric Utility
Attn: Electric Director
116 S. Grant Street Ste. 2
Roseville, CA 95747
RE shall send any notice, including notice of termination as described in Section 1, to the following address:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Office of the General Counsel
Attn: Nicole Looney
6301 S Street, MS A311
Sacramento, CA 95817
e-mail: [email protected]
5. Full Expression of the Parties
This Agreement is a full expression of the intent of the Parties with respect to the provision of certain GDSO by SMUD to RE.
6. Amendment
Execution Version 7/31/2024
3 This Agreement may only be amended through written agreement of the Parties.
Please confirm that you are in agreement with the foregoing by signing and returning it to the SMUD at the address listed above.
Roseville Electric Utility
By:
Dominick Casey
Title: City Manager
Date:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
By:
Chris Hofmann
Title: Director, Transmission Planning and Operations
Date:
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3604
File #:
0800-06
Title:
Infill Parcel 188 (300 N Sunrise Ave.) - Summary Vacation of Public Utility Easement Contact:
Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.13.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to summarily vacate a 10-foot-wide portion of the existing Public Utility Easement at 300 N. Sunrise Avenue.
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2024, the City’s Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a car wash use in the Planned Development 16 (PD16) zone and a Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new Quick Quack Car Wash with an approximate 3,700-square-foot car wash building with two vehicle queuing lanes, 15 vacuum stalls, associated parking, and landscaping at 300 N. Sunrise Avenue.
The existing building on the site will be demolished.
Attachment 1 includes a vicinity map of the project site.
The site includes a 10-foot-wide public utility easement which conflicts with the proposed development (see Exhibits A and B of the resolution, attached).
As part of the Quick Quack Car
Wash approval, the Planning Commission adopted a condition of approval to require the abandonment of a portion of the easement prior to building permit issuance. This request for a summary vacation implements the adopted condition of approval.
Government Code Section 8300 et. seq. (Streets and Highways Code) states that an easement may be terminated (vacated) by adopting a resolution of vacation. There are two pathways for vacation: summary or general. An abandonment request for a public utility easement is eligible for the simpler summary vacation when any one of the following three potential conditions applies:
1 .
The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed abandonment. 2 .
The easement has been in place for less than five years (making it ineligible for condition 1 above), but has been in place for at least a year and has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired.
3 .
The need for the easement has been superseded by relocation, and there are no other public facilities in the easement.
The public utility easement was originally recorded to allow for the extension of public utility lines.
The Quick Quack Car Wash project will record new easements to serve public utilities which do not conflict with the approved development. The proposed easement vacation was routed to all utilities which could be affected by the project, and no objections were received.
The need for the
easement has been superseded by relocation, and there are no other public facilities in the easement. For these reasons, staff concludes that condition 3 (as described above) for a summary vacation applies and recommends approval of the vacation request as depicted in Exhibits A and B.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact to the City of Roseville.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The summary vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) and Section 305 of the City of Roseville CEQA Implementing Procedures.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Resolution 24-365
Vicinity Map
Maxar, Microsoft, Nearmap, City of Roseville
Placer Parcel
<all other values>
Roseville
Roseville Parcel
10/11/2024, 10:57:48 AM 0 0.03 0.060.01 mi
0 0.04 0.090.02 km
1:2,257
City of Roseville - Development Services
Nearmap | Maxar, Microsoft | City of Roseville | Development Services CC ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 24-365
ORDERING SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 300 N. SUNRISE AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville as follows:
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of section 8333, et seq., of the Streets and Highways Code (Chapter 4, Summary Vacation), it is hereby found that a portion of a public utility easement at 300 N. Sunrise Avenue, described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is no longer needed; and
WHEREAS, the need for the easement has been superseded by relocation, and there are no other public facilities within the easement.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That the portion of the public utility easement at 300 N. Sunrise Avenue described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” is hereby vacated pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8335, and shall, as of the date of adoption of this resolution, no longer constitute a public utility easement; and
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any other documents required to effectuate the conveyance of the abandoned/vacated easements to the respective property owners.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution and Order, attested to by said Clerk under the seal of the City of Roseville, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and take any other actions necessary to effectuate the intent of this Resolution and Order.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3621
File #:
0800-05 & 0214
Title:
2024-25 State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program - Grant Application Contact:
Cesar Gamez 916-774-5408 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.14.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving
an application for the
2024-
25 State and Local Cybersecurity Grant
for $250,000 and, if awarded, the execution of any
required grant agreements and other related documents necessary to participate in and comply with all grant terms and conditions.
Staff also recommends Council grant authorization to apply for this grant two additional times when additional funds become available.
BACKGROUND
The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) is part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which Congress passed and signed into law in November 2021.
Under this act, the SLCGP provides grant funding to state, local, and tribal governments to improve their cybersecurity practices and address critical cyber risks.
In California, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is responsible for distributing the SLCGP funds. The deadline to apply for the 2024-25 State and Local Cybersecurity Grant was September 27, 2024. Due to the short amount of time available to prepare and submit the application, staff was unable to seek City Council approval of the application prior to submission. The grant application is for $250,000 and will be used to improve the City's capabilities to detect and mitigate cybersecurity weaknesses and threats, thereby reducing risks and strengthening the City's cybersecurity posture. If awarded the funds, staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to execute any required grant agreements and other related documents necessary to participate in and comply with all grant terms and conditions.
In addition, staff recommends that the Council provide authorization to apply for this grant for two additional years, which is estimated to provide additional funds each year between $170,000 and $200,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
If awarded this grant, the Information Technology Department will implement the award using approximately $48,000 in existing staff resources on a one-time basis. No new or additional City resources will be required for this grant. Should additional funds be required to support a future year grant award, those needs will be evaluated and incorporated into the upcoming year's budget as necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a grant application meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Cesar Gamez, Information Security Administrator
Hong Sae, Chief Information Officer
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-377
RESOLUTION NO. 24-377
APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE
OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED FORMS AND AGREEMENTS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) is part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which Congress passed and signed into law in November 2021; and
WHEREAS, under this act, the SLCGP provides grant funding to state, local, and tribal governments to improve their cybersecurity practices and address critical cyber risks; and
WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is responsible for distributing the SLCGP funds; and
WHEREAS, due to the short amount of time available to prepare and submit the application, staff was unable to seek City Council approval of the application prior to submission; and
WHEREAS, the grant application is for $250,000 and will be used to improve the City's capabilities to detect and mitigate cybersecurity weaknesses and threats, thereby reducing risks and strengthening the City's cybersecurity posture; and
WHEREAS, if awarded the funds, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute any required grant agreements and other related documents necessary to participate in and comply with all grant terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby approves the City Manager or his designee to execute all related forms and agreements to comply with all grant terms and conditions if the City of Roseville receives grant funds from the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby approves the City Manager or his designee to submit grant applications for the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program for two additional funding cycles.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of __________________________, 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________
City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3601
File #:
0400-04-13-1
Title:
Creekview Phase 4 Village 20 - Notice of Completion
Contact:
Pablo Macias 916 751-9196 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.15.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Creekview Phase 4 Village 20
,
CWJ# 190910 as
complete and authorizing the City Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND
The Engineering Division has made a final inspection of the above project and has found the roadway infrastructure work complete in accordance with the improvement plans and City specifications.
FISCAL IMPACT
The actions requested as part of this action have no impact to the City's General Fund.
Construction costs were paid by the developer.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a Notice of Completion meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Pablo Macias, Construction Inspector
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-362
NOC
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
Final Maps
RESOLUTION NO. 24-362
RESOLUTION OF 1HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC WORK KNOWN AS CREEKVIEW - PHASE 4 - VILLAGE 20 PROJECT, APPROVING THE "NOTICE OF COMPLETION", AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE SAID NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 1HEREFORE, AND
ACCEPTING ALL DEDICATIONS OFFERED ON THE RECORDED MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville as follows:
1. The "Notice of Completion" on file in the City Clerk's Department relative to that public work known as the Creekview - Phase 4 - Village 20 is hereby approved and the public work accepted.
2. All rights of way and easements as offered on the final map of recorded with Placer County Recorder's Office Book GG of Maps, Page 87 is hereby accepted.
3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Notice on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20 , by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY
CLERK
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 VERNON STREET
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Exempt
from recording fees
Pursuant to Gov’t Code §27383
NO
TICE OF COMPLETION
N
OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public work of improvement known as the Project was completed and
accepted by the City of Roseville on . The location is situated in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California and is indicated on the attached map, marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. The real property herein described is owned by the City of Roseville, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville CA 95678.
The direct/general contractor on said project was .
The surety on said project was
.
___________________________________
Cit
y of Roseville
Owner
ATTEST:
________________________________
_
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Placer )
I, , being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am the of the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation in the State of California, owner of the property described in the above Notice. I am duly authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of the City of Roseville. I have read the Notice of Completion and know its contents and the facts stated therein are true.
___________________________________
City of Roseville
State of California )
County of Placer )
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before
me on this _ ____
day of ,
20 ___,
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) who appeared
before me.
____________________________________
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3613
File #:
0103-05-02 & 0103-04-02 & 0103-12-02
Title:
Consolidation of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, and Senior Commission
Contact:
Jill Geller 916-774-5249 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.16.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the consolidation of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, and Senior Commission into one nine-member body (including one youth commissioner), called the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Commission, effective January 1, 2027.
BACKGROUND
Three Commissions/Boards are currently facilitated by the Parks, Recreation & Libraries department. These are:
The Parks & Recreation Commission (an eight-member body, including one youth commissioner), which meets monthly.
The Library Board (a six-member body, including one youth board member), which meets bi- monthly.
The Senior Commission (a seven-member body with no youth commissioners), which meets quarterly.
It has long been considered to consolidate these three groups for efficiency, to minimize meeting cancellations, and to make the experience more meaningful for the commissioners/board members.
This consolidation recommendation was presented to all three groups in November 2023, with implementation proposed to be effective January 1, 2025. All three groups supported the consolidation, with the suggestion that it become effective January 1, 2027 to allow those commissioners/board members whose terms expire on December 31, 2026 to complete their current term. Staff have accommodated this request in the current recommendation. It is also recommended that new appointments made at the end of 2024 to the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, and Senior Commission shall be for a two-year term ending on December 31, 2026. At the end of 2026, all new members will be appointed to the newly created Parks, Recreation & Libraries Commission effective January 1, 2027. Since this is a new commission, there will be no “reappointments” when it becomes effective, and all current commissioners and board members shall be eligible to apply, as well as members of the general public. To establish a staggered appointment schedule when appointments are made in December 2026, four shall be 4-year appointments, and four shall be 2-year appointments. After these initial appointments, all future appointments shall be for 4-year terms. The Youth Commissioner shall continue to be a one-year appointment.
Benefits of consolidation include:
A more meaningful experience for Commissioners/Board Members, with topics that relate to a broader range of Parks, Recreation & Libraries issues.
Fewer meeting cancellations, since oftentimes there are insufficient topics in just one of these areas to justify a meeting. Each of these groups experience meeting cancellations several times each year.
A consolidated Parks, Recreation & Libraries Commission better reflects the mission, vision and goals of Parks, Recreation & Libraries department as a whole.
Provides a wider City perspective for Commissioners/Board Members as preparation for potential future City leadership (e.g., City Council).
More efficient use of City funds and resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
Meeting planning, document preparation, public posting, and broadcasting the meetings for these three groups take a considerable amount of staff time for the Parks, Recreation & Libraries department, the City Clerk’s Office, the Public Affairs & Communications department, and the City Attorney’s Office, just to name a few. Consolidation of these groups will result in greater efficiencies and time savings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute Section 21065 and CEQA State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) and Section 15378. The consolidation of these commissions and board meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Title:
Roseville Venture Lab - Program Agreement Amendment and Budget Adjustment Contact:
Wayne Wiley 916-774-5283 [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Program Agreement between the City of Roseville and Growth Factory to include additional programming offered at the Roseville Venture Lab and
2. Adopt an ordinance authorizing a budget adjustment in the amount of $21,907 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) revenue replacement funds to the Roseville Venture Lab Multi-Year Project for costs associated with the creation of additional entrepreneurial programming.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2022, Council approved a program agreement, lease agreement and budget adjustment for the establishment of the Roseville Venture Lab (RVL), in partnership with the Growth Factory (GF). With a one-time allocation of ARPA funding, this initiative established an entrepreneurship center, with a start-up accelerator and business incubator component, within approximately 2,400 square feet of vacant City-owned space located at 316 Vernon Street.
Since the opening of the RVL space in September of 2022, several programs have been launched with the intent of supporting small businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs. enhance programming offered at the RVL and a budget adjustment in the amount of $21,907 is recommended.
Additionally, the current Program Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Growth Factory will be amended to incorporate additional program resources that will be made available to the community.
PROGRAM AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
To date, the RVL has offered programs with particular focus on small businesses and technology start-ups, high school innovators, social impact ventures, and food entrepreneurs. To support the expansion of the RVL initiatives, the program agreement will be amended to incorporate programs centered around the creative economy that combine economic, cultural, and social aspects with technology, intellectual property, and tourism. Arts & Economic Prosperity 6 (AEP6) is an economic and social impact study of the nonprofit arts and culture industry. In Placer County, the sector generated $26.1 million in economic activity during 2022 ($13 million in spending by arts and culture organizations and an additional $13.1 million in event-related expenditures by their audiences). That economic activity supported 436 jobs, provided $15.3 million in personal income to residents, and generated $4.8 million in tax revenue to local, state, and federal governments (See Attachment 1). As one of the world's fastest-growing sectors, this amendment supports the City Council’s goals of enhancing economic vitality by accentuating arts and culture in creating a sense of place.
Staff and the GF will work with a network of strategic partners to identify specific programing and the type of support needed to assist entrepreneurs and program participants in the creative economy. Examples of industries that may have programming associated with the creative economy are included in Attachment 2. It is also important to note that the program agreement allows the City and GF to onboard additional partners that might assist with program implementation. The amended agreement will not change terms related to the program duration, early termination contingencies, management of personnel, marketing guidelines, intellectual property rights, data collection, or confidentiality guidelines. The first amendment to the program agreement is provided as Attachment 3.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the budget adjustment will result in the appropriation of $21,907 from ARPA revenue replacement funding in the Federal Stimulus Reserve - ARPA Fund and will not impact the General Fund. In addition, the funding will result in programs and initiatives that may yield both direct and indirect economic impacts to our community including increases in business startups, jobs and upskilled workforce.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Wayne Wiley, Economic Development Manager
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Develpoment Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment 1 - Creative Economy Economic Impact
Attachment 2 - Creative Economy Industries
Resolution 24-374
Attachment 3 - signed Amendment
Ordinance 6882
RESOLUTION NO. 24-374
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRAM AGREEMENT, BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND THE GROWTH FACTORY, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2022, Council approved a program agreement, lease agreement and budget adjustment for the establishment of the Roseville Venture Lab (RVL), in partnership with the Growth Factory (GF); and
WHEREAS, since the opening of the RVL space in September of 2022, several programs have been launched with the intent of supporting small businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs; and
WHEREAS, to support the expansion of the RVL initiatives, the program agreement will be amended to incorporate programs centered around the creative economy that combine economic, cultural, and social aspects with technology, intellectual property, and tourism; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Program Agreement between the City of Roseville and Growth Factory, has been reviewed by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that the First Amendment to the Growth Factory Program Agreement with the City of Roseville, is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 6882
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Roseville Venture Lab project.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 8/29/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE:
PREPARER NAME & TITLE:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
FISCAL YEAR:
ORDINANCE:
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2280
5080
84001
500304
21,907
Increase the Entrepreneurship Center project budget to
include additional entrepreneurial programming/offerings made available to the public.
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 21,907
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2280 4401 10001 21,907
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 21,907
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
Staff recommends this budget adjustment to increase the Entrepreneurship Center Multi-Year Project to cover costs associated with the creation of additional entrepreneurial programming that will be offered through the Roseville Venture Lab (RVL) focusing on the creative economy. Funding for this project will come from the City's allocation of American Rescue Plan Act funding in the Federal Stimulus Reserve Fund.
2024-25 Wayne Wiley, Economic Development Manager
Wayne Wiley, Economic Development Manager
Economic Development Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3627
File #:
0214 & 0201-01
Title:
State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program - Non-Capital Project Approval, Grant Award, and Budget Adjustment Contact:
Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]
Courtney Scurria 916-774-5079 [email protected]
Chris Ciampa 916-774-5088 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.18.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve the establishment of a new Non-Capital Project (FY24 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program – STEP);
2) Adopt a resolution to accept the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant award and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the grant agreement and any other required documents on behalf of the City; and
3) Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment appropriating $150,000 in the Grants Fund to the Project for the funding of education, enforcement, and outreach related to traffic safety.
BACKGROUND
The goal of the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Program is to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes so that all roadway users arrive at their destination safely. Using Federal Highway Safety Program funds, the OTS partners with political subdivisions of the state to address California's highway safety needs at the state, county and local level.
OTS funds programs in the following areas:
Alcohol Impaired Driving - These programs aim to prevent people from driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or other drugs and to remove DUI drivers from the road. OTS grants use a comprehensive approach by funding educational, prevention, and enforcement programs and by focusing on high-risk groups.
Distracted Driving - These programs aim to reduce collisions involving drivers using handheld devices. Countermeasures include increased and focused enforcement, observational surveys, and public awareness campaigns, while other actions are being developed to change behavior.
Drug Impaired Driving - These programs aim to decrease the average response time for the arrival of appropriate equipment at collision sites in rural areas. Funding also supports increased officer training in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) programs, which should lead to better detection of drug-impaired drivers.
Motorcycle Safety - These programs support new actions in the effort to reduce motorcycle collisions, injuries and fatalities. Activities include enhancing the motorcycle safety awareness component in driver education courses, encouraging the use of proper protective equipment for riders, outreach to un-endorsed motorcycle owners offering refresher rider training courses, and consideration of motorcycle safety in roadway design.
Occupant Protection - These programs support statewide and local public information campaigns, increased enforcement, and community education, outreach, and training. More specifically, the programs provide child safety seats to low-income families, conduct child safety seat check ups, and educate teens about using seat belts.
Pedestrian Safety/Bicycle Safety - These programs increase awareness of traffic rules, rights, and responsibilities among various age groups. These programs are developed to be attractive and interactive in an effort to truly impact students. At the elementary school level, parents and teachers are drawn into the programs as active role models and mentors in traffic safety. Grantees conduct traffic safety rodeos and presentations in an effort to build students' skills and demonstrate proper practical application of those skills. To boost compliance with the law and decrease injuries, safety helmets are properly fitted and distributed to children in need for use with bicycles, scooters, skateboards, and skates. There is a special emphasis on programs designed exclusively for the hard-to-reach population at the middle and high school levels. Additional outreach endeavors include programs targeting the senior population along with a multicultural approach to address safer driving and walking behaviors.
Police Traffic Services - These programs focus on a comprehensive approach to enforce and encourage compliance with seat belt use, impaired driving, speed limit, red light running, and other traffic laws. The grants are highly effective in reducing traffic collisions by dedicating resources to selective enforcement and education programs. These comprehensive programs have a long- lasting impact in reducing fatal and injury collisions. Under these programs, communities use available public and private assets to identify and attack significant traffic safety problems and other vehicle related crimes.
Traffic Records/Roadway Safety - These programs concentrate on the vehicle operating environment and are strongly influenced by enforcement, engineering, and utilizing relevant data generated by those activities to improve roadway safety and traffic records. OTS advocates efforts to automate traffic collision database systems and the ability to analyze and map high- collision locations. Grant-funded items include hardware, software, and expert services necessary to aid in the automation of manual processes, eliminate process duplication, and facilitate enhanced data gathering and data sharing.
Within the parameters of this grant, the goal of the Roseville Police Department (RPD) is to address two critical crash factors – excessive speed and impaired driving. For the period 2017- 2019 (see detail below), the number of fatal and injury crashes was disappointingly consistent – averaging 1,000 victims per year. The number of injury collisions has dropped year by year.
2017-
1112
2018 –
978
2019 –
909
2020 –
699
2021 – 600
2022 – 606
2023 - 515
During
the three-year
period
between
2020
and
2022,
there
were
over 700
speed-related
fatal
and injury
accidents
in Roseville. RPD data shows that from 2020 and 2023 there were 1721 people injured in collisions.
OTS
traffic statistics
validate the
RPD
data
points.
In
addition to
speed, DUI is a
leading cause
of
crashes
in Roseville.
RPD
data shows
that
from 2017-2020
there were
150
victims killed
or
injured
in
alcohol-related
crashes.
Roseville
attracts
many
people
to its
restaurants
and
bars
after
work hours.
According
to
the
California
Department
of Alcoholic
Beverage Control,
Roseville
has
281
“active on-sale retail
license
establishments” (i.e., bars
and
restaurants).
This
can
be a problem on
roadways
when
people
leave
these
establishments
after
having
too
much to
drink.
Nighttime
crashes
in Roseville,
from
the hours
of 9pm -
3am, totaled
more
than
966 from 2021-2023.
In
addition,
the
city’s proximity
to
Folsom
State Park
serves
to compound
the
number
of
impaired drivers
on Roseville
roads.
While
alcohol
is
prohibited
in
the park,
many
drivers
in
the
warm
weather
months,
depart
from
the
park
on a
major
Roseville
artery
(Douglas Blvd.),
after
over
consumption
of
alcohol.
Crashes due to speed and/or DUI are hazardous not only to the offender but to everyone in their path. This includes other drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It is also important to note that there may be an overlap in the reason a crash occur. For example,
someone
who
is DUI
may
cause
a
hit-and-run
crash.
Targeting individuals
that
crash due to
speed
and/or
DUI
can serve to reduce crashes
involving
motorcyclists,
bicyclists,
and
pedestrians.
The Grant Award will provide funding for the following purpose:
- Overtime to fund increased traffic safety enforcement: $131,200 - Traffic safety equipment (LIDAR and DUI Checkpoint supplies): $12,000 - Support traffic related training: $6,800
Total Grant Award amount: $150,000
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will establish and fund a new Non-Capital Project ( FY24
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program – STEP) in the Grants Fund for a total amount of $150,000. This budget adjustment will have no new impact on the City’s General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Acceptance of a grant award and approval of a budget adjustment meets the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-381
Grant Agreement
Ordinance 6884
RESOLUTION NO. 24-381
ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY,
SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP)
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Police Department was awarded $150,000 in grant funds from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety as part of the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the City of Roseville accepts the grant award from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute any required documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as the grant recipient, the City of Roseville agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements related to the award.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of __________________________, 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 6884
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program grant funds.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 8/22/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE:
PREPARER NAME & TITLE:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
FISCAL YEAR:
ORDINANCE:
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2270 5080 84001 700070 131,200 Increase project labor budget for overtime 2270 5461 84001 700070 6,800 Increase training and development 2270 5395 84001 700070 12,000 Increase equipment under 5,000 for supplies 1001 5071 44060 98,400 Increase Traffic overtime budget 1001 5980 44060 (98,400) Increase secondary labor budget for Traffic overtime
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 150,000
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2270 4401 84001 700070 150,000 Increase project revenue budget for total amount of grant reimbursement
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 150,000
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
This budget adjustment will establish and fund a new Non-Capital Project (700070 - FY24 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program - STEP) in the Grants Fund. The Roseville Police Department has been awarded funding from the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP), through the State of California Office of Traffic Safety to fund Officer overtime for traffic enforcement, education, and outreach related to traffic safety. This budget adjustment increases the revenue and expenditure budgets for project No. 700070 by the total grant award of $150,000 and adjusts the Traffic labor budget for overtime and secondary labor. Due to the grant period crossing two fiscal years, the adjustment to the Traffic labor budget only reflects the estimated expenditure for FY2024-25 in the amount of $98,400. The remaining $32,800 will be budgeted during FY2025-26 budget development.
2024-25 Mark Peinado / Management Analyst
Mark Peinado / Management Analyst
Police Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3618
File #:
0721 & 0201-01
Title:
Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Phase 1 - Budget Adjustment Contact:
Suzanne Engelke 916-746-1289 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.19.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $264,242 for the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Phase 1 to reflect the increased Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) award.
BACKGROUND
The Dry Creek Greenway East trail project is a paved multi-use trail along Dry, Cirby, and Linda Creeks from Darling Way/Riverside Avenue to the City limits at S. Cirby Way/Old Auburn Road.
The project is identified as a proposed Class I bikeway in the City of Roseville General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan.
At the March 20, 2019 meeting, City Council voted to approve the Dry Creek Greenway East trail project. Phase 1 of the project will result in two (2) miles of Class I trail from the existing Saugstad Park Trail at Darling Way to the existing Maidu Park Trail at Rocky Ridge Drive, and includes the following improvements:
• Connection to the existing Saugstad Park Trail at Darling Way • Widening and undercrossing of Darling Way
• One bridge crossing of Dry Creek and one bridge crossing of Cirby Creek at the confluence of Dry and Cirby Creeks
• Undercrossing of I-80
• Connection to Eastwood Park
• Undercrossing of, and connection to, Sunrise Avenue
• One bridge crossing of Linda Creek near the confluence of Linda and Cirby Creeks • At-grade crossing of Oak Ridge Drive to connection with existing Sierra Gardens Trail • At-grade connection to the west side of Rocky Ridge Drive and the street-side trail connection to Maidu Park
• Parking lot at the trailhead on Riverside Avenue
Phase 1 of the trail is in construction and is estimated to be completed next year. This $264,242 CMAQ award increase, reallocated from a future underfunded trail extension, will be used to cover
the additional minor environmental work needed once crews began work including supplemental tree trimming and removal and additional fencing along the trail corridor.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will increase federal grant revenue and project appropriations by $264,242 in the Transportation Fund. The existing project budget is $34,799,239 and the revised budget will be $35,063,481. There is no impact to the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The proposed budget adjustment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Engelke,
Associate Transportation Planner
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance 6881
ORDINANCE NO. 6881
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Phase 1 project.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 8/29/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: FISCAL YEAR:
PREPARER NAME & TITLE: ORDINANCE:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 6520 6587 84001 400022 264,242 Increase project budget to match federal grant
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 264,242
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 6520 4401 84001 400022 264,242 Increase federal grant award revenue
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 264,242
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
This budget adjustment is needed to increase the budget for the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Phase 1 project (#400022) in the Transportation Fund to reflect the updated federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) award (CML-5182(058)).
The existing project budget is $34,799,239 and the revised budget will be $35,063,481. There is no impact to the General Fund.
2024-25 Suzanne Engelke, Associate Transportation Planner Suzanne Engelke, Associate Transportation Planner
PW/Alternative Transportation
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3607
File #:
0400-04-12-1
Title:
Sierra Vista - Estia - Parcel Map
Contact:
Robert Medina 916-774-5517 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.20.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the parcel map on file with the City Clerk and accept, on behalf of the public, the public easements offered thereon for dedication and accept, subject to improvement, Parcel A and the rights of way offered thereon for dedication; and approve the abandonment of the right of way and easements listed thereon.
BACKGROUND
The Development Services - Engineering Division has reviewed the subject parcel map and found that it is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all conditions of the tentative map have been met.
This map will be creating three parcels for future development and one open space parcel.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund associated with this approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council approval of the Sierra Vista – Estia Parcel Map is an action that is subject to CEQA.
Project level CEQA compliance for the Sierra Vista – Estia Parcel Map project was accomplished with preparation of the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR Adopted: May 5, 2010, SCH No. 2008032115; Addendum approved March 24, 2022). Because the Sierra Vista – Estia Parcel Map is consistent with the project evaluated in the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report will be implemented. As such, no additional CEQA action is required at this time.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Medina, Assistant Engineer
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Parcel Map
Vicinity Map
LICENSE EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 30, 2026CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLEMARC STOUT, R.C.E. 69879 DATE:BY: CITY CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLEASSISTANT CITY CLERK BRIAN THIONNET, L.S. 6866DATE:
THIS PARCEL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA ESTIA" WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND ISBASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAPACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT THE REQUEST OF TOWNE DEVELOPMENT OF SACRAMENTO, INOCTOBER 2022. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THEAPPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWNHEREON ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND WILL OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, AND WILL BE SET BYDECEMBER 31, 2025 AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BERETRACED.
I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS PARCEL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA ESTIA" AND FIND IT TOBE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ON FILE AND ANY APPROVEDALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ALL APPLICABLECITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, HAS APPROVED THIS PARCELMAP OF "SIERRA VISTA ESTIA", AND HAS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENTS OFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATION. AND HAS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC,SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT, PARCEL A, ALL RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OFFERED HEREON FORDEDICATION, AND DOES ALSO HEREBY APPROVE THE ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ANDEASEMENTS LISTED HEREON WITHIN NOTE 4 ON SHEET 2.
I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM SATISFIED WITH THIS PARCEL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA ESTIA" ISTECHNICALLY CORRECT.FOR MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLEDATE:
DATE:
EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2025TIMOTHY G. BLAIR, PLS 8278.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSONS HAVING ANY RECORDTITLE INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN UPON THISPARCEL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA ESTIA" AND THEY HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION ANDRECORDATION OF THIS PARCEL MAP AND HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION AND DO HEREBYDEDICATE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES THE FOLLOWING:THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:(A)PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TOELECTROLIERS, WATER AND GAS PIPES, SEWER AND DRAINAGE PIPES, AND FORUNDERGROUND WIRE AND CONDUITS, ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES FOR ELECTRIC,TELEPHONE AND TELEVISION SERVICES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL APPURTENANCES TOGETHERWITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCES PERTAINING THERETO ON, OVER, UNDER AND ACROSSBASELINE ROAD, LILY BEAN WAY, WATERLEAF WAY AND THOSE STRIPS OF LAND LYINGCONTIGUOUS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED "P.U.E." (PUBLICUTILITY EASEMENT).(B)PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATERAND SEWER PIPES, TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCES PERTAINING THERETO ON,OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LAND AS SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED"S.W.E." (SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT ).(C)PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND WATERPIPELINES TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTANCES THERETO ON, OVER, UNDER ANDACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED "W.E." (WATERLINEEASEMENT).(D)PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LANDSHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED "P.E." (PUBLIC EASEMENT).THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED IN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:(A)AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (INCLUDING ALL IMPROVEMENTS THEREON) THE STREETS SHOWNHEREON AS BASELINE ROAD, LILY BEAN WAY AND WATERLEAF WAY.(B)PARCEL A SHOWN HEREON TO THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE FOR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES. 1 OWNER'S STATEMENTSURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
DEPUTYDOCUMENT NO.: FEE: $ BY: STATE OF CALIFORNIARECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENTFILED THIS DAY OF , 2024, AT .M. IN BOOK OF PARCELMAPS, AT PAGE , IN THE OFFICE OF THE PLACER COUNTY RECORDER, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AT THE REQUEST OF R.E.Y. ENGINEERS, INC.
NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE
NAME: WILLIAM A. WIGCHERSTITLE: PRESIDENTBY:
NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
SS))COUNTY OF STATE OF )ON BEFORE ME,PERSONALLY APPEARED,WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSENAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THATHE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BYHIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALFOF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THEFOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITYOF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, ANDNOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.PRINTED NAME:
SS))COUNTY OF STATE OF WITNESS MY HAND:
)ON BEFORE ME,PERSONALLY APPEARED,WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSENAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THATHE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BYHIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALFOF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THEFOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITYOF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, ANDNOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.
MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS THEMY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MY COMMISSION NO.: COUNTY OF:
PRINTED NAME: WITNESS MY HAND: MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS THEMY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MY COMMISSION NO.: COUNTY OF:
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP OF
ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDEDOCTOBER 4, 2022, IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2022-0075257, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACERCOUNTY, PORTION OF SECTION 34 & 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNTDIABLO MERIDIAN.
SHEET OF 4OCTOBER 2024
SIERRA VISTA - ESTIASUBDIVISION No. PL21-0256
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 ZILBER LTD., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AS BENEFICIARY UNDERTHAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2023, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 2023, INDOC 2023-0050583 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE FILING OFTHIS MAP.ZILBER LTD., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY'S STATEMENT
BY:NAME: WILLIAM A. WIGCHERSTITLE: PRESIDENTTI INVESTORS OF ROSEVILLE HOLDING COMPANY LLC,A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYBY:TOWNE REALTY, INC., A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, ITS MANAGER
CITY OF ROSEVILLEPLACER COUNTY
21'21'
21'21' CL
N26°11'00"W65.03'(1)(2)(3)N89°39'56"E59.57'(1)(2)(3)N87°15'49"E 29.14'(1)(3)(33.89)(2)N87°15'49"E 125.83'(1)(3)(121.07)(2)N73°56'55"W 69.64'(1)(2)(3) N72°13'16"W
N53°39'22"W 193.94'(1)(2)(3)
N35°59'17"W111.83'(1)(2)(3)
N49°30'58"W67.92'(1)(2)(3)N29°12'09"W147.49'(1)(2)(3)
N36°36'24"W
60.42'(1)(2)(3)
N55°47'35"W223.87'(1)(2)(3)157.05'(1)(2)(3)
N84°17'15"W
N09°07'22"W
32.90'(1)(2)(3)
384.22'
N89°28'43"E 256.63'
N85°32'23"W 120.48'N00°38'36"W 175.86'N00°38'36"W 175.24' N00°38'36"W 1165.43'(1)
1146.87' 18.39'(1)(2)
N00°31'17"W16.48'N66°34'43"W 70.83'N89°21'24"E 54.95'N55°24'57"W 137.43' N46°53'52"W 49.02'N39°37'03"W106.70'N31°18'21"W88.83'
N00°38'36"W 30.84'
N28°55'43"W 59.68'N49°41'32"W 47.71'N00°38'36"W68.37'N89°21'24"E 106.69'N61°22'20"W 62.87'N37°58'45"W44.63' N00°38'36"W 52.01'N89°21'24"E 39.42'N36°25'42"W 191.11' N00°38'36"W71.89'
N55°47'35"W 10.93'
R=31' Δ=90°20'33" L=48.88'CB=N44°31'40"E CD=43.97'R=31' Δ=89°39'27" L=48.51'CB=N45°28'20"W CD=43.71' 547.94'
116.93'
602.88'
100.38'48.90'
N65°40'09"E(R)
50'
60'60'
16.08 AC.±
N89°43'22"E 434.15'SECTION LINE
N00°38'36"W 276.26'250.07'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
P.G.E. EASEMENT2019-009022150'P.U.E./P.E.
PARCEL 1
2.77 AC.±PARCEL 23.40 AC.±N00°11'16"W171.92'(1)(2)(BNDY) 23'
23,773 S.F.±PARCEL A
PARCEL 340'P.U.E./P.E.
564.81' N00°38'36"W 2642.28'(1)
CL
12.5' P.U.E./P.E.
12.5' P.U.E./P.E.
12.5' P.U.E.12.5' P.U.E./P.E.12.5' P.U.E.
R=273' Δ=23°41'15" L=112.86'CB=N12°29'13"W CD=112.06' S.W.E.WIDTH VARIESSEE SHEET 4
W.E.SEE SHEET 4
R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAPN00°38'36"W 1190.34'(1)(2)(3) 182.87'
R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP
715.27'
SECTION LINE
1052.64'(3) (1052.57')(2) N89°41'57"E 220.00'N89°41'57"E 234.18'149.29' N36°14'35"W275.76'(1)(2)(3)179.52'N89°21'24"E 1150.87'
CL
449.77'N89°41'57"E 780.77'449.71'227.13'N89°29'55"E 227.28'(3)(227.35')(2)N89°30'37"E (3) REFERENCES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:NOTES:1.THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 22.80 ACRES +/-,GROSS, CONSISTING OF 4 PARCELS.2.ALL CURVES ARE DIMENSIONED WITH RADIUS, DELTA, ARCLENGTH, CHORD BEARING AND CHORD LENGTH. CHORDLENGTHS MAY CONTAIN SOME ROUNDING ERROR. DISTANCESSHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF ANDARE "GROUND" DISTANCES.3.A PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ENGEO INC.DATED MAY 26, 2021; PROJECT NUMBER 18686.000.001 AND ONFILE WITH THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEVELOPMENT -ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FILE # 308-976.4.PURSUANT TO SECTION 66445(J) OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE,THE FOLLOWING RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS THATAFFECT THIS MAP ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON AND ARE HEREBYABANDONED:A.RIGHT OF WAY, AREA R-6 AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAINGRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 12, 2016 IN DOCUMENT NO.2016-0036246, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY.B.EASEMENT, AREA E-3 AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAINGRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 12, 2016 IN DOCUMENT NO.2016-0036248, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY.C.CITY OF ROSEVILLE EASEMENT, AREA E-2 & R-6 ASDESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDEDMAY 12, 2016 IN DOCUMENT NO. 2016-0036247, OFFICIALRECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY.5.COPPERWELD SURVEY MARKER WITH CENTER PUNCH INMONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944" PER (1) IS REPLACEDWITH MONUMENT AS SHOWN SET PER THIS MAP.6.2" BRASS DISK IN MONUMENT WELL PER (1) IS REPLACED WITHMONUMENT AS SHOWN SET PER THIS MAP.7.THIS SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS,COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED CONCURRENTLYHEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.,ORPC. SAID CC&R's PROVIDE FOR RECIPROCAL ACCESS,PARKING AND THE RIGHTS TO CONSTRUCT.
THE BEARING N00°38'36"W, AS SHOWN BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTSALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN FINALMAP ENTITLED "SIERRA VISTA - KT PROPERTIES PHASE 2 LARGE LOTSUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NUMBER PL 15-0192" FILED FOR RECORD ONOCTOBER 1, 2020 IN BOOK FF OF MAPS, AT PAGE 18, PLACER COUNTYRECORDS. DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES.
FF MAPS 18(1)
LEGENDFOUND 5/8" REBAR WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS 7944"(1) DIMENSION POINT NOTHING FOUND OR SETCHORD BEARINGCBCHORD DISTANCECDOVERALL(OA)PUBLIC EASEMENTP.E. 2 BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP OF
ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDEDOCTOBER 4, 2022, IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2022-0075257, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACERCOUNTY, PORTION OF SECTION 34 & 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNTDIABLO MERIDIAN.
SHEET OF 4OCTOBER 2024
SIERRA VISTA - ESTIASUBDIVISION No. PL21-0256
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 RADIAL(R)SQUARE FEETS.F.TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPT.P.M.
SET COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTERPUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 6866"AC.
FOUND COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTERPUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944"(1) 100200500
SCALE: 1"=100'
BASELINE ROAD(A0020)
CL
2022-0075257(2)
SET 5/8"DIA. x 18"LENGTH REBAR WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS 6866" N66°12'56"W 111.62'(1)(2)(3)
SEE DETAIL "3A"ON SHEET 3SEE DETAIL "3C"ON SHEET 3
SEE DETAIL "3E"ON SHEET 3
P.G.E. EASEMENT2019-0090221P.G.E. EASEMENT2018-0008016
SET 2" BRASS DISC ON COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITHCENTER PUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED AS SHOWN(1) SEE DETAIL "3D"ON SHEET 3SEE DETAIL "3F"ON SHEET 3SEE DETAIL "3G"ON SHEET 3 RIGHT OF WAYR.O.W.IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATIONI.O.D.
PARCEL#T.P.M.PLAN #1KT-40A2KT-40B3KT-40CDENOTES RECORD INFORMATION( ) SEE DETAIL "3B"ON SHEET 3
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT P.U.E.DRAINAGE EASEMENTD.E.
WATERLINE EASEMENTW.E.
LILY BEAN WAY
WATERLEAF WAY(R.O.W. DEDICATED PER THIS MAP)
DIAMETERD.I.A.
22 R.S. 135(3)
ACRECENTER LINE
SEWER AND WATER EASEMENTS.W.E.
N89°41'57"E598.52'(1)N89°43'22"E374.41'(1)
SET 2" BRASS DISK IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED AS SHOWN HEREON SEE NOTE 5 SEE NOTE 5T11NR5E34356686SL2025
SANTUCCIBOULEVARDSEE NOTE 6
3 BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP OF
ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDEDOCTOBER 4, 2022, IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2022-0075257, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACERCOUNTY, PORTION OF SECTION 34 & 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNTDIABLO MERIDIAN.
SHEET OF 4OCTOBER 2024
SIERRA VISTA - ESTIASUBDIVISION No. PL21-0256
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 N88°44'40"E 64.79'
N53°45'25"E8.17'
N00°38'36"W71.89'N18°29'17"W7.97'
N36°14'35"W 275.76'(1)(2)(3)N36°25'42"W191.11' N00°38'36"W715.27' N00°38'36"W 1165.43'(1)(OA)N00°38'36"W182.87'
1146.87'19.06'19.06'9.90' 9.90'N00°38'36"W175.24'N00°38'36"W175.86'21'21' DETAIL "3A"N.T.S. DETAIL "3B"N.T.S.
N89°43'22"E434.15'N88°44'40"E 64.80'26.19'103.94'SECTION LINE602.88'677.05' 60'
60'
DETAIL "3E"N.T.S.
449.71'
PARCEL 3
N89°41'57"E51.89'
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 1
96.24'179.52' PARCEL 1PARCEL 3
(A0020)PARCEL 2PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
27.67'
2.32'SECTION LINE
SECTION LINE
SECTION LINE
50.00'
24.90'25.10'
P.G.E. EASEMENT2018-0008016N00°38'36"W 1165.43'(1)
N00°11'16"W 171.92'(1)(2)48.90'22.63'28.46'CL
CL
CL SECTION LINE
P.G.E. EASEMENT2019-0090221
50'P.U.E./P.E.
100.38'
60'
19'
50'N88°28'19"E 51.25'
227.13N89°41'57"E598.52'(1)
N89°30'37"E1052.64'(3)(OA)(1052.57)(2)N89°29'55"E227.28'(3)(227.35)(2) 824.95
449.71227.13
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
N89°43'22"E 434.15'N89°43'22"E374.41'(1)DETAIL "3D"N.T.S.
DETAIL "3G"N.T.S.DETAIL "3F"N.T.S.
N10°40'00"EN11°57'12"W547.94'564.81'PARCEL 2 1146.87'LILY BEAN WAY
WATERLEAF WAYBASELINE ROAD
LILY BEAN WAY
SEE SHEET 2 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, NOTES & REFERENCES N00°38'36"W 1190.34'(1)(2)(3)
19'
23'
N89°21'24"E 1150.87'(OA)
DETAIL "3C"N.T.S.12.5'P.U.E./P.E.
12.5'P.U.E./P.E.
(R.O.W. DEDICATED PER THIS MAP)
N89°30'37"E 1052.64'(3)(1052.57)(2)
N89°29'55"E 227.28'(3)(227.35)(2)N00°38'36"W 2642.28'(OA)N89°30'37"E 1052.64'(2)(1052.57)(2) N00°38'36"W 1190.34'(1)(2)(3)
R=31.00'Δ=89°38'02"L=48.50'CB=N45°27'37"WCD=43.70'
149.29'(OA)
(R.O.W. DEDICATED PER THIS MAP)
BASELINEROADBASELINEROAD
(R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP)
(R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP)
(R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP)
(R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP)
250.07'
N89°41'57"E 780.77'(OA)N89°41'57"E 780.77'(OA)
(A0020)
(A0020)
N89°41'57"E 780.77'(OA)
N00°38'36"W 276.26'564.81'N89°21'24"E 4.00'
449.77'
250.07'
N89°21'24"E 1150.87'(OA)
N00°38'36"W 276.26'
PARCEL 1
N00°38'36"W 427.43'N00°38'36"W 372.23'
N89°21'24"E 121.38'
N00°38'36"W 143.50'
33'S.W.E.
124.99'
15.00'3.51'
N89°21'24"E 48.00'PARCEL 2PARCEL 3
PARCEL A
N89°21'24"E 106.38'
30.5'S.W.E.
N00°38'36"W78.04'
N00°38'36"W 19.96'N89°21'24"E 7.50'N00°38'36"W 15.00'N89°21'24"E 7.50'
BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP OF
ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDEDOCTOBER 4, 2022, IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2022-0075257, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACERCOUNTY, PORTION OF SECTION 34 & 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNTDIABLO MERIDIAN.
SHEET OF 4OCTOBER 2024
SIERRA VISTA - ESTIASUBDIVISION No. PL21-0256
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 60120 300
SCALE: 1"=60'N16°50'41"E 26.69'
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 1
PARCEL A
PARCEL A
N73°09'19"W 18.00'N00°38'36"W 19.83'
N89°21'24"E 20.68'
N89°32'26"W 15.00'N89°21'24"E11.89'N44°21'24"E 19.32'
N44°21'24"E6.11'
N00°38'36"W 5.12'7.89'11.43'9.35'10.48'
17.23'
9.46'15.09'
17.16'
N52°27'28"E 8.31'N07°27'28"E13.60'N41°35'14"W13.57'
N00°38'36"W 56.30'N38°19'59"E20.15'15.37'22.86'8.36'11.79'N00°38'36"W 38.23'
6.84'6.76'
N89°21'24"E19.08'N89°21'24"E19.00'N00°38'36"W15.00'
N00°38'36"W372.23'(OA)N00°38'36"W 427.43'(OA)
N89°21'24"E 11.61'
N05°39'19"W2.83'
DETAIL "4A"N.T.S.
DETAIL "4B"N.T.S.
SEE DETAIL "4A"ON THIS SHEET
SEE DETAIL "4B"ON THIS SHEET
4 18'W.E.
N87°15'49"E 29.14'(1)(2)(3)(OA)15.02'6.63'18.84'N89°39'56"E 59.57'(1)(2)(3)(OA)12.48' 7.49'N05°39'19"W9.06'
34.90'
26.50'
N29°12'09"W 147.49'(1)(2)(3)(OA)
N35°59'17"W 111.83'(1)(2)(3)(OA)
2.91'22.99'
82.42'
89.60'
LILY BEAN WAY
WATERLEAF WAY(R.O.W. DEDICATED PER THIS MAP)
28.25'
N16°50'41"E 32.25'
33' S.W.E.
15'W.E.
R.O.W. DEDICATEDPER THIS MAP
VICINITY MAP
SITE
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3629
File #:0102-10
Title:
Resolution - Lisa Hogan
Contact:
Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.21.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Lisa Hogan for her 22 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate her on her many accomplishments, and wish her a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.
BACKGROUND
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Ceremonial documents meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.
Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution - Lisa Hogan
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3623
File #:
0102-10
Title:
Resolution - Stephanie Taylor
Contact:
Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.22.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Stephanie Taylor for her 18 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate her on her many accomplishments, and wish her a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.
BACKGROUND
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Ceremonial documents meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.
Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution - Stephanie Taylor
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3625
File #:
0102-10
Title:
Resolution - Natasha Martin
Contact:
Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 7.23.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Natasha Martin for her 13 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate her on her many accomplishments, and wish her a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.
BACKGROUND
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Ceremonial documents meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.
Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution - Natasha Martin
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3600
File #:
0102
Title:
Council Discretionary Funds - Kaseberg Elementary
Contact:
Heather Blanco 916-746-1171 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 8.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend that the City Council consider a donation in any amount from Council Discretionary Funds for Kaseberg Elementary School to celebrate and honor the huge accomplishment of achieving the 2024 National Blue Ribbon award which, in the over 40-year history of this award, only four schools in Placer County have earned this distinction. Kaseberg Elementary will honor this momentous occasion on November 22, 2024, with a celebratory event.
BACKGROUND
Kaseberg Elementary School is requesting a donation but did not specify an amount to help with expenses of an event to celebrate being recognized with the Blue Ribbon award. Kaseberg has never requested or received Council Discretionary Funds before. They received $1,500 from their Parent Teacher Club to go towards decorations and a special recognition mural. In addition, the Kaseberg Leadership team is reaching out to outside organizations for support and donations for the event.
The Citizens’ Benefit Fund was established in 1993 with the net proceeds from the sale of the Roseville Hospital. The City Council may, after receiving the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, annually appropriate up to 90 percent of the annual earnings of the Citizens’ Benefit Fund for the purpose of improving the quality of life for the citizens of the City of Roseville. The City Council, without the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, may annually appropriate a minor amount up to $15,000 of the annual earnings for the purpose of improving the quality of life in Roseville.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund. Annually, the Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer allocates $15,000 of the annual earnings on the Citizens’ Benefit Fund per section 4.06.040 in the Municipal Code and includes it in the annual budget along with the Citizens’ Benefit Fund resources available for appropriation each year. These earnings are restricted for the purpose of improving the quality of life for Roseville residents and appropriated by the City Council. The balance remaining in the Council’s Discretionary Funds for FY2024-25 is $14,821.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The award of funds meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Heather Blanco, Executive Assistant
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Kaseberg
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3608
File #:
0102-16
Title:
Council Discretionary Funds - Roseville Joint Union High School District Contact:
Heather Blanco 916-746-1171 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 8.2.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend City Council consider a request for $3,000 from Council Discretionary Funds for Roseville Joint Union High School District (RJUHSD) for the Local Scholarship Program. The district would use the funds to award $1,000 each to three Class of 2025 students in May of 2025.
The scholarship will be open to seniors in the RJUHSD who will be continuing their education at a 2- or 4-year college or trade school and either completed a Career Technical Education (CTE) pathway at their high school and/or worked as a city employee or intern.
BACKGROUND
Last year, RJUHSD was awarded $3,000 from the discretionary fund to maintain this Local Scholarship Program. There were nearly 100 seniors that applied for this scholarship, and three students were awarded $1,000 scholarships to go towards their higher education.
The Citizens’ Benefit Fund was established in 1993 with the net proceeds from the sale of the Roseville Hospital. The City Council may, after receiving the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, annually appropriate up to 90 percent of the annual earnings of the Citizens’ Benefit Fund for the purpose of improving the quality of life for the citizens of the City of Roseville. The City Council, without the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, may annually appropriate a minor amount up to $15,000 of the annual earnings for the purpose of improving the quality of life in Roseville.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund. Annually, the Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer allocates $15,000 of the annual earnings on the Citizens’ Benefit Fund per section 4.06.040 in the Municipal Code and includes it in the annual budget along with the Citizens’ Benefit Fund resources available for appropriation each year. These earnings are restricted for the purpose of improving the quality of life for Roseville residents and appropriated by the City Council. The balance remaining in the Council’s Discretionary Funds for FY2024-25 is $14,821.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The award of funds meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Heather Blanco, Executive Assistant
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
RJUHSD Local Scholarship Program
October 2, 2024
Dear Roseville City Council,
I am writing to you today on behalf of the Roseville Joint Union High School District (RJUHSD) Local Scholarship Program committee and respectfully request an investment from the Roseville City Council discretionary funds to help fund student scholarships. The district is a non-profit government entity.
Last year, Roseville City Council voted to award our district $3,000 from the discretionary fund to maintain this scholarship. We had nearly 100 seniors apply and we awarded 3 of them with a $1,000 scholarship. These applicants all completed a Career Technical Education (CTE) pathway at their high school and/or worked as a city employee or intern.
The Roseville Joint Union High School District is requesting $3,000 from the Roseville City Council discretionary funds to continue the scholarship this academic year (2024-2025). This scholarship would be open to seniors in the Roseville Joint Union High School district who will be continuing their education at a 2 or 4 year college or trade school and either completed a CTE pathway in high school and/or worked as a city employee or intern.
The district would use the funds in the following manner:
Date Awarded Class # of winners Amount awarded
to each winner
Total amount
awarded
May 2025 2025 3 $1,000 $3,000
The RJUHSD Local Scholarship Program offers various scholarships to all seniors in our district. The scholarships available are from local families, businesses, organizations, and clubs.
The class of 2024 was awarded $287,200 from our program through the generosity of our community. Approximately 83% of RJUHSD seniors attend either a 2 or 4 year college after high school and we strive to help alleviate the cost of attendance. The average student debt for a California college student at the time of graduation is $37,810 (source: Education Data Initiative).
This program has grown immensely since 2016 (when scholarship awards totaled $160,850).
The district has worked with the Roseville Chamber of Commerce to send out an e-blast to their 4,000 members in hopes of attaining new scholarships from the City of Roseville businesses.
Additionally, we regularly reach out to our community in efforts to promote and grow the program.
Thank you greatly for your consideration and all the hard work the council provides to make the city of Roseville the best place to live. If you grant us these funds, we pledge to award well- deserving high school seniors a scholarship that will help alleviate some financial burden.
This is a great opportunity to invest in our future workers.
Respectfully,
RJUHSD Local Scholarship Program Coordinator,
Communications & Marketing
[email protected]
(916) 771-6565 x4050
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3599
File #:
0709
Title:
2024 Prohousing Incentive Pilot Program - Application for Funding Contact:
Sara Thornton-Garcia 916-774-5295 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 9.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the necessary application, standard agreement and relevant documents for the third round of Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) grant funding from the State of California Housing and Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND
The Prohousing Designation Program was established by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) in 2019 to help meet California’s housing goals.
The Prohousing Designation is given to cities that have sufficiently removed barriers to housing.
The designation makes affordable housing projects more competitive for state and federal funding and could help accelerate the timeline for future projects. The Prohousing Incentive Pilot Program (PIP) complements the Prohousing Designation Program and is designed to encourage cities and counties to obtain the Prohousing Designation. The program is funded through Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2, Atkins), which established the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund.
The PIP Program awards funds based on jurisdiction size and Prohousing Designation Program score. Eligible activities include predevelopment, development acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of multifamily rental housing for low income households.
In August of 2024, HCD released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $8 million in funds for jurisdictions that received a Prohousing Designation. To support continued development opportunity in Roseville, the Housing Division requests to apply for the third round of PIP funding. Based on HCD’s formula the City is eligible to apply for a maximum of $1,210,000.
Should the City receive an award, the Housing Division will release a NOFA requesting applications specifically to address preservation of affordable housing projects.
Staff requests Council authorization to complete and submit an application for PIP funds (Attachment 1 - Draft PIP application). Application materials must be submitted no later than December 31, 2024. If the City is successful, staff will bring forward the necessary loan and regulatory agreement documents required for development of the projects for Council review and consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
PIP funding is provided as a reimbursable state grant to the City. These grants are used to offset potential costs to the General Fund, while serving the low-income community and supporting the development of affordable housing. The recommended action does not impact the City's General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The funding application meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal- Ensure a safe and Healthy Community
Respectfully Submitted,
Sara Thornton-Garcia, Housing Analyst
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-361
PIP application for funding
RESOLUTION NO. 23-361
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR, AND RECEIPT OF,
PROHOUSING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Prohousing Designation Program was established by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) in 2019 to help meet California’s housing goals and is given to cities that have sufficiently removed barriers to housing; and
WHEREAS, the Prohousing Incentive Pilot Program (PIP) complements the Prohousing Designation Program and is designed to encourage cities and counties to obtain the Prohousing Designation; and
WHEREAS, in August of 2024, HCD released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $8 million in funds for jurisdictions that received a Prohousing Designation; and
WHEREAS, based on HCD’s formula the City is eligible to apply for a maximum of $1,210,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville (“Applicant”) resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application to the Department in response to the NOFA, and to apply for the PIP grant funds in a total amount not to exceed $1,210,000; and
SECTION 2. In connection with the PIP grant, if the Application is approved by the Department, the City Manager of the City of Roseville is authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver on behalf of the Applicant, a State of California Agreement (Standard Agreement) for the amount of $1,210,000, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence and secure the PIP grant, the Applicant’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto; and
SECTION 3. The Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Guidelines, and the Standard Agreement provided by the Department after approval. The Application and any and all accompanying documents are incorporated in full as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the Application will be enforceable through the fully executed Standard Agreement. Pursuant to the Guidelines and in conjunction with the terms of the Standard Agreement, the Applicant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible uses and allowable expenditures in the manner presented and specifically identified in the approved Application.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20 , by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
Prohousing Incentive Program
(PIP)
2024 Application for Local Governments
State of California
Governor, Gavin Newsom
Tomiquia Moss, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
Final Filing Date: December 31, 2024
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811
Website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/prohousing- incentive-program
Email: [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
Demonstration of meeting threshold criteria shall be determined by the Department in its sole and absolute discretion. No documentation of meeting threshold requirements is required in the application unless requested by the Department.
Housing Element Annual Progress Report submittal pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 for the current or prior year, as applicable.
Prohousing Designation: An awarded or completed Prohousing Designation Application with an authorizing resolution must be submitted prior to or in conjunction with the Applicant’s PIP Application. PIP Awards cannot be made until a Prohousing Designation is awarded.
A complete application as determined by the Department.
An authorizing resolution authorizing submittal of the application to the Program that materially comports with the Program’s requirements and is legally sufficient as determined in the Department’s reasonable discretion, including an authorized representative. See Attachment B of the PIP Guidelines for required resolution format.
Compliance with state and federal housing laws as determined by the sole discretion of HCD.
Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) Application Instructions The applicant is applying to the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) for a grant authorized under the provisions pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50470(2)(C)(i). PIP is designed to encourage cities and counties to achieve Prohousing Designation. Please refer to the PIP Guidelines and August 2024 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for detailed information on eligible uses and awards. If you have questions regarding this application or the PIP Program, email [email protected].
If approved for funding, the PIP application is incorporated as part of your Standard Agreement with the Department. To be considered for funding, all sections of this application, including attachments if required, must be complete and accurate.
In order to be considered for funding, all applicants must submit a complete, signed application to [email protected] by December 31, 2024. Pursuant to Section 202 of the PIP Guidelines, all applicants must meet the following threshold requirements to be eligible for funding:
An adopted housing element in substantial compliance, as determined by the Department, pursuant to Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) in accordance with Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h).
Threshold Requirements
Applicant
Applicant Agency Type
Mailing Address
City Zip Code
County
Website
TIN
Authorized Representative Name
Authorized Representative Title
Phone Fax
Email
Contact Person Name
Contact Person Title
Phone Fax
Email
Signature Date
Name Title
Placer
www.roseville.ca.us
Dominick Casey City Manager
As the official designated by the governing body (authorized representative above and in resolution), I hereby certify that, if approved by HCD for funding through PIP, the applicant assumes the responsibilities specified in the NOFA and certifies that the information, statements, and other contents contained in this application are true and correct. (916) 746-1295
Housing Analyst
(916) 774-5295
[email protected]
94-6000409
Applicant Information
City of Roseville
Local Government
311 Vernon St.
Roseville 95678
Dominick Casey
City Manager
(916) 774-5288
[email protected]
Sara Thornton-Garcia
(916) 786-9175
Jurisdiction Name Eligible Base Award
Geographic Category Bonus Award Amount:
Prohousing Designation Application
Score Total Award46 1,210,000 $
Award Amount
Roseville 750,000$
Sacramento Area
Click the dropdown menu to choose a jurisdiction. The geographic category and base award will auto-populate. If the jurisdiction has obtained Prohousing Designation at the time of PIP application submittal, enter in the Prohousing Designation applicant score. Population projections are based on the Department of Finance E-1 January 1, 2024 estimates. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/ 460,000$
X
Eligible Applicants must use award funds towards any planning or implementation activities related to housing and community development including, but not limited to, any eligible uses pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50470(b)(2)(D), as described below. Please indicate which of the following the applicant will use award funds toward:
Eligible Uses
Objective
(v) Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014. (vi) Assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. (i) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. (ii) Affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of area median income, or 150 percent of area median income in high-cost areas. (iii) Matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds. (vii) Accessibility modifications.
(viii) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes. (ix) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, downpayment assistance. (x) Fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households. (iv) Matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code.
Responsible Party
Summary of Proposed Activities
Preservation
NotesEligible Use Category
(i)
End
30-Jun-26
Subtask- NOFA
release 30-Jun-26
City
City
Est. Cost
1,149,500
60,500
Begin
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-25
Statement of Work Plan
Acquisition and rehabilitation for the preservation of
affordable housing
Release NOFA to eligible developers to encourage the
acquisition and rehabilitation of property to preserve
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3603
File #:
0709-05 & 0214 & 0201-01
Title:
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Services - Grant Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Contact:
Trisha Isom 916-746-1239 [email protected]
Melissa Anguiano 916-774-5284 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 10.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1 .
Adopt a resolution to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement between the City of Roseville and Volunteers of America (VOA) in the amount of $150,000 for continued Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing services, and 2 .
Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment to increase the Grants expenditure budget in the Federal Stimulus Reserve – American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fund by $150,000 for the VOA grant agreement for continued Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing services.
BACKGROUND
The goals of Roseville’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing (HPRR) grant program are to provide temporary assistance to prevent an individual or family from losing permanent housing and to provide temporary assistance to homeless individuals and families in obtaining permanent housing. The HPRR program has become a valuable source of funds for non-profits that assist our most vulnerable populations.
In February 2024, Volunteers of America (VOA) submitted a grant request in the amount of $150,000 through the HPRR grant program to manage five emergency shelter units for homeless families at VOA’s Home Start facility. As with most grant programs, funds are oversubscribed, and the Housing Division was only able to recommend half of VOA’s grant request. In May 2024, City Council approved the FY24/25 HPRR funding allocations which included a grant to VOA in the amount of $75,000.
VOA’s Home Start facility is the only location in Roseville that offers permanent shelter for families. Home Start offers families access to their own furnished apartment unit which provides a stabilizing environment for both children and parents. Having a stable shelter setting allows VOA staff to work with these families from the shelter to facilitate family stabilization. VOA staff also provides case management for the families residing in the units, conducts Ready-to-Rent classes and assists in locating and securing stable income and appropriate permanent housing. The City of Roseville understands the value of these five shelter units and the case management that VOA provides.
Based on a partial HPRR grant award, funding to operate both shelter and case management for the five emergency units will be expended by December 24, 2024. Understanding the value these five shelter units and case management provide, staff is recommending Council approve an agreement and budget adjustment to grant $150,000 from the Federal Stimulus Reserve – American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fund to support VOA’s extension of these emergency units through December 31, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the proposed initiative will come from the City's allocation of ARPA funding in the Federal Stimulus Reserve - ARPA Fund. This program significantly reduces instances and durations of homelessness in Roseville and indirectly reduces costs associated with addressing homelessness to the City and community as a whole. ARPA funds must be spent by December 31, 2026. The recommended action does not result in any costs to the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of the ARPA grant agreement does not include the potential for a significant environmental effect, and therefore are not subject to CEQA.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Trisha Isom, Housing Manager
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-364
ARPA Grant Agreement
Ordinance 6883
RESOLUTION NO. 24-364
APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID
REHOUSING SERVICES, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a Grant Agreement for Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Services, by and between the City of Roseville and Volunteers of America Northern California and Northern Nevada, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Grant Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX; 9/24/2024]
GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS GRANT AGREEMENT (“Grant Agreement”), is made and effective this day of , 20 , by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Volunteers of America Northern California and Northern Nevada, Inc., a California non-profit corporation (“GRANTEE”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, CITY administers grants payable from the various funds pursuant to the Roseville Municipal Code, City Council direction, and applicable funding cycle materials; WHEREAS, City Council granted a portion of CITY’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the Grants Advisory Commission (GAC) for distribution to the Roseville community over the next three fiscal years, with a portion of those funds to be disturbed through an expedited special grant cycle for the first of those three years, and GRANTEE has applied for an ARPA GAC grant; and
WHEREAS, the grant application is attached as Exhibit “A” to this Agreement and is incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered the advice of its Grants Advisory Commission relative to the awarding of this grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Grant. CITY hereby authorizes a grant to GRANTEE in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). The grant will be disbursed in one lump sum on or
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 2 after October 17, 2024, for shelter operations for the period of July 1, 2024 and December 31, 2026.
2. Terms of Agreement Prevail. GRANTEE shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the Grant Application, applicable Funding Guidelines and grant cycle materials, and this Grant Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy between the terms of this Grant Agreement and those of the Grant Application, the terms of this Grant Agreement shall prevail.
3. Funds to be Expended During Current Fiscal Year. All funds received by GRANTEE under this Agreement shall be spent prior to December 31, 2026. All funds not spent within this time period shall be returned to CITY within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of said time period.
No other fund of CITY, including without limitation its general fund, shall be liable for any payment or liability under this Grant Agreement, nor is the taxing power of CITY pledged in any manner.
4. Grantee as Independent Entity. GRANTEE and the agents, volunteers, or employees of GRANTEE in performance of this Grant Agreement shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of CITY.
5. City’s Right to Terminate. CITY may terminate this Grant Agreement at any time and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to the GRANTEE should GRANTEE fail to perform the covenants herein contained in the manner herein provided.
6. No Assignment. This Grant Agreement is not assignable by GRANTEE either in whole or part.
7. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Grant Agreement.
8. All Terms to be in Writing. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Grant
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 3 Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either of the parties hereto.
9. Yearend Grant Report. GRANTEE shall complete and provide to CITY the required yearend report for the grant and corresponding activity being funded. The report shall be submitted by January 31, 2027. Failure to submit the report shall disqualify consideration of GRANTEE for the funding cycle application immediately following the required submittal date of the report.
10. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. GRANTEE agrees to establish and maintain fiscal controls and accounting procedures in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as required by the Finance Director of CITY.
GRANTEE agrees to keep records and fully disclose the amount, date, purpose, payee and disposition of the proceeds of the grant; the total cost of the program for which the grant is awarded; and the amount and disposition of that portion of the total cost provided by other sources. The procedure developed by GRANTEE must provide for accurate and timely recordation of the receipt of funds, expenditures, and unexpended balances.
11. Allowability of Expenditures. GRANTEE shall accurately document each transaction to permit the determination, through an audit if requested by CITY, of the accuracy of the records and the allowability of expenditures charged to grant funds. If the allowability of an expenditure cannot be determined because records or documentation are inadequate, the questionable expenditure shall be disallowed. In such case, GRANTEE shall reimburse CITY the amount of any disallowed expenditure. Determination by CITY of the allowability of any expenditure shall be final except in instances of fraud, mistake, or arbitrariness.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 4 12. Maintenance of Records. GRANTEE agrees to maintain fiscal records, including invoices and receipts for a period of three (3) years after termination or expiration of this Grant Agreement and to permit CITY to inspect those records.
13. Audit. CITY may at any time require an audit of GRANTEE's financial and program records.
14. Unlawful Discrimination Prohibited. During the performance of this Grant Agreement, GRANTEE shall not deny this Grant Agreement's benefits to any person on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital status, political affiliation, military status, veteran status, family care leave status, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or any other legally protected status (collectively “protected status”) nor discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of any legally protected status or basis. GRANTEE shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of all employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.
15. Fair Employment. GRANTEE shall comply with the provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12900, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (2 CCR § 10000, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (§ 11135-11139.5) and the regulations or standards adopted by the State to implement such article.
GRANTEE shall give advice of its obligation under this Grant Agreement to labor organizations or contractors with which it has a collective bargaining or other agreements.
GRANTEE shall include nondiscrimination compliance provisions similar to those of the Grant Agreement in all subcontracts to perform work under this Grant Agreement.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 5 16. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth, or on account of, fiscal or other injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of GRANTEE's willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Grant Agreement, except those matters arising from CITY’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed. GRANTEE’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Grant Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.
The defense and indemnity obligations of this Grant Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Grant Agreement.
The duty of GRANTEE to defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless includes the duties to defend as set forth in Civil Code § 2778.
GRANTEE agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that GRANTEE and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY.
GRANTEE waives any and all rights to any types of expressed or implied indemnity against CITY, its officers and employees. GRANTEE warrants that it is fully aware of and expressly waives the protection of Civil Code § 1542.
17. Insurance. If the activity funded by this Grant Agreement includes construction/rehabilitation work, during the term of this Agreement, GRANTEE and/or its
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 6 contractors and/or construction agents shall maintain in full force and effect the following policies of insurance:
COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Workers Compensation Statutory
Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 per occurrence $3,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury:
$2,000,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
a. Form. GRANTEE shall, if requested, submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Grant Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney.
b. Additional Insureds. GRANTEE shall also provide a separate endorsement form or section of the policy showing CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage, except for Workers’ Compensation. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of GRANTEE. The additional insured coverage under the GRANTEE’s policy shall be primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from CITY’s insurance or self-insurance. In addition, the additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) CG 20 01 Endorsement. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 7 be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Grant Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater.
c. Cancellation/Modification. GRANTEE shall provide ten (10) days written notice to CITY prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Grant Agreement.
d. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Grant Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract) before CITY’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. e. Subcontractors. GRANTEE agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Grant Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Furthermore, GRANTEE shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to GRANTEE and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as GRANTEE is bound to CITY under this Grant Agreement. Additionally, GRANTEE shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier.
A copy of CITY’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.
f. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 8 satisfied by either the named insured or CITY. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
g. Waiver of Subrogation. GRANTEE hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of GRANTEE may acquire from GRANTEE by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all worked performed by GRANTEE, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
h. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve GRANTEE of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Grant Agreement or law.
18. Termination by CITY. CITY may terminate this Grant Agreement in whole or part upon ten (10) calendar days’ prior written notice to GRANTEE for any of the following reasons:
a. GRANTEE fails to proceed for whatever reason with the program or project in the manner set forth in this Grant Agreement. b. CITY deems this Grant Agreement is not satisfactorily being performed. c. If any portion of this Grant Agreement is assigned without prior written approval of CITY.
d. CITY determines that termination is in the public’s best interest.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 9 19. No Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of this Grant Agreement by CITY shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.
20. Attorney Fees; Venue; Governing Law. In any action arising out of this Grant Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
21. Prevailing Wages. If the activity funded by this Grant Agreement includes construction/rehabilitation, GRANTEE and its agents, contractors and subcontractors shall comply with all applicable prevailing wage laws, including determinations and orders of the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, for work performed under this Grant Agreement. Upon request by CITY, GRANTEE shall provide CITY with certified copies of payroll records and any other information deemed relevant by CITY. In accordance with Section 1775 of the California Labor Code, GRANTEE shall forfeit as a penalty to CITY Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each calendar day or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing wage rates for such work or craft in which such worker is employed for any work done under this Grant Agreement by GRANTEE or by any agent, contractor or subcontractor working under GRANTEE in violation of any of the provisions of the California Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780. Moreover, CITY shall have the right to withhold payment of grant monies in such amounts as directed by the Department of Industrial Relations or Labor Commissioner. Furthermore, at the option of CITY, GRANTEE shall forfeit all grant monies under this Grant Agreement and shall immediately reimburse CITY for all grant monies received by GRANTEE under this Grant Agreement.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 10 22. Registration. If the activity funded by this Grant Agreement includes construction/rehabilitation, GRANTEE shall only use contractors and subcontractors registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code § 1725.5. During the performance of this Grant Agreement, contractors and subcontractors shall have a continuing legal obligation to maintain current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations. GRANTEE is hereby notified that this project may be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
23. Compliance with Laws. GRANTEE shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and policies as may be applicable to this Grant Agreement.
24. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Grant Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.
25. Integrated Agreement. This is an integrated agreement and contains all of the terms, considerations, understanding and promises of the parties. It shall be read as a whole.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Grant Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. ______, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ___ day of ____________, 20__, and GRANTEE has caused this Grant Agreement to be executed.
(SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX;9/24/2024] 11 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN
municipal corporation CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN
NEVADA, INC., a California non-profit
corporation
BY: ___________________________ BY:______________________________
DOMINICK CASEY
City Manager its:_______________________________
and
ATTEST:
BY:______________________________
BY: ______________________________ its:_______________________________
CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: _____________________________
MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:
BY: ________________________
MELISSA ANGUIANO
Economic Development Director
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Executive Officer
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D011\P005\00089446.DOCX; 9/24/2024]
EXHIBIT “A”
Volunteers of America – Northern California and Northern Nevada 3434 Marconi Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821
916-265-3400 (phone)/916-442-1861 (fax)
voa-ncnn.org
September 9, 2024
Trisha Isom
Housing Manager/Executive Director
Housing Division/Roseville Housing Authority
City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street, #150
Roseville, CA 95678
Dear Trisha:
Thank you for the opportunity for providing details regarding the Home Start Funding gap. VOA has designated five housing units on the Home Start Permanent Housing Site to utilize as shelter beds for families.
VOA recognizes the gap in the homeless continuum of care for families. Home Start is unique because it is the only permanent shelter location for families in Roseville. Families have access to their own furnished apartment unit which provides a stabilizing environment for the children and parents. Having a stable shelter setting allows VOA staff to work with these families from the shelter to locate permanent housing and facilitate family stabilization. VOA works with heads of households in meeting housing eligibility requirements, conducts Ready-to-Rent classes and assists in locating and securing stable income and appropriate permanent housing. VOA currently provides a live-in staff who provides emergency response and is available for immediate needs. VOA’s supportive services include case management/ housing assistance and placement /referral/advocacy, connections to mental health counseling, child care, financial literacy and practical life skills education, including nutrition and cooking classes, employment assistance, food, and transportation.
To provide these ongoing shelter services, VOA is requesting $150,000 for shelter operations for the period of 7/1/2024-12/31/2026.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions. I can be reached by phone at 916-265-3972 or by email at [email protected].
Very truly,
Christie Holderegger
President/Chief Executive Officer
ORDINANCE NO. 6883
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment to the Federal Stimulus Reserve - American Rescue Plan Act fund for a grant agreement with Volunteers of America.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 8/29/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE:
PREPARER NAME & TITLE:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
FISCAL YEAR:
ORDINANCE:
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2280 5570 54101
150,000 Increase Federal Stimulus Reserve ARPA Grants for Homeless Prevention & Rapid Rehousing
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 150,000
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2280
4401
54101
150,000 Increase Federal Stimulus Reserve ARPA Federal Grants revenue for Homeless Prevention & Rapid Rehousing
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 150,000
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
Staff recommends this budget adjustment to increase the Grants expenditure and revenue budget in the Federal Stimulus Reserve – ARPA fund by $150,000 for the Veterans of America grant agreement for continued Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing services. This budget adjustment will increase the existing Grants budget of $356,000 to $506,000. Funding for this grant will come from the City's allocation of American Rescue Plan Act funding in the Federal Stimulus Reserve Fund.
2024-25 Claudia Carreno Management Analyst
Claudia Carreno Management Analyst
ED Housing
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3624
File #:
0215-07
Title:
West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel F-22 at 1130 Harvey Way - Fee Deferral Contact:
Gina McColl 916-774-5452 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 11.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a fee deferral for West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel F-22 at 1130 Harvey Way, consisting of a 265-unit multi-family residential apartment complex in the amount of $5,906,585, plus interest, until final of building permits/building occupancies.
BACKGROUND
This staff report shall serve as the economic development subsidy report pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083. The City of Roseville offers a fee deferral program through the Economic Development Department as an incentive to encourage development.
The Economic Development Department received the attached request from USA Properties Fund, Inc., developers of 1130 Harvey Way (also known as Terracina at Fiddyment Apartments or The Crawford), requesting approval of a fee deferral of certain City-controlled impact fees.
The apartment complex will be located within the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area, Parcel F- 22 at 1130 Harvey Way. As shown on the attached plans, the project includes 264 residential units within 11 building
s, a clubhouse and managers unit, two laundry and maintenance buildings with recreation amenities, and on-site parking. A total of 262 of the units will be affordable units (91 very low-income and 171 low-income units) with three on-site managers units. The project received Planning entitlement approval on June 19, 2024 (PL23-0360).
Fee estimates have been prepared for the apartment complex based on the fees for Fiscal Year 2024-
25. Only City-controlled impact fees are eligible for deferral. The fee deferral types and amounts are identified below:
Summary of Deferrable Fees
Bldg 1 -
Clubhouse
& Mgr Unit
Bldg 2-12
Bldg 13 -
Laundry &
Maint
Bldg 14 -
Laundry
Fire Service Construction Fee
$ 3,234.56
$ 11,510.18
$ 201.83
$ 162.83
Public Facilities Fee
$ 2,662.00
$ 63,888.00
Local Sewer Fee
$ 2,157.95
$ 10,968.00
$ 457.00
$ 457.00
Water Connection Fee -Domestic
$ 4,926.00
$ 118,224.00
Water Connection Fee -Irrigation (2")
Drainage Mitigation Fees
$ 528.01
$ 12,672.24
Traffic Mitigation Fee
$ 3,935.20
$ 94,444.70
Transit Services Fee
$ 57.39
$ 1,377.29
Citywide Parks Fee
$ 3,097.00
$ 74,328.00
Neighborhood Parks Fee
$ 2,719.00
$ 65,256.00
Bike Trail Fee
$ 702.00
$ 16,848.00
Public Benefit Fee
$ 845.00
$ 20,280.00
General Fund Contribution
$ 700.00
$ 16,800.00
Air Quality Mitigation
$ 134.10
$ 3,218.40
Solid Waste Fee
$ 2,037.22
$ 3,336.00
$ 422.28
$ 340.68
Electric Backbone Fee Three Phase
$ 27,123.23
$ 8,910.72
$ 53,503.91
$ 53,503.91
Total Per Building
$ 54,858.67
$ 522,061.53
$ 54,585.01
$ 54,464.41
TOTALS
$ 54,858.67
$5,742,676.86
$ 54,585.01
$ 54,464.41
TOTAL FEES (Bldgs 1- 14) = $5,906,585
The list of fees eligible for deferral has been vetted by the applicable City departments and only those determined to have no impact to the budget have been included above. As shown above, the total eligible fee deferral for the project is approximately $5,906,585. The total amount of deferrable fees could change if building permits are pulled outside of FY 2024-25, however, the list of deferrable fees would not change following Council action on this item.
Pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4.04.040, all non-residential fee deferrals greater than $100,000 dollars are required to be approved by the City Council. The typical construction and inspection timeframe for apartment complexes is 12-24 months. In an effort to cover lost interest resulting from the City fee deferral there is an interest charge, equivalent to the City’s pooled interest rate, that will be paid upon building permit occupancy or the issuance of a final permit for each project. The RMC additionally identifies an administrative processing fee to be charged per building permit to cover staff's time of processing requests.
The City finds that the public purpose of this fee deferral is to promote the general welfare of the City and its residents by creating new jobs, expanding the range and diversity of its affordable housing, and assisting the City with its State-required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This fee deferral is consistent with and in furtherance of the City’s Economic Development Strategy and will serve to generate increased sales tax revenue, special taxes to fund Community Facilities Districts, and job creation during construction and beyond, though exact numbers are unknown at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
The requested deferral will not result in a loss of impact fees nor earned interest income. The development impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permit occupancy/final permit. To ensure that the City will not have any loss of interest income, the RMC requires that interest be charged on monies deferred. Specifically, the City's Finance Department identified that the City's ten- year average pooled interest rate is approximately 1.35%. Therefore, interest at a rate of 1.35% will be charged on the monies deferred to cover the City's cost of loss of interest income on the fee deferral.
Additionally, the RMC identifies an administrative processing fee of $953 to be charged to each building permit.
The City's fee deferral program is an important economic development tool that facilitates new development that may not otherwise be financially feasible without this program. As a result, this program has the potential to increase impact fees and investment that directly increase property values that may not otherwise occur if this program was not available. Construction of these housing developments will create temporary construction jobs and permanent full and/or part time jobs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15061(c)(3) and §15378.
These fee deferrals meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Gina McColl, Economic Development Analyst
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 24-379
Fee Deferral Application
Plans
RESOLUTION NO. 24-379
APPROVING FEE DEFERRALS FOR THE
WEST ROSEVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN PARCEL F-22 AT 1130 HARVEY WAY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has offered a fee deferral program through the Economic Development Department since the mid 1990’s to encourage development; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Department received a request from USA Properties Fund, Inc., requesting a fee deferral of certain City-controlled impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the fee deferral program and California Government Code Section 53083 require City Council approval, and the program requires that the deferred fees be paid prior to the earlier of one year past issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or three years past issuance of first building permit; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council for the City of Roseville held a public hearing, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083, on a fee deferral for the West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel F-22 at 1130 Harvey Way Project with USA Properties Fund, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends City Council approve the City fee deferral to development impact fees until building permit final/certificate of occupancy permit of approximately $5,906,585, plus interest, for the West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel F-22 project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville after holding a public hearing that the City fee deferral to building permit final/certificate of occupancy permit in the approximate amount of $5,906,585, plus interest, for the West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel F-22 project is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
BOVBOV
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4972-RSTANWELLC_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
VAN
NOPARKING
NO PARKINGVAN
NO PARKINGVAN
NO PARKINGVAN
NOPARKING
NOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
VAN
NOPARKING
NOPARKINGVAN
STOP
STOP
CLEAN PAY
NOPARKING
ProposedBy: TERRACINA AT FIDDYMENTUSA PROPERTIES FUND3200 Douglas Blvd, Suite 200Roseville CA 95661TSD ENGINEERING, INC.785 Orchard Drive, Suite #110Folsom, CA 95630Phone: (916) 608-0707Fax: (916) 608-0701expect more. 1130 Harvey Way, Roseville CA 957472ND SUBMITTAL FEBRUARY 9, 2024PRELIMINARY SITE PLANC2 NSEWscale: 1"=30'
BLDG 12 STORYCLUB HOUSEMANAGERS UNIT
BLDG 83 STORY24 UNITSBLDG 73 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 63 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 53 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 43 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 33 STORY24 UNITS BLDG 23 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 123 STORY24 UNITSBLDG 113 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 103 STORY24 UNITS
BLDG 93 STORY24 UNITS
FIDDYMENT ROAD
HARVEY WAY
LANDSCAPE AREAASPHALT PAVEMENTBUILDING AREA
SIDEWALKBIO RETENTION BASINCONCRETESITE LEGEND: SITE SUMMARY
BUILDING SUMMARYPARKING SUMMARYCODE
PROVIDED - PARKING SCHEDULE & SUMMARYPARKINGFACILITYCARPORTCOVEREDSURFACEUNCOVEREDSUBTOTALTOTAL STD31518
EVC (10%)123244
STD104134238
SUBTOTAL120316436TOTAL 436
PARKING SPACE TYPE
PROVIDED - BICYCLE PARKINGEXTERIOR SPACES = 24
ACCESSIBLEVAN145
EV PARKINGEVR (25%)0109109
STD02020
EV CHARGER (5%)ACS011
VAN011
BUILDING & UNIT SUMMARYCLUB HOUSE BUILDINGLAUNDRY BUILDINGLAUNDRY & MAINTENANCE BUILDINGRESIDENTIAL BUILDING - 24 UNITS TOTAL UNITSTOTAL UNITS 265
PROJECT NOTES & DETAILS:
234410922
CARPORT
PARKING SUMMARYMAXIMUM PARKING REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 365 SPACESTOTAL PROVIDED PARKING - SUMMARYTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 436 SPACESSUBTOTAL PROVIDED PARKING - CBC 11B - ACCESSIBLESUBTOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 18 5 23 SUBTOTAL EV PARKING - CBC CALGREEN - RESIDENTIAL MANDATORYELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING 4.106.4.2.2175 EV CAPABLE (EVC) PER 4.106.4.2.2.1 (10%)*44 EV READY (EVR) PER 4.106.4.2.2.2 (25%)**109 EV CHARGER (EVCS) PER 4.106.4.2.2.3 (5%)**22 CITY REQUIRED BICYCLE SUMMARY238
OAKBRIAR CIRCLEBLDG 13LAUNDRY/MAINTBLDG 14LAUNDRY
TE#3
TE#1
TE#2
PUMPROOM
WATER QUALITY BASIN
WATER QUALITY BASIN NOTES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSPROJECT SUMMARY
COS#3POOL
COS#4
COS#1
COS#2 COS#3 COS#4
COS#5
HARVEY WAY
0 4 . 0 1 . 2 4
1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747 0 4 . 0 1 . 2 4 1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 1
T E R R A C I N A A T F I D D Y M E N T
NKEY MAPR.2
S T R E E T L E V E L R E N D E R I N G
10'-4 1/2"14'-2"14'-2"20'-5"
BEDROOM 1100109X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1113120X
BEDROOM 31010104X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2101108X
BA. 1
KITCHENBEDROOM 1100120X
BEDROOM 2106108X
BEDROOM 1113120X
KITCHENBA. 1
BEDROOM 2101108XBEDROOM 31010108X
BEDROOM 1102120X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2106108X
2B 1B
1A
3B 2B
3A
BEDROOM 1100105X
KITCHEN
LIVINGROOM114153X
ELECTRICAL/ SOLAR
154'-3"6'-1"
BATH 1 BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1
14'-2"20'-7 1/2"20'-7 1/2"
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110X BEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2BATH 1
20'-5"
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110XBEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2LINEN BATH 1
WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.
2A 2A
UNIT 1BUNIT 2B-MOBUNIT 2BUNIT 3B
UNIT 1A-MOBUNIT 2AUNIT 2A-MOBUNIT 3A
BREEZEWAY
BREEZEWAY
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H. DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133X
FIRERISER
PANTRY LINENPANTRY
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133X
UP18 R
UP18 R
LIVINGROOM114133X
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATIONA/CLOCATION
LINENPANTRY
LINENPANTRY
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
A/CLOCATION
135 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.136 SQ. FT.130 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
146 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.115 SQ. FT.123 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.142 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
103 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
46 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
107 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
37 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
143 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.
DINING114100X
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.142 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
64 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.138 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
54 SQ. FT.
58'-2"2'-0" 30'-6"
ELECTRICAL/ SOLARCATV
1'-6"25'-10 1/2"
2'-0"10'-10"
A/CLOCATION10'-10"
A/CLOCATION
COAT
STORAGE
COAT
STORAGESTORAGE
COAT
LINENPANTRYCOAT
COAT WALK-INCLOSET9 L.F.
LINENPANTRYCOATPANTRY
PANTRY
STORAGESTORAGE
STORAGE
AA2.10
BA2.10
AA2.10
BA2.10 STONE VENEER AT BLDG 7, 8, 9, 10STONE VENEER AT BLDG 7, 8, 9, 10 STONE VENEER AT BLDG 11
5'-8"
TOTAL2420,666 3C3 BR / 2 BA211131,0572226 3B3 BR / 2 BA11,0359801035 3A3 BR / 2 BA31,0751,0203,225 2C2 BR / 1 BA48578083428 2B2 BR / 1 BA27887401,576 2A2 BR / 2 BA68998465,394 1C1 BR / 1 BA26466041,292 1B1 BR / 1 BA1600558600 1A1 BR / 1 BA36305881,890 PLAN NO.NO./BLDG.GROSS S.F.NET S.F.TOTALRESIDENTIALS.F.
BUILDING AREA: 22,979 S.F.
1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747 0 3 . 2 9 . 2 4 1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 10 248 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T E R R A C I N A A T F I D D Y M E N T
F i r s t F l o o rB U I L D I N G T Y P E 'A' ( 2 4 P L E X )NKEY MAPA 2.1 0 4 . 0 1 . 2 4
UNIT 1CUNIT 2CUNIT 2CUNIT 3C
UNIT 1AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 3A
UP18 R
DN18 R
DN18 R
UP18 R
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
BEDROOM 1100109X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1113120X
BEDROOM 31010104X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2101108X
BA. 1
KITCHENBEDROOM 1100120X
BEDROOM 2106108X
BEDROOM 1113120X
KITCHENBA. 1
BEDROOM 2101108XBEDROOM 31010128X
BEDROOM 1102120X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2106108X
2C 1C
1A 3C 2C
3A
BEDROOM 1100105X
KITCHEN
LIVINGROOM114153X
BATH 1 BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110X BEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2BATH 1KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110XBEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2LINEN BATH 1
WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.
2A 2A
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H. DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114153X
PANTRY LINENPANTRY
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133XLIVINGROOM114153X
LINENPANTRY
LINENPANTRY
135 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.136 SQ. FT.123 SQ. FT.
72 SQ. FT.
142 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.136 SQ. FT.123 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.142 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
103 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
46 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
37 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
DINING114100X
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.138 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
55 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.138 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
55 SQ. FT.
COAT
STORAGE
COAT
COAT
LINENPANTRYCOAT
COAT WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.
LINENPANTRYCOATPANTRY
PANTRY
STORAGESTORAGE
STORAGE
107 SQ. FT.
STORAGESTORAGE
AA2.10
BA2.10
AA2.10
BA2.10
TOTAL2420,666 3C3 BR / 2 BA211131,0572226 3B3 BR / 2 BA11,0359801035 3A3 BR / 2 BA31,0751,0203,225 2C2 BR / 1 BA48578083428 2B2 BR / 1 BA27887401,576 2A2 BR / 2 BA68998465,394 1C1 BR / 1 BA26466041,292 1B1 BR / 1 BA1600558600 1A1 BR / 1 BA36305881,890 PLAN NO.NO./BLDG.GROSS S.F.NET S.F.TOTALRESIDENTIALS.F.
BUILDING AREA: 22,979 S.F.1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747 0 3 . 2 9 . 2 4 1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 10 248 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T E R R A C I N A A T F I D D Y M E N T
B U I L D I N G T Y P E 'A' ( 2 4 P L E X )S e c o n d F l o o r NKEY MAPA 2.2
0 4 . 0 1 . 2 4
UNIT 1CUNIT 2CUNIT 2CUNIT 3C
UNIT 1AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 3A
DN18 R
DN18 R
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
BEDROOM 1100109X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1113120X
BEDROOM 31010104X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2101108X
BA. 1
KITCHENBEDROOM 1100120X
BEDROOM 2106108X
BEDROOM 1113120X
KITCHENBA. 1
BEDROOM 2101108XBEDROOM 31010128X
BEDROOM 1102120X
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 2106108X
2C 1C
1A 3C 2C
3A
BEDROOM 1100105X
KITCHEN
LIVINGROOM114153X
BATH 1 BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1 BATH 2
BATH 1
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110X BEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2BATH 1KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1102110XBEDROOM 2100105X
BA. 2LINEN BATH 1
WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.
2A 2A
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H.
W/H. DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114153X
PANTRY LINENPANTRY
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114153X
DINING114100X
DINING114100X
LIVINGROOM114133XLIVINGROOM114153X
LINENPANTRY
LINENPANTRY
135 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.136 SQ. FT.123 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
142 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.136 SQ. FT.123 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.142 SQ. FT.55 SQ. FT.69 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
103 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
46 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
37 SQ. FT.
150 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
111 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
50 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
DINING114100X
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.138 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
54 SQ. FT.
135 SQ. FT.
105 SQ. FT.138 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
69 SQ. FT.
172 SQ. FT.
54 SQ. FT.
COAT
STORAGE
COAT
COAT
LINENPANTRYCOAT
COAT WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.
LINENPANTRYCOATPANTRY
PANTRY
STORAGESTORAGE
STORAGE
107 SQ. FT.
STORAGESTORAGE
AA2.10
BA2.10
AA2.10
BA2.10
TOTAL2420,666 3C3 BR / 2 BA211131,0572226 3B3 BR / 2 BA11,0359801035 3A3 BR / 2 BA31,0751,0203,225 2C2 BR / 1 BA48578083428 2B2 BR / 1 BA27887401,576 2A2 BR / 2 BA68998465,394 1C1 BR / 1 BA26466041,292 1B1 BR / 1 BA1600558600 1A1 BR / 1 BA36305881,890 PLAN NO.NO./BLDG.GROSS S.F.NET S.F.TOTALRESIDENTIALS.F.
BUILDING AREA: 22,979 S.F.
1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747 0 3 . 2 9 . 2 4 1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 10 248 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T E R R A C I N A A T F I D D Y M E N T
B U I L D I N G T Y P E 'A' ( 2 4 P L E X )T h i r d F l o o rNKEY MAPA 2.3 0 4 . 0 1 . 2 4
1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747
3 . 29. 2 4
1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 1
TERRACINA AT FIDDYMENT
0 40 8020
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
04.01.24 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN, NOTES & PLANT LIST L1.2
1. THESE PLAN SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO), AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
2. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN GOOD PLANT HEALTH.
3. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE A FULLY AUTOMATIC, WEATHER-BASED SYSTEM USING RAIN SENSOR, LOW FLOW DRIP AND BUBBLER DISTRIBUTION.
4. ALL SELECTED COMPONENTS SHALL BE PERMANENT, COMMERCIAL GRADE,
SELECTED FOR DURABILITY, VANDAL RESISTANCE, AND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT.
5. THE SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE A MASTER CONTROL VALVE AND FLOW SENSING
CAPABILITY WHICH WILL SHUT DOWN ALL OR PART OF THE SYSTEM IF LEAKS ARE DETECTED.
6. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DELIVER WATER TO HYDROZONES BASED ON MOISTURE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANT GROUPING.
7. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL RECYCLED WATER.
IRRIGATION DESIGN INTENT PLANTING DESIGN INTENT
1. PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE SELECTED BASED ON LOCAL CLIMATE SUITABILITY, DISEASE AND PEST RESISTANCE, AND WATER-USE AS LISTED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S
MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO) PLANT LIST, WUCOLS IV.
2. THE PLANTING DESIGN SHALL UTILIZE A VARIETY OF MEDITERRANEAN-STYLE,
NATIVE, AND DROUGHT-TOLERANT PLANT SPECIES TO CREATE LAYERS OF COLOR AND TEXTURE TO COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURE AND SETTING.
3. 80% OF PLANT MATERIAL TO BE NATIVE OR LOW WATER USE AND FOLLOW MWELO GUIDELINES.
4. NO PLANT CONSIDERED INVASIVE IN THE REGION AS LISTED BY THE CAL-IPC WILL BE USED.
5. TREE LOCATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM AESTHETIC EFFECTS AND
PASSIVE SOLAR BENEFITS, CREATING SUMMER SHADE AND WINTER SUN EXPOSURE, AND MAXIMIZE SHADE IN PUBLIC SPACES. A MIX OF EVERGREEN AND DECIDIOUS TREES WILL BE USED.
6. THE PLANTING DESIGN SHALL ALLOW FOR THE PLANTS TO REACH THEIR NATURAL, FULL-GROWN SIZE TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR EXCESSIVE PRUNING OR HEDGING.
7. PLANTS SHALL BE GROUPED IN HYDROZONES BASED ON WATER USE AND EXPOSURE.
8. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH.
9. ALL TREES WITHIN 5’ OF PAVEMENT SHALL USE TREE ROOT BARRIERS.
10. SHRUBS WILL BE PROVIDED IN A MIX OF ONE GALLON AND FIVE GALLON CONTAINERS. SCREEN PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN FIVE GALLON CONTAINER SIZES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS. SHRUB GROUND COVERS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN EITHER LINER OR ONE GALLON SIZES.
LEGEND
EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK
NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK
ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN
FLAGPOLE
OUTDOOR PATIO, PICNIC GROVE WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS, BBQS, AND DG PAVING
52’X25’ COMMUNITY POOL WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS, CHAISES, BBQ AND (2)OUTDOOR SHOWERS
OUTDOOR PLAY AREA FOR AGE GROUP 13-17
PLAY AREA FOR AGE GROUPS 2-5 AND 5-12
PICNIC/LAUNDRY PATIO WITH BBQ
OPEN TURF AREA
GATHERING SPACE WITH TABLES, CHAIRS, BENCHES AND SPECIMEN TREES 5 FT OPEN TUBE STEEL POOL FENCE AND GATE,
COLOR MATCH SW6258 TRICORN BLACK
6FT OPEN TUBE STEEL FENCE W/VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE AND MAINTENANCE GATE, COLOR MATCH SW6258 TRICORN BLACK
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
UTILITY ROAD WITH ACCESS CONTROL BOLLARDS
CLASS II BIKE RACK. TOTAL 10 SHORT TERM PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
PARKING LOT SOLAR CANOPY
TRASH ENCLOSURE, SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
PARKING LOT TREE, SEE SHEET L1.3 FOR SHADE DIAGRAM
WALKING/FITNESS LOOP
GATHERING SPACE WITH BBQ AND PICNIC TABLES
BIORETENTION AREA, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH ARBOR
BLDG 10 BLDG 9
BLDG 8 BLDG 7
BLDG 6
BLDG 3
BLDG 4
BLDG 5
BLDG 2
BLDG 1
CLUBHOUSE
BLDG 12
BLDG 11
BLDG 13
BLDG 14
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
18 19
19 19
19 20
20 21
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 13
13 14
15 16
16 16
17 17
17 18
19 20
21 21
18 18
22 22
22 23
23 1130 Harvey Way, Roseville, CA 95747
3 . 29. 2 4
1 3 0 . 2 3 1 8 1
TERRACINA AT FIDDYMENT
0 40 8020
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
PARKING LOT SHADE DIAGRAM
04.01.24 L1.3
LG LG LG LG LG
LG
LGLGLG LG LG
LG LG
LG LG LG
LG LG
LG
LG
LGLGLG
LGLG
LG
LGLG
LGLG
LG
LG
LG
LG
LG
LG
LG
LG LG
LG
LGLG
M1
LG
SM
LG
M1
SM
LG
LG
LG
LG
LGLG
LG
LG
LG
LG
BOVBOV
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
STOP
STOP
CLEAN PAY
CRLA #3335 · 2 Theatre Square #218 · Orinda CA · 94563
925.254.5422 · www.jett.land
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
BLDG 10 BLDG 9
BLDG 8 BLDG 7
BLDG 6
BLDG 3
BLDG 4
BLDG 5
BLDG 2
BLDG 1
CLUBHOUSE
BLDG 12
BLDG 11
BLDG 14
BLDG 13
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3617
File #:
0400-02-12-2 & 0400-03 & 0400-04
Title:
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-42 - General Plan Amendment. Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment
Contact:
Sean Morales 916-774-5282 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 11/6/2024
Item #: 11.2.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the September 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:
A.
Consider the 13th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
B.
Adopt a resolution approving land use map amendments to the General Plan; C.
Adopt a resolution approving text and land use map amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;
D.
Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Rezone; and
E.
Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Fifth Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC relative to a certain portion of the Property commonly known as SVSP Parcel WB-42.
BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the September 26, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. A more detailed background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 1.
Background/Project Description
The project site is located within the Westbrook portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area, which was adopted on May 5, 2010. The SVSP area includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road. Due to different ownership structures and timeframes, the Westbrook portion of the SVSP was not approved for development at a project level with the initial adoption of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and was instead allocated “Urban Reserve” land use in anticipation of future development. Approval of the Westbrook portion of the SVSP by the City Council followed in June of 2012.
The entitlements requested with the current proposal include a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the two parcels making up SVSP Parcel WB-42 from two parcels (6 acres and 8.5 acres, respectively) into two parcels WB-42A to the north (7 acres) and WB-42B to the south (7.5 acres).
A Rezone, General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) are requested to change the zoning of Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial (CC) to Residential Small Lot/Development Standards (RS/DS) and the land use designation from CC to Medium Density Residential at 7 units/acre (MDR-7). A Fifth Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA) is requested to reflect the proposed land use change and address financial obligations of the developer associated with the proposed land use change. A Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to create fifty-three (53) single-family residential lots on parcel WB- 42B. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Lot Line Adjustment and Tentative Subdivision Map before making recommendations to City Council for the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment.
Further discussion and exhibits for those entitlements conditionally approved at Planning Commission are included in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1). Planning Commission Exhibits not referenced in this report, for the Tentative Subdivision Map and Lot Line Adjustment, are included as Attachment 8.
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone Evaluation As described above, the project requires a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone. Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. In particular, staff used the Non- residential Land Use Conversion Policy. In 2004, in response to increased requests to convert commercial and industrial properties to residential uses, the City Council adopted guidelines for the conversion of non-residential land uses. A copy of the guidelines is provided as (Attachment 2). A full evaluation using the policy is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report but the most crucial guidelines are included below.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
: Guideline #2 states land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City and requires that each project be modeled individually for citywide impacts.
Consistent with this guideline, Economics & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis that demonstrated the land use change would not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund on an annual basis (Attachment 3). As documented in the analysis, developing half of the site with a residential subdivision, while not having a negative impact, would be expected to produce less revenue for the City than a 14.5-acre commercial development. The proposed project would be estimated to create net-positive revenue of $285,100 and a project under the existing zoning would be estimated to a create net-positive revenue of $580,535.
Affordable Housing
: Consistent with guideline #5, the project is subject to the City’s 10% affordable housing goal. Therefore, five (5) units affordable to low-income households are required with the project. The property owner of a nearby parcel, SVSP PCL FD-34, which was the recipient of a residential density bonus, submitted acceptance of obligation, in return for consideration, to provide the 5 units required of the WB-42 project on Parcel FD-34 (Attachment 4).
Public Benefit
: Consistent with guideline #6, the project provides a public benefit in the form of two community benefit fees. The Westbrook Development Agreement Section 3.14.3 contains an existing Public Benefit Fee that will total approximately $67,840 for this project. Beyond the existing Public Benefit Fee in the DA, the applicant will also pay two new fees to support the development and construction of neighborhood and citywide parks within the SVSP and the City.
These fees are in addition to other parks fees already required in the DA and will help to offset the burden that rising construction costs have put on parks projects recently. The two fees are the Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee and the Community Parks Public Benefit Fee, which are described in more detail, below, in the Development Agreement Amendment evaluation section of this report. The two new fees will generate approximately $500,000 for park construction and development.
Retail Analysis
: The applicant provided a market study that evaluates the potential for commercial development on parcel WB-42 (Attachment 5). The study concludes that the WB-42 site could support 63,000 sf of commercial development over the next five years on approximately 6-7 acres of land. The study finds that over a subsequent five-year period the demand could warrant 73,000 sf of commercial on 7.3 acres of land.
The study makes these findings based on various factors including development trends, site context, and a local retail market analysis.
Development trends: The study states that community-scaled retail is trending downward in size.
Rather than large format retailers, which are more dependent on e-commerce, the market is seeing smaller scale users such as drug stores and restaurants. Grocery stores are also seeing reductions in size. Overall, many retail services now take place online, which leads to in-person stores that are smaller in size and focus on personalized experiences.
Site Context: The study uses existing and future traffic data (average daily trips) to evaluate the viability of the site. Around 28,000 north/south trips along Wesbtrook Bl. and 8,400 east/west trips along Pleasant Grove Bl. are expected with full buildout of the City and surrounding development (2035 CIP Model). According to the study, many retailers look for counts of at least 25,000- 30,000 vehicles per day on at least one adjacent street to be considered viable. The study lists strengths of the site (including traffic counts) and weaknesses (including competing sites along Baseline and Fiddyment) recommending ultimately for a smaller retail center providing daily staples.
Retail Market Analysis: The final section of the study analyzes the retail market in the region and in the project area. The study finds that employment and population growth is strong in the area and supports the viability of a 63,000-71,000 sf shopping center in the next five years.
Overall, staff finds that the study provides adequate evidence to support its conclusion that a 6-7- acre development is viable in the next five years. It should be noted that the Community Commercial zone, which the 7-acre WB-42A parcel is proposed to retain, includes a wide variety of possible land uses. The CC zone allows typical neighborhood-serving retail and shopping centers similar to those found throughout the city, but also principally and/or conditionally permits uses that may be less conducive to a neighborhood-serving retail center such as Professional Offices, Long-Term Care Facilities, various Automotive uses, or Personal Storage Facilities.
Development Agreement Amendment Evaluation
The project includes a fifth amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, relative to a portion of the SVSP (or the “Westbrook DA” area). The Westbrook DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use change as well as implement two new sections related to Parks fees.
Land Use Change
: Section 2.2 of the DA will be revised to reflect the addition of 53 units and 7.5 MDR acres of land to the Westbrook area. The subtraction of 7.5 acres of CC land is also reflected in this section.
Parks fees
: New Section 3.12.3.2 is proposed to be added to the DA relating to the Neighborhood Park In-Lieu fee. The existing Section 3.12.3 covers neighborhood park fees for the balance of the DA land area. This new section is applicable only to parcel WB-42B. The in-lieu fee shall be $4,535 per MDR unit constructed and is subject to annual adjustments based on the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This section is proposed to be added in order to bring the neighborhood park fee for WB-42B in line with other DAs in the SVSP.
New section 3.14.11 is proposed to be added to the DA relating to a Community Parks Public Benefit Fee. The Community Parks Public Benefit Fee shall be $5,000 per MDR unit with WB- 42B and shall be paid at the time of building permit. This fee is provided separate from and above the existing Park fees required of the property in the Westbrook DA. As discussed above, this additional fee provides a public benefit consistent with the requirement set forth in the City’s Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses policy document.
City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.
Public Outreach
Two community meetings were held for this project. The first meeting on August 15, 2024 was held with the Heritage Solaire Community HOA and there were approximately 60 residents in attendance. The second meeting was held on September 3, 2024 during the quarterly Solaire Neighborhood Association meeting and had approximately the same number of residents in attendance. From these two meetings staff compiled an interest list for the project with residents who were notified about project updates but may have been located outside the 300 ft mailing radius. The list totaled 50 residents.
The feedback from the public and applicant response was similar in both neighborhood meetings and are summarized below:
Residents Against the Project
: Many of the attendees had varying levels of concern about the potential loss of commercial land within the vicinity of their homes. The residents would prefer to keep the 14.5 acres of Community Commercial land to increase the potential commercial options.
Many cited the proximity to commercial Parcel WB-42 as a reason for choosing to live in this area.
Residents cited near term changes to the area that will improve the prospects of marketing a commercial site of this size. Some of the anticipated changes cited include the new soccer complex under construction on Westbrook Blvd. to the north, as well as the continued buildout of residential development in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and unincorporated Placer County including the future Regional University. Residents feel the applicant is proposing changes too soon and that the area will be more than able to absorb a 14.5-acre commercial site in the near future. These feelings are echoed in the Rosenlieb, Flynn Nevins, and Faulk letters attached to this report (Attachment 6). Three additional comments were received after publication of the staff report but before the hearing date and are included as Attachment 7.
Applicant in Favor of the Project
: In both meetings, the applicant stated that they have been marketing the existing site for eight years without interest from commercial developers. The applicant cited the recent construction of Raleys, Safeway, and Nugget groceries in the area, which represent the three grocers that would be most likely to anchor a shopping center of this size. According to the applicant, those grocers have not shown interest in Parcel WB-42. The applicant feels that the proposed project will “right-size” the commercial parcel to create a more manageable parcel size. The applicant cites market trends due to e-commerce and other forces leading to smaller building sizes, which will be better accommodated in a smaller commercial project. The applicant provided a market study completed by MXD Development Strategists to provide additional context to bolster these market trends. The applicant cited their own previous work on the Village Center project, which now includes MoJoe’s Café and kitchen 747. That parcel was formerly 13 acres in size and sat undeveloped. The applicant similarly reduced the parcel by half, to two approximately 3-acre commercial sites in 2017 and the parcels were bought and developed in the years shortly after.
Residents For the Project
: A smaller group of residents are in favor of the project. These are generally residents that live directly adjacent to the project on Starry Night Ln. and Gemini Ln. within the Heritage Solaire development. These residents prefer to have a residential land use behind their homes and are in support of the single-loaded street proposed with the subdivision map for WB-42B to provide a setback from future homes.
Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City's Planning Commission on September 26, 2024. The applicant addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested approval by the Commission. Four residents provided public comments at the meeting. Three residents spoke against the project and one spoke in favor of the project. Two of the residents that spoke against the project had provided written comments before the meeting that mirrored the comments at the hearing (Rosenlieb and Faulk letters). The third speaker against the project, Mr. Wong, provided similar reasons for opposing the project including the wish to be able to accomplish shopping close to home as well as the site being a reason for purchasing his home in that location. He believes the applicant is acting prematurely before the area around the site has fully developed.
The fourth speaker for the project was an adjacent neighborhood in support of having a residential subdivision rather than a commercial center as a neighbor.
The Planning Commission considered the 5th Addendum to the SVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved the Tentative Subdivision Map and Lot Line Adjustment and recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment, with a vote of 6 aye, 0 nay, 1 absent.
After Planning Commission Meeting
:
One resident submitted a comment letter after the Planning Commission meeting that is included as Attachment 9 and titled “Miano Comment Letter”. The resident echoes the residents against the project described above, stating that they do not believe the applicant is being proactive or patient enough in marketing the existing commercial site for development. The resident would like to develop the whole 14.5 acres as commercial to create more commercial opportunities such as a hardware store and restaurant closer to the surrounding neighborhoods.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed above and based on the Fiscal Analysis completed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., the proposed project, which includes rezoning approximately half of the site to residential, would create approximately half of the revenue of a project under the existing zoning.
The proposed project is not expected to have a negative fiscal impact on the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Potential impacts to traffic, utilities, and public facilities were evaluated in the Addendum to the SVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project (included as Exhibit E), and it was determined that the project does not result in any unanticipated impacts that were not previously evaluated in the SVSP EIR. As discussed in the Addendum, the parcel was already planned for development and therefore will have the same environmental impact related to construction on-site. In terms of traffic, single-family residential has a much lesser impact than a commercial use. The Environmental Utilities Department has determined the change in demand to water and sewer to be negligible.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Sean Morales, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment 1 Item 6.2 September 26, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 2 Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses Attachment 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis
Attachment 4 Affordable Obligation Consideration
Attachment 5 MXD Market Study
Attachment 6 Flynn-Nevins, Rosenlieb, and Faulk Comment Letters Attachment 7 McErney, Preston and Rosenlieb Second Comment Letter Attachment 8 Tentative Subdivision Map and Lot Line Adjustment PC Exhibits Attachment 9 Miano Comment Letter
Resolution 24-372
Resolution 24-373
Exhibit A General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment
Exhibit B Specific Plan Amendment Change Pages
Rezone Ordinance Parcel WB-42B
Exhibit C Rezone
Ordinance for Fifth Westbrook DAA
Exhibit D Fifth Amendment to Westbrook DA
Exhibit E 13th Addendum to SVSP EIR
Attachment 10 Rosenlieb Comment Letter
Attachment 11 Miano Comment Letter
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting September 26, 2024
Prepared by: Sean Morales, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.2: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Lot Line Adjustment – 2931 Pleasant Grove Bl. – SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment – File #PL24-0397
REQUEST
The applicant requests a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the two parcels making up SVSP Parcel WB-42 from two parcels (6 acres and 8.5 acres, respectively) into two parcels WB-42A to the north (7 acres) and WB-42B to the south (7.5 acres). A Rezone, General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) are requested to change t he zoning of Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial (CC) to Residential Small Lot/Development Standards (RS/DS) and the land use designation from CC to Medium Density Residential at 7 uni ts/acre (MDR-7). A Fifth Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA), is requested to reflect the proposed land use change. A Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to create fifty-t hree (53) single-family residential lots on parcel WB-42B.
Applicant – Eric Crow, MacKay & Somps
Property Owner – John Tallman, Westpark Communities
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Consider the 13
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR;
2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment;
3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;
4. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Rezone;
5. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Fifth Amendment to the SVSP Westbrook Development Agreement (DA);
6. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to fifty-nine (59) conditions of approval; and
7. Approve the Lot Line Adjustment subject to eight (8) conditions of approval.
SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval. There has been significant public interest, both in support and in opposition, regarding the project. Public comments in response to the hearing notice are included as attachments and the general public feedback is summarized in the Public Outreach section of this report.
BACKGROUND
The project site consists of Parcel WB-42 located in the Westbrook portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area (see Figure 2 below) and consists of two lots. The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road. The Westbrook portion of the SVSP was not included in the original approval for the specific plan but was approved by City Council in
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 2 of 19
June of 2012. Parcel WB-42 has a zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC) and a land use designation of Community Commercial (CC). The parcel is surrounded on the south and west by the gated Heritage Solaire active adult community. The Heritage Solaire community was approved in August 2017 (File #PL17-0122). In May of 2022, a parcel map was approved to divide WB-42 into two lots (File #PL22-0088). No development was proposed with that project.
Figure 1: Project Location (SVSP Parcel WB-42)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The requested entitlements will turn SVSP Parcel WB-42 into two parcels, WB-42A and WB-42B. The entitlements allow for the development of a 53-unit single-family residential subdivision on Parcel WB- 42B. No development is proposed on the commercial Parcel WB-42A at this time. The project entitlements include:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – The GPA will amend the land use designation of Parcel WB-42B from Community Commerical (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR-7) at a density of approximately 7 units per acre, in order to facilitate development of a 53-unit subdivision on this parcel. The SVSP document will be amended to split WB-42 into two parcels and reflect the proposed land use change for Parcel WB-42B. Exhibit A includes the General Plan Amendment exhibit and Exhibit B includes the SVSP change pages.
Rezone – A Rezone is requested to amend the zoning designation of Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. Exhibit C includes the Rezone exhibit.
Development Agreement (DA) Amendment – The project includes a fifth amendment to the Westbrook DA. The DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use changes and new residential units as well as clarify applicable parks fees for those units. Exhibits E and F include the proposed DA Amendment with redlines and with changes input.
Tentative Subdivision Map – Parcel WB-42B will be subdivided to create fifty-three (53) medium-density residential lots and five (5) landscape lots. Exhibit E includes the proposed tentative subdivision map.
Pleasant Grove Bl.
Westbrook Bl.
Solaire Dr.
SVSP Westbrook
Amendment Area
Heritage Solaire
WB-42
Project Site
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 3 of 19
Lot Line Adjustment – Parcel WB-42 is currently divded into two lots of approximately 6 and 8.5 acres.
The lot lines are proposed to be adjusted to create Parcel 1 (WB42-A) of 7 acres and Parcel 2 (WB42-B) of 7.5 acres as shown in Exhibit F.
EVALUATION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT The General Plan does not have any residential units allocated to proposed Parcel WB-42B because it is a commercially zoned site. Parcel WB-42B will have a resulting density of approximately 7 units per acre, excluding the right-of-way/landscape corridors , which is consistent with the proposed MDR land use designation. The specific plan amendment includes changes to the text, tables, and figures of the SVSP to reflect the land use change, new unit allocations and densities (Table 1).
Table 1: Land Use Modifications
Parcel Existing
Land Use
(General
Plan/Specific
Plan)
Proposed
Land Use
(General
Plan/Specific
Plan)
Existing
Units
(du)
Proposed
Units
(du)
Unit
Change
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
WB-42 CC - 0 - - - -
WB-42A - CC - 0 - - -
WB-42B - MDR - 53 +53 - 7
Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans.
Non-residential Land Use Conversion Policy
In 2004, in response to increased requests to convert commercial and industrial properties to residential uses, the City Council adopted guidelines for the conversion of non-residential land uses. A copy of the guidelines is provided as Attachment 1. As stated in the guidelines, the purpose is to make clear the City’s expectations related to the loss of job-generating land uses. The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes outside of the Infill portion of the City is to maintain the City’s fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community. The guidelines include evaluating fiscal impacts, noise, park dedication, public services, affordable housing, schools, utilities, and traffic when contemplating residential land use allocations.
The guidelines were used in staff’s evaluation of the proposed land use amendment to Parcel WB-42, given that it will be converting a non-residential land use (e.g., Community Commercial) to a residential land use (e.g., Medium Density Residential). The guidelines for areas within a Specific Plan state:
1. A region wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres.
2. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model.
3. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size s hall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 4 of 19
4. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income).
5. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee.
6. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City.
7. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding in- lieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in- lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit.
8. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of an in-lieu fee for land dedication.
9. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity.
10. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated.
11. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation.
12. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.
Parcel WB-42 is less than 50 acres, therefore guidelines #1 and #3 are not applicable to the project. The City’s building permit process includes the assessment of all applicable and appropriate fees, which will ensure the project conforms to the guidelines addressing impact fees.
Fiscal Impact Analysis: Guideline #2 states land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City and requires that each project be modeled indivi dually for City-wide impacts. Consistent with this guideline, Economics & Planni ng Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis that demonstrated the land use change would not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund on an annual basis (see Attachment 2). Additional studies were completed to determine the feasibility of developing Parcel WB-42 as a commercial site. These studies are discussed below.
Affordable Housing: Consistent with guideline #4, the project is subject to the City’s 10% affordable housing goal. Therefore, five (5) units affordable to low-income households are required with the project.
The property owner of a nearby parcel, SVSP PCL FD-34, which was the recipient of a residential density bonus, submitted acceptance of obligation, in return for consideration, to provide the 5 units required of the WB-42 project on Parcel FD-34 (Attachment 3).
Public Benefit: Consistent with guideline #5, the project provides a Public Benefit Fee as described in the Westbrook Development Agreement Section 3.14.3. The total Public Benefit Fee for this project will be approximately $67,840. Beyond the existing Public Benefit Fee in the DA, the applicant will also pay two new fees to support the development and construction of neighborhood and citywide parks within the SVSP and the City. These fees are in addition to other parks fees already required in the DA and will SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 5 of 19
help to offset the burden that rising construction costs has put on parks project. The two fees are the Neighborhood Park In-Lieu Fee and the Community Parks Public Benefit Fee, which are described in more detail, below, in the Development Agreement Amendment evaluation section of this report. The two new fees will generate approximately $500,000 for park construction and development.
Impact Fees: Consistent with guidelines #6, the project proposes to annex the project area into Westbrook CFD#1 to offset the costs of the project. Consistent with guideline #7 and #8, the project is obligated to pay fees to off-set impacts to city-wide and neighborhood parks as well as open space in- lieu of parkland dedication.
Utilities: Consistent with guideline #9, the City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded the project will have a negligible effect on demand of City water and sewer utilities compared to the previously anticipated land uses and no technical studies were required.
Schools: Consistent with guideline #10, the applicabl e school districts have identified that there is capacity to accommodate the future residents of WB-42B and the project will be required to pay fees per unit for impacts to local schools.
Minor SVSP Amendments: The land use amendment w ill require updating the text and figures of the SVSP to split WB-42 into WB-42A and WB-42B as well as reflect the overall change in commercial and residential acreages. These changes are reflected in the SVSP change pages included as Exhibit B.
Retail Analysis
The applicant provided a market study that evaluates the potential for commercial development on parcel WB-42 (Attachment 4). The study concludes that the WB-42 site could support 63,000 sf of commercial development over the next five years on approximately 6-7 acres of land. The study finds that over a subsequent five-year period the demand could warrant 73,000 sf of commercial on 7.3 acres of land.
The study makes these findings based on various factors including development trends, site context, and a local retail market analysis:
Development trends: The study states that community-scaled retail is trending downward in size. Rather than large format retailers, which are more dependent on e-commerce, the market is seeing smaller scale users such as drug stores and restaurant. Grocery stores are also seeing reductions in size. Overall, much of retail now takes place online, which leads to in-person stores that are smaller in size and focus on personalized experiences.
Site Context: The study uses existing and future average daily trip data to evaluate the viability of the site. Around 28,000 north/south trips and 8,400 east/west trips are expected along Wesbtrook Bl. and Pleasant Grove Bl., respectively with full buildout of the City and surrounding development (2035 CIP Model). According to the study, many retailers look for counts of at least 25,000-30,000 vehicles per day on at least one adjacent street to be considered viable. The study lists strengths of the site (including traffic counts) and weaknesses (including competing sites along Baseline and Fiddyment) recommending ultimately for a smaller retail center providing daily staples.
Retail Market Analysis: The final section of the study analyzes the retail market in the region and in the project area. The study finds that employment and population growth is strong in the area and supports the viability of a 63,000-71,000 sf shopping center in the next five years.
Overall, staff finds that the study provides adequate evidence to support its conclusion that a 6-7-acre development is viable in the next five years.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 6 of 19
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Conclusion Based on the evaluation above of the non-residential conversion policy and the evidence provided in the market study, staff finds the project is consistent with the goals and polices of the General Plan and SVSP.
EVALUATION: REZONE
Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:
1. The public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City, and
2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
The project would rezone Parcel WB-42B from Comm unity Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential with a Development Standards overlay (RS/DS). The General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II-10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation.
RS is listed as a compatible implementing zone in the MDR land use designation. The proposed General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed Small Lot Residential (RS) zone is listed as an implement ing zone. According to both the General Plan and SVSP, the MDR land use designation applies to land char acterized by small-lot single-family detached dwelling units and attached patio homes, halfplexes, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and mobile home parks. Detached single-family is listed as one of the primary uses and the applicable development guidelines include a density of 7.0 to 12.9 dwelling units per gross developable acre. The proposed project is a 53-unit detached single-family subdivision with a density of 7 units per gross developable acre (excluding the right-of-way/landscape corridors), which is consistent with the MDR land use designation.
Table II-9 of the General Plan contains a table addre ssing the compatibility of adjacent land uses. For purposes of the table, “adjacent” includes land uses separated by collectors and local streets but does not include land uses separated by major arterials (e .g., Pleasant Grove Bl. and Westbrook Bl.). The proposed MDR land use of Parcel WB-42B is considered to be compatible with the adjacent Low-Density Residential (LDR) land use of parcels WB-1A and WB-2B to the south and west within the Heritage Solaire development. Residential land uses including LDR, MDR, and HDR are found to be conditionally compatible with Community Commercial (CC) uses. Therefore, parcel WB-42B is conditionally compatible with existing commercial parcel WB-42A to the north. This is similar to the existing condition, which includes residential parcel WB-1B adjacent to the existing commercial parcel. The compatibility of the two parcels will be addressed with the soundwall proposed on the boundary line between the two parcels as well as during the development of the commercial parcel including loading dock location or other design interventions. In conclusion, staff finds the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and SVSP for the MDR land use, and the project will not adversely affect the public interest, safety, or welfare of the City.
EVALUATION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Section 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consideration of the following:
1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 7 of 19
2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;
3. Conformity with the public health, safety and general welfare;
4. The effect on the orderly development of t he property or the preservation of property values; and
5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Agreement.
Development Agreements (DAs) are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.
The project includes a fifth amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, relative to the SVSP (or the “Westbrook DA”). The Westbrook DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use change as well as implement two new sections related to Parks fees.
Land Use Change: Section 2.2 of the DA will be revised to reflect the addition of 53 units and 7.5 MDR acres of land to the Westbrook area. The subtraction of 7.5 acres of CC land is also reflected in this section.
Parks fees: New Section 3.12.3.2 is proposed to be added to the DA relating to the Neighborhood Park In-Lieu fee. The existing Section 3.12.3 covers neighborhood park fees for the balance of the DA land area. This new section is applicable only to parcel WB-42B. The in-lieu fee shall be $4,535 per MDR unit constructed and is subject to annual adjustments based on the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This section is proposed to be added in order to bring the neighborhood park fee for WB-42B in line with other DAs in the SVSP, which utilize a means of assessment that has outpaced the CCI.
New section 3.14.11 is proposed to be added to the DA relating to a Community Parks Public Benefit Fee. The Community Parks Public Benefit Fee shall be $5,000 per MDR unit with WB-42B and shall be paid at the time of building permit. This fee is provided separate from and above the existing Park fees required of the property in the Westbrook DA. As previously discussed in this report, this additional fee provides a public benefit consistent with the requirement set forth in the City’s Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses policy document.
Items that are not addressed in this amendment are subject to the terms of the original DA and prior Amendment. In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with items 1-5 above.
EVALUATION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a Tentative Subdivision Map. The three findings are listed below in bold, italics and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.
1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 8 of 19
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 53 residential lots and five (5) landscape lots for a total of 58 lots (see Figure 4). The proposed unit density is 7 units per acre, which is consistent with the MDR land use designation. Adequate access and circulation is provided to each parcel to facilitate development of the small lots. Access to the subdivision will be provided from Westbrook Bl. on the eastern side of the parcel. All single-family lots are oriented with frontage on public streets. The subdivision layout and street design were reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and Fire Department and was found to provide adequate street widths for circulation and emergency response. Because there is only one public entrance to the subdivision, the required secondary point of access is provided via an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) easement and road in the northwest corner of the parcel. This road will travel north through WB-42A to Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Figure 4: Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel WB-42B
The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes. Instead, these standards are contained within the Zoning Ordinance and SVSP. The project parcels are proposed to have a zoning designation of Small Lot Residential with Development Standards (RS/DS).
A developer may either use the RS/DS development standards established in the SVSP, applicable Development Agreement, or may adopt adjusted standards through the Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) entitlement. Here, the applicant proposes to use the RS/DS development standards contained in the applicable Westbrook DA. These standards are included as Attachment 5. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.10.045, a DRRS application is required for all single-family housing units on property with the MDR land use designation. Since the home builder for the proposed subdivision is unknown at this time, Condition #8 has been added to the Tentative Subdivision Map that requires the future home builder to submit for a DRRS, which will allow staff to review the proposed architecture and home designs. Detailed information (e.g., floor plans, architectural styles, colors and materials, etc.) shall be provided at that time.
The SVSP includes design standards applicable to subdi vision design, including guidelines for the locations of paseos. SVSP Figure B-5, Paseo Plan, shows a paseo sidewalk with a width of 10 feet in the landscape corridor along Westbrook Boulevard. Consistent with the SVSP, the proposed subdivision map provides a 35-foot landscape corridor along Westbrook Boulevard with an 8-foot landscape strip, 10-foot walk, and then a 17-foot landscape between the walk and the masonry wall adjacent to the proposed lots.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 9 of 19
Typically, a self-contained subdivision such as the proposed WB-42B would include only double-loaded streets with home lots sited adjacent to all edges of the parcel. Conscious of potential concerns from existing residents, the applicant proposes to instead line the south and west edges of the subdivision with a single-loaded street. Locating the street on the edge of the subdivision allows for larger distances between the proposed homes and the yards of existing residents. Rather than have homes backing up to existing residents, the applicant proposes a street and landscape planter as a buffer (Figure 5). The landscape parcel, LC-5, adjacent to the single-loaded street will be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA).
Figure 5. Single-Loaded Street Cross-Section
The existence of the single-loaded street reduces the number of units that could otherwise be sited on a parcel of this size. Therefore, though the proposed density of the project is seven units per acre, the size of the lots are smaller than would typically be found in a subdivision of that density. The home lots, which are generally 45’ wide, 75’ deep, and 3,375 sf in area are more similar to a product found in a subdivision with a density of eight units per acre such as nearby parcel FD-20A, which is marketed by Tri Point Homes as Illumination at Solaire. The lots meet the 45’ minimum lot width standard found in the Westbrook DA as well as the 3,300 sf minimum lot size.
2. The subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. The subdivision will not create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to: the steepness of terrain or location of watercourses in the area; the size or shape of the lots or inadequate building area; inadequate frontage or access; or, some other physical condition of the area.
The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements, and the lots are consistent with the applicable development standards. The proposed parcel configurations preserve the location of watercourses and do not create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.
3. The design and density of the subdivision will not violate the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste into the sewage system, Pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 10 of 19
During project review, the Environmental Utilitie s Department evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the subdivision and concluded the proposed changes to the land use designation and unit allocation will have a negligible effect on planned demands on sewage services; therefor e, there will be no impacts to the existing requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
EVALUATION: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
The Subdivision Ordinance does not list any required findings for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA); however, a LLA must comply with the following criteria listed below. Each criterion is listed in bold italic font, followed by an evaluation.
1. Compliance with the City of Roseville General Plan.
Currently, the two affected properties (Parcel 1 to the north and Parcel 2 to the south) both have a land use designation of Community Commercial (CC). The applicant proposes to amend the land use of Parcel 2 from CC to Medium-Density Residential (MDR-7). As discussed above, the proposed Parcel 2 is able to accommodate a subdivision that is consistent with required development standards and Parcel 1 is able to accommodate a conceptual future commercial center consistent with the existing CC land use. Therefore, both proposed parcels are consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations.
2. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for the district in which it is located.
Parcel 1 has a zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC). The zoning ordinance does not contain minimum lot size standards for the CC zone. Rather, the zoning ordinance contains a list of permitted uses.
The conceptual commercial site plan provided with the application shows three buildings that could contain a range of uses permitted in the CC zone including grocery, restaurant, and personal services. Parcel 1 is therefore in compliance with the CC district. Parcel 2 is proposed to be rezoned from CC to Residential Small Lot with Development Standards (RS/DS). The Zoning Ordinance provides development standards for lot size, dimensions, and setbacks for properties with a zoning designation of RS/DS. However, the applicant is also able to rely on the Westbrook Development Agreement, which has a similar set of development standards. As discussed above, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the DA development standards and is therefore in compliance with the RS/DS zoning district.
3. Compliance with the local building regulations.
The California Building Code (CBC) establishes building regulations based upon the type of construction, the use of a building or structure and a building’s pr oximity to other buildings and property lines. As discussed, the conceptual commercial site plan and the proposed subdivision on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 align with the expected development pattern for the respective zoning and land use designations and will not prevent future structures from complying with the local building code regulations and the required building setbacks from the property lines.
4. Provisions for relocation of existing infrastructure or easements.
There is an existing Public Utility Easement (PUE) and Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVA) on the western edge of Parcel 1. The applicant proposes to extend the PUE and EVA down along the western edge of Parcel 1 to the northwestern corner of Parcel 2. The Engineering Division and other applicable departments have reviewed the proposed infrastructure and easements.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 11 of 19
incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on September 13, 2024 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website.
Two community meetings were held for this project. The first meeting on 8/15/24 was held with the Heritage Solaire Community HOA and there were approximately 60 residents in attendance. The second meeting was held on 9/3/24 during the quarterly Solaire Neighborhood Association meeting and had approximately the same number of residents in attendance. From these two meetings staff compiled a list of interested individuals for the project who signed up to be notified about project updates but may be located outside the 300 ft mailing radius. The list totaled 50 residents.
The feedback from the public and applicant response was similar in both neighborhood meetings.
Residents Against the Project: Many of the attendees had varying levels of concern about the potential loss of commercial land within the vicinity of their homes. The residents would prefer to keep the parcel as 14.5 acres of Community Commercial land to increase the potential commercial options. Many cited the proximity to commercial Parcel WB-42 as a reason for choosing to live in this area. Residents cited near term changes to the area that will improve the prospects of marketing a commercial site of this size such as the new soccer complex under construction on Westbrook Blvd. to the north as well as the continued buildout of residential development in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and nearby areas of unincorporated Placer County including the future Regional University. Residents feel the applicant is proposing changes too soon and that the area will be more than able to absorb a 14.5-acre commercial site in the near future. These feelings are echoed in the Rosenlieb, Flynn Nevins, and Faulk letters attached to this report (Attachments 6-8).
Applicant in Favor of the Project: In both meetings, the applicant stated that they have been marketing the existing site for eight years without interest from commercial developers. The applicant cited the recent construction of Raleys, Safeway, and Nugget groceries in the area, which represent the three grocers that would be most likely to anchor a shopping center of this size. According to the applicant, those grocers have not shown interest in Parcel WB-42. The applicant feels that the proposed project will “right-size” the commercial parcel to create a more manageable parcel size. The applicant cites market trends due to e-commerce and other forces leading to smaller building sizes, which will be better accommodated in a smaller commercial project. The applicant provided a market study completed by MXD Development Strategists to provide additional context to bolster these market trends. The applicant cited their own previous work on the Village Center project, which now includes MoJoe’s Café and kitchen 747. That parcel was formerly 13 acres in size and sat undeveloped. The applicant similarly reduced the parcel by half, to two approximately 3-acre commercial sites in 2017 and the parcels were bought and developed in the years shortly after.
Residents For the Project: A smaller group of residents are in favor of the project. These are generally residents that live directly adjacent to the project on Starry Night Ln. and Gemini Ln. within the Heritage Solaire development. These residents prefer to have a residential land use behind their homes and are in support of the single-loaded street proposed with the subdivision map for WB-42B to provide a setback from future homes.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the Addendum prior to taking action on this project.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 12 of 19
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Consider the 13
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR;
2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PC L WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397;
3. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PC L WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397;
4. Recommend the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the REZONE – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PCL WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397;
5. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE SVSP WEST BROOK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PCL WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397; and
6. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PCL WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397 subject to fifty-nine (59) conditions of approval; and
7. Approve the LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT – 2931 PLEASANT GROVE BL. – SVSP PCL WB-42 – REZONE AND LAND USE AMENDMENT – FILE #PL24-0397 subject to eight (8) conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, FILE #PL24-0397
1. This Tentative Subdivision Map approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from September 26, 2024 and if not effectuated shall expire on September 26, 2026. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time. (Planning)
2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits A-H and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)
3. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Rezoning, Development Agreement and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning)
4. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)
5. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.
Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Finance)
6. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 13 of 19
7. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the right- of-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)
8. Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of homes within the subdivision, the home builder shall be required to submit for a Design Review for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) to review the proposed architecture and home designs. Detailed information (e.g., floor plans, architectural styles, colors and materials, etc.) shall be provided at that time. (Planning)
9. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS
10. Landscape Plans for all landscape corridors and all landscaped common areas shall be approved with the improvement plans. Landscaping shall be installed for Substantial Completion of the subdivision improvements. Landscape corridors shall also successfully complete the required establishment period.
The landscape plan shall comply with the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Fire, Environmental Utilities)
11. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b. Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore, modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.
c. A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d. Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all applicable curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)
12. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to the Engineering Division prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department prior to any work conducted within the City right-of-way. (Engineering)
14. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During site inspection Engineering will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. (Engineering)
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 14 of 19
15. All Lots/Parcels shall conform to Class 1 drainage, pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards, except as shown on the tentative map or as approved in these conditions. (Engineering)
16. The following note shall be added to the Grading and/or Improvement Plans:
To minimize dust/grading impacts during construction the applicant shall:
a. Spray water on all exposed earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving and other site preparation activities throughout the day.
b. Use tarpaulins or other affective covers on all stockpiled earth material and on all haul trucks. c. Sweep the adjacent streets frontages at least once a day or as needed to remove silt and other dirt which is evident from construction activities.
d. Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off site.
e. The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations, if in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control measures are being practiced or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)
17. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the project proponent’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)
18. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)
19. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way for the widening of any streets required with this entitlement. If necessary, a separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)
20. The applicant shall provide a right-turn deceleration lane along the project frontage north of the entry for southbound vehicular traffic on Westbrook Boulevard for entry into the subdivision. The lane will consist of an auxiliary lane with striping to provide the taper for the deceleration lane. (Engineering)
21. If the applicant proposes a private subdivision, provide an entrance layout per City standard detail ST- 25, or modified entrance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
22. The grading plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. All on-site storm drainage shall be collected on site and shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain stub of natural drainage coarse. (Engineering)
23. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which includes trash capture requirements. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 15 of 19
drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. (Engineering)
24. The grading plans shall be accompanied with engineered structural calculations for all retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. All retaining walls shall be of either split faced masonry units, keystone type construction, or cast in place concrete with fascia treatment. (Engineering)
25. The developer shall be responsible for any necessary relocation of signal interconnect cables that may require re-location as a result of the construction of turn lanes and/or driveways. (Engineering)
26. To ensure that the design for any necessary widening, construction, or modifications of Public Streets does not conflict with existing dry utilities generally located behind the curb and gutter, prior to the approval of design drawings for those frontage improvements, the project proponent shall have the existing dry utilities pot holed for verification of location and depth. (Engineering)
27. Sight distances for all driveways (excluding residence driveways) shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans to verify that minimum standards are achieved. It will be the responsibility of the project proponent to provide appropriate landscaping and improvement plans, and to relocate and/or modify existing facilities as needed to meet these design objectives. (Engineering)
28. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans , the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required onsite and available for viewing by City inspection staff upon request. (Engineering)
29. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profile- view where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility.
Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)
30. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed and constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Sewer and water service laterals shall not be allowed off of water and sewer mains larger than 12 inches in diameter.
b. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. c. Water and sewer mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions.
d. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather 10-ton vehicular access unless authorized by these conditions. (Environmental Utilities)
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 16 of 19
31. Recycled water infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. The applicant shall pay all applicable recycled water fees. Easements sh all be provided as necessary fo r recycled water infrastructure. (Environmental Utilities)
32. Any backflow preventers visible from the street shall be painted green to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The backflow preventers shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventer to the landscaping.
b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall be installed on a maximum of three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventer shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Environmental Utilities)
33. A note shall be added to the Improvement Plans stating that all water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department prior to the Notice of Completion for the improvements. (Environmental Utilities)
34. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Fire Department. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500' on center. (Fire)
35. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds of residual pressure. The fire flow and residual pressure may be increased, as determined by the Fire Marshall, where the project utility lines will serve non-residential uses. (Fire)
36. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)
37. All Electrical Department facilities, including street lights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Residential Trenching”. (Electric)
38. The design for electrical service for this project will begin when the Electric Department has received a full set of improvement plans for the project. (Electric)
39. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the “Electric Department Landscape Design Requirements” as outlined in Section 7.00 of the Electric Department’s “Specifications for Residential Trenching.” (Electric)
40. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)
41. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E)
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 17 of 19
PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL/PARCEL MAP
42. All existing easements shall be maintained, except for the partial abandonment of the PUE fronting Westbrook Boulevard shown on the tentative map, or unless otherwise provided for in these conditions.(Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering) (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
43. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville”. All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. (Alternative Transportation, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
44. A declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the entire property concurrently with the Final/Parcel Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following items: (Attorney, Planning) a. A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior written consent of the City Attorney. b. A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. c. The developer shall disclose to all residential and nonresidential buyers that the Property will be served by-both surface water and groundwater supplies and that variations in the appearance, taste and color of water may be noticed from time to time and include such disclosure in the CC&Rs for the Property. The disclosure shall describe the location of the groundwater well. For infill projects this is not applicable. (Engineering)
d. The developer shall disclose to all buyers that recycled water shall be used for irrigation of parks and landscape corridors, medians, paseos adjacent to collector streets and other landscape areas, including all multi-family and non-residential landscaping uses. Such disclosure shall be included in the CC&Rs for all residential buyers and other recorded notice instrument for all non-residential buyers. For infill projects this is not applicable. (Engineering)
45. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
a. A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
OR
b. The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)
46. Lot/Parcel LC-1 and LC-2 shall be dedicated as a landscape/pedestrian/public utility easement and in fee to the City for the as open space. (Engineering)
47. Lot/Parcel LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 shall be owned by an HOA and privately maintained. (Planning)
48. Street names shall be approved by the City of Roseville. (Engineering)
49. If this project is designed as a private subdivision, the interior streets shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. A public utility easement and emergency vehicle access easement shall be dedicated to the City across all private streets. If the project remains a public subdivision, then all streets shall be dedicated as public right of way to the City, in fee, with an irrevocable offer of dedication, and public utility easements shall be required at back of walk, per City requirements. (Engineering) SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 18 of 19
50. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE's) located along public roadways. (Engineering)
51. The Final/Lot/Parcel/Parcel Map shall be submitted per, “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”.
Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering)
52. Electric construction costs incurred by the City of Roseville Electric Department for this project shall be paid for by the developer per the applicable policy. (Electric)
53. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)
OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
54. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change to existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric)
55. It is the responsibility of the developer to insure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstructions during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric)
56. Existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)
57. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Engineering)
58. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor shall notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable or not and if site remediation is required. Non-emergency releases or notifications about the presence of containers found shall be reported to the Fire Department. (Fire)
59. All plant material shall be maintained under a 30 calendar day establishment period after initial planting.
Upon completion of the establishment period, all plant material shall remain under warrantee for an additional 9 months minimum. Any plant material which does not survive during the establishment period shall be immediately replaced. Any trees or shrubs which do not survive during the warrantee period shall be replaced one month prior to the end of the warrantee period. Tree or shrub replacement made necessary due to acts of God, neglect or vandalism shall be exempt from the warrantee. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #PL24-0397
1. The Lot Line Adjustment is approved as shown in Exhibit H. (Planning, Engineering)
2. The following shall be submitted to Engineering prior to recordation of the Voluntary Merger or Lot Line Adjustment:
a) Two copies of property boundary description with exhibit map (8.5" x 11" sheet), and one copy of boundary closure calculations for resulting lots. These items shall be stamped and signed by a California Licensed Land Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land Use Amendment file #PL24-0397 Planning Commission – September 26, 2024 – Page 19 of 19
b) One copy of the Conditions of Approval.
c) A completed Property Owner Consent Form.
d) Deed to convey interest in the property.
e) Preliminary title report no older than six months for all properties involved. (Engineering)
3. If surveying monuments are placed as a result of this Property Line Adjustment, it will be the responsibility of the Surveyor to record a Record of Survey with the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)
4. All existing easements shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
5. The applicant shall submit to the Development Services - Engineering Division a paper copy and an electronic copy of the recorded Voluntary Merger or Lot Line Adjustment per the “Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys.” (Environmental Utilities)
6. Prior to recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant shall pay the City’s surveyor’s processing and consulting fee of $150. (Engineering)
7. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville”. All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
8. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change to existing City facilities due to this Voluntary Merger or Lot Line Adjustment shall be paid for by the applicant. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses
2. Fiscal Impact Analysis
3. Affordable Obligation Consideration
4. MXD Market Study
5. Westbrook DA Development Standards
6. Flynn-Nevins Comment Letter
7. Rosenlieb Letter
8. Faulk Comments
EXHIBITS
A. 13 th Addendum to the SVSP EIR
B. SVSP Parcel WB-42 GPA Exhibit
C. SVSP Change Pages
D. SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Exhibit
E. Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA – redlines
F. Third Amendment to the Westbrook DA – clean
G. Tentative Subdivision Map
H. Lot Line Adjustment
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses August 4, 2004 Intent:
In response to pressures to convert portions of the City's non-residential land use inventory the City has developed the following guidelines for the consideration of land use changes. The intent of the guidelines is to articulate the City's expectations relating to land use change proposals. These guidelines are to be applied as performance measures in the preparation and review of any such proposals. The guidelines are not intended to be inclusive of all City development requirements, but rather supplement those requirements by identifying or emphasizing concepts particularly important or unique to potential land use changes. It is expected that the City’s emphasis on certain concepts or requirements will change overtime. Therefore, the guidelines are to be a fluid document to be revisited every two years and updated to reflect the City’s present need. In consideration of the unique attributes and constraints of various areas of the City, the guidelines have been divided in two areas those guidelines that are applicable to the infill area and those that are applicable to the balance of the City. A map depicting these areas is attached. Infill
The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes within the infill portion of the City is to encourage and emphasize reinvestment and revitalization without creating undue burdens and barriers to development while preserving neighborhood compatibility. 1. Infill properties are identified as those properties located within the City’s infill planning area as designated on the City’s Zoning Map. 2. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Neighborhood Park fees are to be applied to infill neighborhood park improvements as identified on an infill park CIP projects list. Where the Parks Department demonstrates a park need a Parkland dedication or in-lieu park fee for land dedication may be negotiated and evaluated on a project by project basis, based on the nature of the project and the benefit to the City. 3. Encourage the use of private passive open space in-lieu of land dedication for infill projects. 4. Off site utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) that serve more than the specific project are not the sole responsibility of the project. Over-sizing of improvements or upgrading to City standards may be available for City reimbursement. The City may develop a CIP for off site improvements for which a project may pay an impact fee in lieu of constructing the improvement. Each project shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and shall be conditioned accordingly. 5. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed to reflect the payment of the City's existing infill school impact fees. 6. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income) except redevelopment areas shall provide 15%. (Of those 40% affordable to very low income and the balance affordable to low/middle income). 7. A land use change on the Placer County Fair Grounds shall require a master plan.
8. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects. Balance of the City The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes for the balance of the City is to maintain the City's fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community. 1. Balance of the City includes properties within all specific plans and the North Industrial Plan area. 2. A region wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres. 3. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model. 4. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size shall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance. 5. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income). 6. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee. 7. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City. 8. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding in-lieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in-lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit. 9. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of and in-lieu fee for land dedication. 10. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity. 11. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated. 12. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation. 13. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.
DRAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Sean Morales, Associate Planner, City of Roseville
CC: John Tallman, Partner, Westpark Communities
From: Jamie Gomes and Emilio Balingit
Subject: Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #242083
Date: July 31, 2024
Introduction
Westpark SV 400, LLC (Applicant) retained Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare the Fiscal Impact Analysis (Analysis) for the proposed rezone of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcel WB-42 (Project)—an approximately
14.5-acre development located in the City of Roseville (City).
This Analysis examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget, based on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 Adopted Budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates whether projected revenues from the Project will cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, and parks and recreation) to the Project’s residents and employees. The Analysis is based on the assumption that these services will be provided by the City.
At the City’s request, EPS has analyzed the estimated fiscal impacts to the City for the following two land use scenarios:
• Scenario 1—Proposed Project (53 Medium-Density
Residential homes and 7.0 acres of retail development)
• Scenario 2—Existing Zoning (14.5 acres of retail
development)
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
The following memorandum provides an overview of the Project and two scenarios. The memorandum then summarizes annual fiscal impacts of each Scenario assuming buildout of the Project area. Finally, the memorandum summarizes the methodology used to calculate the fiscal impacts and presents detailed calculations and result in the Appendices.
Project and Scenario Overview
The Project site is approximately 14.5 acres, located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard in the SVSP. Map 1 shows the SVSP location in the local context of the City. The project site is bound by Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north, Westbrook Boulevard to the east, and residential uses to the south and west. Currently, the Project site is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and is undeveloped. This analysis studies two development scenarios, described in further detail below and in Table A-2:
• Scenario 1, the proposed Project, includes subdividing Parcel WB-42 into two parcels, as shown on Map 2. The 7.5-acre southern parcel would be rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and further subdivided to provide lots for 53 single family homes. The 7.0-acre northern parcel would remain zoned as CC. For the purposes of this analysis, EPS assumes that the northern parcel would be developed with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, resulting in 76,230 square feet of retail uses.1
• In Scenario 2, the entire parcel would remain zoned CC and would develop at
0.25 FAR, resulting in 158,341 square feet of retail uses.
1 The 0.25 FAR assumption for CC-zoned properties is consistent with the development scenario analyzed in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Westbrook amendment to the SVSP.
0DS3URSRVHG3URMHFW
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
Overview of Results
The Analysis comparing the fiscal impacts to the City of the existing versus proposed zoning yielded the following results:
• For both Scenarios, annual revenues are anticipated to exceed annual expenditures for the Project before and after accounting for estimated annual taxes from Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 3 (Municipal Services). At buildout, the Project in Scenario 1 is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $258,600 before special taxes and assessments, and approximately $285,100 after CFD No. 3 revenues (approximately $26,700 in CFD No. 3 revenues). Scenario 2 is estimated to generate a net annual surplus of approximately $559,600 before special taxes and assessments, and $580,535 after CFD No. 3 revenues (approximately $20,935 in CFD No. 3 revenues). Please see Table 1 for a comparison of results between the two scenarios. Even though Scenario 1 reduces potential net revenues to the City’s General Fund compared to Scenario 2, the rezone application does not create a situation where the rezoned land uses are anticipated to create a negative on the City’s General Fund.
• Estimated annual revenues in Scenario 1 are approximately $295,000 lower as compared to Scenario 2. With significantly more commercial square footage possible under the existing zoning, estimated annual sales tax revenues that may accrue to the City under Scenario 2 are greater than compared to Scenario 1. The difference in estimated sales tax revenues is the primary driver in the total difference in estimated revenues between the 2 scenarios.
• Scenario 1 is estimated to slightly increase annual expenditures at Project buildout by approximately $55,000. The proposed increase in residential land uses in Scenario 1 increases the demand on City services as compared to Scenario 2. The main departments contributing to the increased expenditures are Parks, Recreation, and Libraries ($24,700), Police ($14,000) and Fire ($10,400). The higher expenditures in this scenario primarily result from this scenario having a higher number of residents as a result of the rezone.
• Both the proposed Project and the two development timelines under the existing zoning produce positive net present values (NPV) to the City’s general fund. The NPV calculation in this analysis shows the value of the revenues and expenditures over a 30-year time period in current year dollars, assuming a 3 percent discount rate that accounts for the decreased nominal value of future dollars. Because the timing of any development under
DRAFT
Table 1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison (2023$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Proposed Project Existing Zoning Total Percent
GENERAL FUND
Annual Revenues [1]
Property Taxes $95,100 $95,100 $0 0.0%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $27,900 $27,900 $0 0.0%
Real Property Transfer Tax $2,100 $1,700 $400 23.5%
Sales Tax $164,500 $321,800 ($157,300) (48.9%)
Sales Tax - Measure B $93,000 $181,800 ($88,800) (48.8%) Prop. 172 Sales Tax $4,500 $8,900 ($4,400) (49.4%)
Hotel/Motel Tax $7,000 $5,200 $1,800 34.6%
Business License Tax $800 $600 $200 33.3%
Franchise Fees (Excl. Electric) $2,300 $1,700 $600 35.3% Electric Franchise Fees $7,800 $5,800 $2,000 34.5%
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $405,000 $650,500 ($245,500) (37.7% ) Annual Expenditures [2]
City Council $100 $100 $0 0.0%
City Manager $1,100 $800 $300 37.5%
Public Affairs and Communications $1,000 $700 $300 42.9% City Attorney $1,600 $1,200 $400 33.3%
Finance $2,900 $2,200 $700 31.8%
Human Resources $1,500 $1,100 $400 36.4%
City Clerk $600 $500 $100 20.0%
Police $55,200 $41,200 $14,000 34.0%
Fire $41,000 $30,600 $10,400 34.0%
Economic Development $700 $500 $200 40.0%
Parks, Recreation & Libraries $24,700 $0 $24,700 N/A
Public Works $10,100 $7,600 $2,500 32.9%
Development Services $5,900 $4,400 $1,500 34.1%
Total Annual General Fund Expenditure
s $146,400 $90,900 $55,500 61.1 %
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $258,600 $559,600 ($301,000) (53.8% ) CFD No. 3 [3] $26,500 $20,935 $5,565 21.0 %
Subtotal Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit) Including CFD No. 3 $285,100 $580,535 ($295,435) (103.6% ) Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
[1] See Table B-1 for details on revenue estimating procedures. [2] See Table C-1 for details on expenditure estimating procedures. [3] See Table B-6.
Difference
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx 6 SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
the existing zoning is uncertain, Table 2 compares the NPV of the revenues and expenditures under the Project scenario and two scenarios under the existing zoning: one scenario in which a retail project develops under the existing zoning in 15 years, and one in which the same project develops 20 years in the future. If the hypothetical commercial development under existing zoning does not occur until Year 20, then the NPV of the Proposed Project is greater than the NPV of the development under the existing zoning.
If the commercial development under existing zoning develops in Year 15, then the NPV of the Proposed Project is marginally lower (approximately $440,000) than the development scenario under existing zoning.
Memorandum Organization
Data, assumptions, and detailed calculations underlying the Analysis are provided in the following four appendices that are attached to this memorandum:
• Appendix A contains the land use plan and detailed valuation assumptions, including population and employment factors.
• Appendix B contains detailed revenue estimates and revenue-estimating assumptions.
• Appendix C contains detailed expenditure estimates and expenditure estimating procedures.
• Appendix D contains property tax allocation assumptions, including project valuation and household income assumptions.
• Appendix E contains a detailed cashflow comparing the net present value (NPV) of the two scenarios’ impact on City revenues and expenses over 30 years.
Methodology and Assumptions
This section details the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of the Project on the City. It describes assumptions concerning municipal service delivery, land development, and General Fund budgeting. In addition, it details the methodology used to forecast the Project’s General Fund revenues and expenditures at buildout.
DRAFT
Table 2
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Net Present Value of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures Year 15 Beg. Year 20 Beg. Scenario 1 Year 15 Beg. Year 20 Beg.
Timeframe [2] Proposed Rezone
Formula a b c d = c-a e = c-b
General Fund
Total Net Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) [3]
10-Yr Timeframe (2024-2033) $0 $0 $2,565,900 $2,565,900 $2,565,900 15-Yr Timeframe (2024-2038) $0 $0 $3,991,400 $3,991,400 $3,991,400 30-Yr Timeframe (2024-2053) $8,708,024 $5,805,350 $8,267,900 ($440,124) $2,462,550 Source: EPS.
[1] Net present value (NPV) is presented in 2023 dollars and is based on the following assumptions:
Revenue Escalation 3.00%
Discount Rate 3.00%
[2] This analysis makes the following development timing assumptions:
Scenario 1a - Existing Zoning: revenues begin accruing to the City's General Fund in Year 15 (2038); Scenario 1b - Existing Zoning: revenues begin accruing to the City's General Fund in Year 20 (2043); Scenario 2 - Proposed Rezone, revenues begin accruing to the City's General Fund in Year 2 (2025) [3] See Table E-1 for annual revenues and expenditures at buildout by Scenario in 2023 dollars.
Net Present Value of Revenues by Scenario [1]
Existing Zoning Difference from Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx 8 SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Municipal Service Provision
Citywide Services
This Analysis examines the Project’s ability to generate adequate revenues to cover the City’s costs of providing public services to the Project. The services analyzed in this Analysis comprise General Fund services (e.g., police, fire, and general government).
The Analysis excludes any services that may be funded privately or through other specific taxes such as Westbrook CFD No. 2. This Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development.
General Assumptions
The Analysis is based on the City’s FY 2023-2024 Adopted Budget, tax regulations, statutes, and other general assumptions discussed herein. Each revenue item is estimated based on current State of California (State) legislation and current City practices. Future changes by either State legislation or City practices can affect the revenues and expenditures estimated in this Analysis.
All costs and revenues are shown in constant 2023 dollars, with the exception of the estimated assessed value for the residences proposed in the Project. Those assessed values are based on sales in the first two quarters of 2024. Additionally, the NPV analysis described above discounts the net costs and revenues to current day (2024) dollars. General fiscal and demographic assumptions are detailed in Table A-1 in Appendix A.
This Analysis also uses information from the City, the Applicant, and historical and projected demographic data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Other critical assumptions that may affect the results of this Analysis are actual home prices versus estimated home prices or other changes in residential assumptions (e.g., residential densities, product types, and persons-per-household factors).
The land use information in this Analysis was taken from the Project’s entitlement application. The results of this Analysis will vary if development plans or other assumptions change from those on which this Analysis is based.
General Fund Revenue- and Expenditure-Estimating Assumptions This Analysis considers only discretionary General Fund revenues that will be generated by the Project. Offsetting revenues, which are General Fund revenues that are dedicated to offset the costs of specific General Fund department functions, are excluded from this Analysis. Departmental costs funded by SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
offsetting revenues or not affected by development also are excluded from this Analysis. Calculations used to estimate costs net of off-setting revenues are shown in Table C-1 in Appendix C.
Development Assumptions
Listed below are brief summaries of the land use and other development-related assumptions:
• Land Use: The Cover Sheet for the Tentative Subdivision Map shown in Map 2, dated April 3, 2024, was used for this Analysis, which examines the fiscal impacts of the Project at buildout.
• Residential and Employee Estimates: Population projections are calculated using an average persons-per-household factor of 2.54 for residential units, which was referenced from the California Department of Finance population and housing unit figures for the City of Roseville. Employee estimates are based on factors of average square feet per employee for Project nonresidential land uses.
• Residential Assessed Value: The estimated assessed valuation of single- family residential development is based on prices of comparable residential projects in the City, based on home sales price data from The Gregory Group’s New Home database as of 2024 Q2. Estimated buildout assessed values for the total Project are calculated in Table D-2 in Appendix D. • Nonresidential Assessed Value: EPS used nonresidential values consistent with the 2024 Philipp Road Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by EPS for the City of Roseville in 2024.
• Property Turnover Rates: The Analysis assumes that a for-sale residential unit would turn over once every 7 years and nonresidential properties would turn over once every 15 years.
• Persons-Served Methodology: In estimating service demands of the Project and those of the existing City, EPS used a factor to approximate the service demands of an employee in Project nonresidential land uses as compared to a Project resident. EPS used a factor of 0.5 to estimate an employee’s impact on services as compared to a resident’s impact, which is consistent with the persons-served methodology the City has used in the past. • Income of Households: The average household income of each residential land use category (e.g., low density, medium density, high density) in the Project was estimated to forecast household retail expenditures. This calculation was derived using the following assumptions and data inputs:
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
‒ Estimated home values as described in Table D-2 in Appendix D. ‒ Assumed a 6.0 percent, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage with a 20 percent down payment and 2 percent annual taxes and insurance and a $150 monthly payment for a Homeowner’s Association. Taxes and insurance include ad valorem taxes, as well as existing and proposed special taxes and assessments for infrastructure and services.
‒ For owner-occupied homes, assumed 30 percent of income dedicated to mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance.
Estimated household incomes by land use type are calculated in Table A-4.
Revenue-Estimating Methodology
EPS used either a marginal-revenue case-study approach or an average-revenue approach to estimate Project-related General Fund revenues.
The marginal-revenue case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from new development. The case-study approach for estimating sales and use tax revenues, for instance, forecasts market demand and taxable spending from the Project’s new residents, as well as taxable sales generated by the Project’s on-site retail. Case studies used in this Analysis are discussed in greater detail later in this section.
The average-revenue approach uses the City’s FY 2023-20124 Adopted Budget revenue amounts on a citywide per capita or per-persons-served basis to forecast revenues derived from estimated residents of the Project.2 Revenue sources not expected to increase as a result of development are excluded from this Analysis. These sources of revenue are not affected by development because either they are one-time revenue sources not guaranteed to be available in the future or there is no direct relation between increased employment growth and increased revenue.
A listing of all City General Fund revenue sources and the corresponding estimating procedure used to forecast future Project revenues is shown in Table B-1 in Appendix B.
2 A per capita basis of estimating revenues assumes that only residents have a fiscal impact on City revenues. A per-persons-served basis of estimating revenues is used to take into account that businesses (and their employees) have a fiscal impact on many City revenues but at a lower level than residential development’s impact.
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
Reader’s Note: The discussion of revenues in this memorandum generally reflects the order of the revenues presented in the tables. In some cases, however, this order may vary for purposes of organizing the background discussion and in describing similarly estimated revenue items.
Property Tax
Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is presented in Table B-3 in Appendix B. To be consistent with the City’s budget data, the estimated assessed values for Project land uses are assumed to remain static in 2024-dollar values—real growth in assessed value is not estimated. The share of property taxes the City is assumed to receive from the Project is derived from the total assessed value of the Project and the City’s property tax allocation share of the 1 percent ad valorem property tax, as shown in Table D-1 in Appendix D.
The Project is in Tax Rate Area (TRA) 005-071. As shown in Table D-1, the City is shown to receive approximately 41.5 percent of the property tax revenue before adjusting for the City’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) adjustment factor. The gross property tax is adjusted by the ERAF factor to derive the post-ERAF share of property tax revenue available for tax sharing of approximately 33.3 percent. Based on the terms of the City and County property tax and sales tax sharing agreement, EPS understands the City is to remit to the County an equivalent of 18.25 percent of the post-ERAF property tax. That assumption is modeled in this analysis.
Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees
A formula provided by the State Controller’s Office was used to forecast Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTIL VLF). PTIL VLF is calculated by taking the percentage increase of the City’s assessed value resulting from the Project and applying that percentage share to the City’s current State allocation of PTIL VLF.
This calculation is shown in Table B-3 in Appendix B.
Real Property Transfer Tax
Real property transfer tax is based on the assessed value of the Project’s land uses and the anticipated turnover of residential properties over time. As stated earlier, the Analysis assumes the Project’s for-sale residential property will turn over 7 percent per year (or once every 14 years), and multifamily rental and nonresidential property will turn over 5 percent per year (or once every 20 years).
Real property transfer tax revenue projections are identified in Table B-4 in Appendix B.
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated in the City. The sales tax components examined in this Analysis include the Bradley-Burns 1 percent local sales tax rate and Measure B ½-cent local sales tax sales tax. Under a tax-sharing SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13
agreement between the City and Placer County, the City is required to transfer
11.5 percent of the Bradley-Burns sales tax revenue to Placer County. The initial agreement amount is 11.5 percent and it is set to automatically increase to 16 percent, subject to a future fiscal impact analysis. This analysis estimates the City’s sales tax revenue under the current 11.5 percent tax sharing agreement, as shown in Table B-5.
The Analysis uses two methodologies to estimate taxable sales generated by the Project:
1. The Market Support Method measures taxable sales generated from new Project residents and employees.
2. The Retail Space Method measures taxable sales from the Project’s retail land uses.
In addition to the above methodologies, the Analysis includes estimates of taxable sales revenues derived from anticipated business-to-business spending from Project commercial land uses.
Market Support Method
New Households
This Analysis estimates retail expenditures of future residents in the Project by type of retail category and the share of expenditures that will be captured in the City (e.g., generate sales in the City’s retail establishments). The amounts and types of expenditures made by residents generally depend on their household income. Data for this Analysis are based on estimated Project resident incomes, household spending patterns, and retail demand and supply market conditions in the City.
Specifically, this Analysis estimates retail expenditures of future residents by:
• Estimating the total income of new households based on the projected home sales prices and monthly rent expenses. EPS assumes household income estimates are based on owner-occupied tenure, with home purchase financed by a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.3
• Evaluating Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports the proportion of income spent on various household goods and services by income group.
3 The income estimate assumes that annual payment for the mortgage (30-year, 5.5 percent fixed interest, 20 percent down payment), property taxes, and insurance equal 30 percent of income. Property taxes and insurance are assumed at 2 percent of home value.
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14
Based on these methods, EPS estimates future household incomes to be $162,000 for the proposed MDR units. Typical household expenditure patterns from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2022 CES suggests, at these income levels, Project residents for owner-occupied homes are estimated to spend 22.1 percent and of their household income on taxable retail expenditures. These assumptions and estimates are summarized in Table A-4.
The Analysis also assumes that the City’s retail businesses would capture roughly 80 percent of the Project’s household retail demand. The estimate is based an analysis showing that total retail sales in the City exceeds the total resident spending potential, suggesting that retail sales leakage for the City is marginal.
New Employees
The sales tax analysis accounts for taxable retail expenditures made by the new employees generated by development of nonresidential land uses in the Project.
The number of employees is estimated by using the total occupied building square footage for each nonresidential land use and applying an average square foot per employee factor for each corresponding land use (see Table A-3 in Appendix A).
EPS estimates employees spend approximately $10 per business day on taxable goods.
4 The amount of taxable sales from new employees is discounted to avoid double-counting employees who also are residents.
Total sales revenues generated for the City by the Project’s new households and new employees and corresponding calculations for the Market Support Method are shown in Table B-5A in Appendix B.
Retail Space Method
Annual taxable sales generated by retail uses in the Project were calculated by taking an “annual sales per square foot” factor, published in the Urban Land Institute’s Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers: 2008, and escalating it to 2023 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. To prevent double counting, the Project’s total taxable sales estimated from the Retail Space Method are reduced by the on-site taxable sales estimated by the Market Support Method (Project residents and employees).
Total sales revenues and corresponding calculations for the Retail Space Method are shown in Table B-5B in Appendix B.
Proposition 172
Revenues from the City’s share of the County’s half-cent sales tax for public safety are included in the Analysis and calculated in Table B-5 in Appendix B.
The City’s public safety sales tax share is based on estimated citywide taxable sales from the City’s FY 2023-24 budget.
4 This Analysis is based on the assumption there are 240 business days per year.
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
CFD No. 3 (Municipal Services)
Project revenues from CFD No. 3 for police, fire, and library services are estimated in Tables B-6 Appendix B. Estimates are based on fees per unit for residential land and per acre for commercial land.
Expenditure-Estimating Methodology
Expenditure estimates are based on the City’s FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget and supplemental information from City staff. All City General Fund expenditure items are listed on Table C-1 in Appendix C. As described herein, the Project fiscal impact analyses rely on an “average-cost” methodology to estimate all General Fund expenditure impacts of new development on the City. An average-cost methodology is a common fiscal impact analysis methodology that divides the City’s net cost of service, for a given service function, by the service population to which that service is provided. In this manner, the average-cost method is based on the assumption the marginal cost of agency services to new Project residents and employees would equal the City’s existing average-cost structure.
This Analysis applies adjustment factors to several General Fund department average-cost multipliers to reflect the fact that new residents and employees may not increase certain General Fund department expenditures on a 1:1 ratio. Some departments have fixed costs not anticipated to increase with new development (see Table C-1 in Appendix C). These adjustment factors are based on EPS’s experience with similar fiscal impact analyses and account for the size and land use of the Project as compared to that of the existing City.
Expenditures affected by residents and employees are projected using a per- person-served average expenditure multiplier and include the department functions listed below:
General Government
• City Council
• City Manager
• City Attorney
• Finance
• Public Affairs & Communication
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• City Clerk
• Central Services
Other
• Economic Development & Housing
• Development Services/Planning
• Public Works
• Police
• Fire
Community Grants and Parks, Recreation & Libraries costs are estimated using a per-capita average-cost multiplier because these departments’ functions generally serve residential development primarily.
SVSP Parcel WB-42 Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
July 31, 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 16
Technical Appendices
The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices A through E (Tables A-1 through E-1) of this memorandum:
• Appendix A indicates the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
• Appendix B identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the City’s General Fund.
• Appendix C details the estimated expenditures for the City to provide General Fund services to the Project. It also shows the offsetting revenue analysis, which allocates dedicated General Fund revenues to General Fund department functions.
• Appendix D shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for calculating property tax revenues. In addition, this appendix provides detail on the portion of the Assembly Bill 8 allocation of property tax revenues provided to the City and includes the calculation of estimated average household income.
• Appendix E shows the Detailed Cashflow Analysis.
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: General Assumptions
Appendix B: Revenue-Estimating Tables
Appendix C: Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for
Revenue Estimates
Appendix E: Detailed Cashflow Analysis
APPENDIX A:
General Assumptions
Table A-1 General Assumptions ..................................................... A-1 Table A-2 Proposed Land Use Development Plan .............................. A-2 Table A-3 Estimated Service Population .......................................... A-3 Table A-4 Land Use Assumptions ................................................... A-4
DRAFT
Table A-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
General Assumptions
Item Assumption
General Assumptions
Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2023-24
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Roseville
Population [2] 152,928
Employees [3] 110,000
City of Roseville Persons Served [4] 207,928
Source: California Department of Finance (DOF); California Employment Development Department (EDD); EPS.
[4] Defined as total population plus half of total employees. [2] DOF Table 2: E-5 City of Roseville population estimate as of 1/1/2023. [3] Roseville FY 2023-24 Approved Budget states California Employment Development Department (EDD) estimates Roseville to have 100,000 jobs as of May 2023. Adjusted by an additional 10% to account for self-employed workers. [1] Reflects the City of Roseville Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget. Revenues and expenditures are in 2023 dollars. This analysis does not reflect changes in value resulting from inflation or appreciation.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx A-1
DRAFT
Table A-2
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Proposed Land Use Development Plan
Land Use Acreage
Average
Density
Dwelling
Units
Nonres.
Bldg Sq. Ft. Acreage
Average
Density
Dwelling
Units
Nonres.
Bldg Sq. Ft.
Residential DU/Ac. DU/Ac.
Medium-Density Residential 7.54 7.0 53 - ----
Nonresidential FAR [1] FAR [1]
Retail 7.00 0.25 - 76,230 14.54 0.25 0 158,341
Source: Westpark SV 400, LLC, Site Exhibit dated April 3, 2024; Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study, 2012; EPS. [1] Per the Initial Study for the Westbrook Amendment to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, all Community Commercial sites were assumed to develop as retail at 0.25 FAR.
Proposed Rezone Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx A-2
DRAFT
Table A-3
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Service Population
Land Use
Units/Bldg.
Sq. Ft.
Occupied
Units/Bldg.
Sq. Ft.
Population/
Employees
Persons
Served
Units/Bldg.
Sq. Ft.
Occupied
Units/Bldg.
Sq. Ft.
Population/
Employees
Persons
Served
Residential
Medium-Density Residential 53 51 129 129 ----
Total Residential 53 51 129 129 ----
Nonresidential (Mixed Use Innovation District)
Retail 76,230 72,419 145 72 158,341 150,424 301 150
Total Nonresidential 76,230 72,419 145 72 158,341 150,42 4 301 150 Persons Served [2] 274 201 301 150
Source: Westpark SV 400, LLC, Site Exhibit dated April 3, 2024; EPS. [1] Based on occupied land uses and population and employment density assumptions in Table A-4. [2] Persons Served defined as total project area population plus half of total project area employees.
Scenario 1
Proposed Project
Scenario 2
Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx A-3
DRAFT
Table A-4
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Land Use Assumptions
Estimated Annual Annual Resident
as % Average
Land Use of HH Income Annual Exp.
Residential Per Unit Persons/HH
Medium-Density Residential $620,000 $162,000 22.1% $35,800 7.0% 2.54 4.4% Nonresidential (Mixed Use Innovation District) Per Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Employee Retail $400 - - - 5.0% 500 5.0%
[2] Market Rate household income assumptions:
[3] Taxable expenditures as a percentage of income derived from the 2022 BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey. [5] Estimated Low- and Medium-Density residential vacancy rates based on data obtained from the 2022 U.S. Census for the City of Rosveille. Estimated retail vacancy rates based on 2023 data obtained from CoStar for the Roseville/Rocklin submarket.
Taxable HH Expenditures [3]
Income per
Household [2]
Turnover
Rate
and Employee
Densities [4]
Vacancy
Rate [5]
Assessed
Value
(Rounded) [1]
[1] See Appendix D for assessed value information for residential uses. Values for nonresidential uses are consistent with the Philipp Road Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the City of Roseville in 2024. [4] Resident density assumptions derived from California Department of Finance average persons per household for the City of Roseville as of January 2023. Employee density assumptions based on typical EPS assumptions for retail land uses.
Assumes that annual mortgage payments, plus property taxes and insurance are 30% of income. Mortgage payments assume a 20% down payment, 30-yr term, 6% fixed interest. Taxes and insurance are assumed to equal 2% of home value. Includes a $150/month estimate for HOA dues.
Source: Westpark SV 400, LLC; California Department of Finance; U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Gregory Group; CoStar; EPS.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx A-4
APPENDIX B:
Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on
City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Budget ................................. B-1 Table B-2 Estimated Annual Project Revenues at Buildout .................. B-2 Table B-3 Estimated Property Tax Revenues .................................... B-3 Table B-4 Real Property Transfer Tax at Buildout .............................. B-4 Table B-5 Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue .................. B-5 Table B-5A Estimated Annual Taxable Sales,
Hybrid Market Support Method ........................................ B-6 Table B-5B Estimated Annual Taxable Sales
Generated from On-Site Nonresidential ............................. B-7 Table B-6 Estimated CFD No. 3 Revenues ....................................... B-8
DRAFT
Table B-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Budget (2023$) FY 2023-24
Estimating Case Study Budgeted Service Revenue
Item Procedure Reference Revenues Population Multiplie r General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes Case Study Table B-3 $56,492,000 NA -
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Case Study Table B-3 $13,855,000 NA - Real Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $1,200,000 NA - Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $72,688,000 NA -
Sales Tax - Measure B Case Study Table B-5 $29,775,000 NA - Prop. 172 Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $1,777,000 NA - Highway Vehicles In Lieu Tax [1] $129,000 NA -
Hotel/Motel Tax Persons Served Multiplier $7,250,000 207,928 $34.87 Business License Tax Persons Served Multiplier $866,000 207,928 $4.16 Animal Licenses [2] $215,000 NA -
Other Licenses and Permits [2] $3,644,136 NA -
Franchise Fees (Excl. Electric) Persons Served Multiplier $2,375,000 207,928 $11.42 Electric Franchise Fees Persons Served Multiplier $8,075,815 207,928 $38.84 Charges for Services [2] $12,872,492 NA -
Grants and Contributions [1,2] $131,200 NA -
Use of Money and Property [1,2] $3,059,252 NA -
Fines and Penalties [2] $183,500 NA -
Other Revenue [2] $1,225,085 NA -
Transfers In [1] $9,165,204 NA -
Subtotal General Fund Revenues $224,978,684
Less Offsetting Revenues [3] $18,140,213 NA -
Net General Fund Operating Revenues $206,838,471
Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS. [1] This revenues source is not expected to be affected by the Project and therefore no revenue multipliers are estimated in t his analysis.
[2] This analysis assumes that all or part of these revenues are fully dedicated to specific General Fund departmental costs ( offsetting revenues).
Because these revenues are budget-neutral and are not discretionary, they are not included in estimating discretionary Pr oject revenues.
[3] Represents the sum of offsetting revenues dedicated to General Fund department functions. These revenues are budget neutral and are netted from both total revenues and total costs (shown in Table C-1). Amounts exclude one-time grant revenues.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-1
DRAFT
Table B-2
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Project Revenues at Buildout (2023$)
Estimating
Item Procedure Source
Annual General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes Case Study Table B-3 $95,100 23.5% $95,100 14.6% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Case Study Table B-3 $27,900 6.9% $27,900 4.3% Real Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $2,100 0.5% $1,700 0.3% Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $164,500 40.6% $321,800 49.5% Sales Tax - Measure B Case Study Table B-5 $93,000 23.0% $181,800 27.9% Prop. 172 Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $4,500 1.1% $8,900 1.4% Hotel/Motel Tax Persons Served Multiplier Table B-1 $7,000 1.7% $5,200 0.8% Business License Tax Persons Served Multiplier Table B-1 $800 0.2% $600 0.1% Franchise Fees (Excl. Electric) Persons Served Multiplier Table B-1 $2,300 0.6% $1,700 0.3% Electric Franchise Fees Persons Served Multiplier Table B-1 $7,800 1.9% $5,800 0.9% Annual General Fund Revenues $405,000 100.0 % $650,500 100.0 % Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
Amount (Rounded)
Scenario 2 - Existing Zoning
Percentage of
Total
Scenario 1 - Proposed Project
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-2
DRAFT
Table B-3
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Property Tax Revenues (2023$)
Item Assumptions Formula
1% Property Tax
Total Assessed Value of Project [1] a $63,352,000 $63,336,240 Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.00% b = a * 1.00% $633,520 $633,362 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [2]
City of Roseville 15.01% c = b * 15.01% $95,100 $95,077 Placer County 18.25% d = b * 18.25% $115,617 $115,589
Other Agencies 66.74% e = b * 66.74% $422,802 $422,697
Property Tax In Lieu of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue (VLF) Total Citywide Assessed Value [3] f $31,413,840,756 $31,413,840,756 Total Assessed Value of Project g = a $63,352,000 $63,336,240 Total Assessed Value h = g + f $31,477,192,756 $31,477,176,996 Percentage Change in AV i = g / f 0.20% 0.20%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF [4] $13,855,000 j = i * $13,855,000 $27,941 $27,934 Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Budget; Placer County Auditor-Controller; EPS [1] For assumptions and calculation of assessed value, refer to Table D-2. [3] Year 2023-24 Placer County Assessment Roll Values for City of Roseville. Includes citywide secured, unsecured, and homeowner exemption Scenario 1
Proposed Project
[4] Property tax in lieu of VLF amount derived from the City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget. See Table B-1. [2] Based on an existing tax sharing agreement between the City and the County, the City receives 45.1 percent and the County receives 54. percent of the City's post-ERAF property tax percentage in the tax rate area (TRA) in which the project is located. For assumptions and calculation of the estimated property tax allocation, refer to Table D-1.
Scenario 2
Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-3
DRAFT
Table B-4
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Real Property Transfer Tax at Buildout (2023$)
Description
Assumptions
Rate per $1,000 of AV [1] $0.55
Turnover Rate
Owner-Occupied Homes 7.0%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 5.0%
Assessed Value [2]
Residential $32,860,000 $0
Nonresidential $30,492,000 $63,336,240
Total Assessed Value $63,352,000 $63,336,240
Annual Transfer Tax Revenue
Residential $1,265 $0
Nonresidential $839 $1,742
Total Annual Transfer Tax Revenue $2,104 $1,742
Source: City of Roseville; EPS.
[1] Based on California Revenue and Taxation Code, §§ 11911-11929, which authorizes cities and counties to levy a real estate transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 value.
Source/
Assumption
Scenario 1
Proposed Project
[2] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Table D-2 note that assessed values are expressed in 2023$ and include no real AV growth.
Scenario 2
Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-4
DRAFT
Table B-5
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue (2023$)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Assumptions Formula Proposed Project Existing Zoning Estimated Annual Taxable Sales (Rounded)
Annual Taxable Sales from New Market Support Table B-5A $1,616,000 $343,000 Net Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Nonresidential Uses Table B-5B $16,976,000 $36,016,000 Total Annual Taxable Sales a $18,592,000 $36,359,000
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% b = 1.0000% * a $185,920 $363,590 Less County Share [1] (11.5000%) c = -11.5000% * b ($21,381) ($41,813) Total Sales Tax Revenue d = b + c $164,539 $321,777
Measure B Sales Tax [2] 0.50000% e = 0.5000% * a $92,960 $181,795 City of Roseville Prop. 172 Public Sales Tax Revenue [3] 0.02445% c = 0.0244% * a $4,545 $8,889 Source: California State Board of Equalization; City of Roseville EPS. [2] Approved in November 2018, Measure B is a citywide one-half cent sales tax to be used for essential City services. [1] County share of sales tax revenue based on the revenue sharing agreement in place between the City and County ensuring the County will receive no less than 11.5 percent of sales ta revenues generated across all Sierra Vista, Creekview, and Reason Farms developments as detailed in the Roseville - West Placer Annexations document submitted by the County Executive Officer to the County Board of Supervisors, dated September 13, 2011. At the beginning of the 15th year after annexation, the County's share could be increased as high as 16 percent of sales tax revenue generated based on a fiscal impact analysis to be completed at the time. [3] State Board of Equalization collects one-half cent sales tax revenue under Proposition 172. Based on estimated citywide taxable sales, the City receives approximately 0.02445% of the Prop 172 sales tax revenues (City FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget).
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-5
DRAFT
Table B-5A
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales, Hybrid Market Support Method (2023$) Item Description
Annual Taxable Sales from New Occupied Households
Occupied Residential Units Table A-3
Medium-Density Residential 51 -
Residential Subtotal 51 -
Taxable Retail Expenditures [1] Table A-4
Medium-Density Residential $35,800 $1,813,310 -
Residential Subtotal $1,813,310 -
Taxable Sales from New Households
Estimated Retail Capture in City of Roseville [2] 80% $1,450,648 - Annual Taxable Sales from New Employees Table A-3
New Employees 145 301
Average Daily Taxable Sales per New Employee $10
Work Days per Year 240
Total City Taxable Sales from New Employees [3] 50% $173,804 $361,017 Taxable Sales from New Employees
Estimated Retail Capture in City of Roseville [2] 95% $165,114 $342,966 Total Annual City Taxable Sales from Market Support $1,615,762 $342,966 Taxable City Sales inside Project Area [4] 25% $403,941 $85,741 Taxable City Sales outside Project Area [4] 75% $1,211,822 $257,224 Source: BLS; Consumer Expenditure Survey; and EPS.
[1] See Table A-4. Rounded to the nearest $1,000.
[2] Total retail sales in the City exceeds resident's retail spending potential, indicating no sales leakage for Roseville, so this analysis assumes marginal leakage for the Project household and employee retail spending. [3] Discounted by 50% to avoid double-counting employees who are also residents and to account for taxable sales from new employees that occur outside the City.
[4] EPS's estimate of resident/employee spending split between retail stores in the Project and stores outside the Project.
Source
/
Assumption
Scenario 1
Proposed Project
Scenario 2
Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-6
DRAFT
Table B-5B
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales Generated from On-Site Nonresidential (2023$) Annual
Taxable
Sales per Occupied Bldg Total Annual Occupied Bldg Total Annual Onsite Commercial Development Sq. Ft. [1] Sq. Ft. Taxable Sales Sq. Ft. Taxable Sales Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Nonresidential Development Nonresidential
Retail
$240 72,419 $17,380,440 150,424 $36,101,657
Total Nonresidential 72,419 $17,380,440 150,424 $36,101,657 Less Total Annual Taxable Sales From Onsite Market Support (within the Project) [2] $403,941 $85,741 Subtotal Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Nonres. Dev less Market Support $16,976,499 $36,015,915 Less Shift of Sales from Existing Retail Stores to the Project [3] $0 $0 Annual Taxable Sales Less Market Support $16,976,499 $36,015,915 [2] Derived in Table B-5A.
Source: BizMiner 2016; ULI Dollars & Cents 2008; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series) - West Urban"; RetailSails http://retailsails.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rs_spsf.pdf; eMarketer pulled February 2019; respective annual SEC 10-K reports; EPS.
Scenario 2 - Existing Zoning
[1] See Table D-4 for details on taxable retail sales. [3] Based on the planned size and location of retail uses and number of new dwelling units and employees in the project, this analysis estimates that there would be a neglible shift in taxable sales from other retail outlets in the City.
Scenario 1 - Proposed Project
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-7
DRAFT
Table B-6
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated CFD No. 3 Revenues
Est. CFD 3
Municipal
Services Scenario 1 Scenario 2
FY 23/24 Rate
Land Use [1]
Residential Land Uses
Owner-Occupied per unit
Medium-Density Residential $309 $16,376 $0
Subtotal Residential $16,376 $0
Nonresidential Land Uses [2] per acre
Community Commercial (CC) $1,440 $10,079 $20,935
Subtotal Nonresidential $10,079 $20,935
Total Developable Land Uses $26,454 $20,935
Source: City of Roseville; and EPS.
[1] Analysis based on the assumption new uses will be subject to CFD No. 3 assessments once developed.
Proposed
Project Existing Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx B-8
APPENDIX C:
Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on
City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Budget ................................. C-1 Table C-2 Estimated Annual Project Expenditures at Buildout ............. C-2
DRAFT
Table C-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Budget (2023$) Less
FY 2023-24 Offsetting FY 2023-24 Population Net Adjusted Estimating Subtotal Revenue Net City or Persons Expenditure Adjustment Expenditure Item Procedure Expenditures [1] Expenditures Served Multiplie r Factor [2] Multiplie r General Fund Expenditures
City Council Persons Served Multiplier $163,892 $0 $163,892 207,928 $0.79 75% $0.59 City Manager Persons Served Multiplier $1,526,308 $0 $1,526,308 207,928 $7.34 75% $5.51 Public Affairs and Communications Persons Served Multiplier $1,351,540 $0 $1,351,540 207,928 $6.50 75% $4.88 City Attorney Persons Served Multiplier $2,151,149 $10,700 $2,140,449 207,928 $10.29 75% $7.72 Finance Persons Served Multiplier $5,232,210 $1,246,281 $3,985,929 207,928 $19.17 75% $14.38 Human Resources Persons Served Multiplier $2,118,415 $0 $2,118,415 207,928 $10.19 75% $7.64 City Clerk Persons Served Multiplier $1,413,837 $565,000 $848,837 207,928 $4.08 75% $3.06 Police Persons Served Multiplier $58,809,842 $1,830,521 $56,979,321 207,928 $274.03 100% $274.03 Fire Persons Served Multiplier $45,195,561 $2,885,196 $42,310,365 207,928 $203.49 100% $203.49 Economic Development Persons Served Multiplier $913,153 $0 $913,153 207,928 $4.39 75% $3.29 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Per Capita Multiplier $35,000,441 $5,704,839 $29,295,602 152,928 $191.56 100% $191.56 Public Works Persons Served Multiplier $10,507,798 $56,840 $10,450,958 207,928 $50.26 100% $50.26 Development Services Persons Served Multiplier $11,935,083 $5,840,836 $6,094,247 207,928 $29.31 100% $29.31 Other Expenditures/Expenses [3] $27,553,992 $0 $27,553,992 NA NA NA NA Transfers Out - Operating [3] $9,727,919 $0
$9,727,919 NA NA NA NA
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $213,601,140 $18,140,213 $195,460,927 $811.41 $795.72 Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS. [1] Represents departmental revenues identified for specific General Fund department functions in the City's fiscal budget. [2] Adjustment factor recognizes some department costs are fixed. [3] Not expected to be affected by the Project and is not evaluated in this analysis.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx C-1
DRAFT
Table C-2
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Project Expenditures at Buildout (2023$) Estimating
Expenditures Procedure Source
General Fund
City Council Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $100 0.1% $100 0.1% City Manager Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $1,100 0.8% $800 0.9% Public Affairs and Communications Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $1,000 0.7% $700 0.8% City Attorney Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $1,600 1.1% $1,200 1.3% Finance Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $2,900 2.0% $2,200 2.4% Human Resources Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $1,500 1.0% $1,100 1.2% City Clerk Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $600 0.4% $500 0.6% Police Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $55,200 37.7% $41,200 45.3% Fire Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $41,000 28.0% $30,600 33.7% Economic Development Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $700 0.5% $500 0.6% Parks, Recreation & Libraries Per Capita Multiplier Table C-1 $24,700 16.9% $0 0.0% Public Works Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $10,100 6.9% $7,600 8.4% Development Services Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $5,900 4.0% $4,400 4.8% Annual General Fund Expenditures $146,400 100.0% $90,900 100.0% Source: City of Roseville FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
Scenario 2 - Existing Zoning
Amount (Rounded) Percentage of Total
Scenario 1 - Proposed Project
Amount (Rounded) Percentage of Total
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx C-2
APPENDIX D:
Supporting Tables for Revenue Estimates
Table D-1 Preliminary Property Tax Allocations ................................. D-1 Table D-2 Estimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout ......................... D-2 Table D-3 Medium-Density Residential Comparable Sales .................. D-3 Table D-4 Total and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet .................. D-4
DRAFT
Table D-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Preliminary Property Tax Allocations
% of
Factor Shift City County
Fund/Agency to ERAF 45.1% 54.9%
Taxing Entities Subject to Tax Sharing
City of Roseville 41.5534% 19.9550% 33.2614% 15.0114% 18.2500% County General Fund 0.0000% 32.3925% 0.0000% - -
Subtotal 41.5534% 33.2614% 15.0114% 18.2500%
Other Taxing Entities
Roseville Cemetery 0.9715% 10.8426% 0.8662%
Placer County Resource Conserv 0.0720% 10.5522% 0.0644% Roseville City Elem M&O 23.4198% - 23.4198%
Roseville High M&O 21.9476% - 21.9476%
Sierra College M&O 7.8985% - 7.8985%
Superintendent of Schools 3.9018% - 3.9018%
Placer Co Water Agency M&O 0.2354%
38.4435% 0.1449%
Subtotal 58.4466% 58.2432%
Total 100.0000% 91.5046%
Educational Revenue Relief Fund (ERAF) 8.4954%
Total Gross Property Tax 100.0000% 100.0000%
Source: Placer County; EPS.
[1] Represents the percentage allocation of the 1% ad valorem property tax for Tax Rate Area (TRA) 005-071 in which the projec t is located Pre-ERAF
Distribution of Tax
Increment [1]
Post-ERAF
Distribution of Tax
Increment [1]
Property Tax Allocation [2]
[2] Tax increment split based on the revenue sharing agreement in place between the City and County ensuring the County the equivalent of
18.25 percent of the 1 percent ad valorem property tax across all Sierra Vista, Creekview, and Reason Farms developments (net of ERAF) as
detailed in the Roseville - West Placer Annexations document submitted by the County Executive Officer to the County Board of Supervisors, dated September 12, 2011.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx D-1
DRAFT
Table D-2
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout (2023$)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item
Formula A B C = A-B C/A
Residential Per Unit
Medium-Density Residential $620,000 $32,860,000 - $32,860,000 100.0% Total Residential $32,860,000 - $32,860,00 0 100.0%
Nonresidential (Retail) Per Sq. Ft.
Retail $400 $30,492,000 $63,336,240 ($32,844,240) (107.7%) Total Nonresidential $30,492,000 $63,336,240 ($32,844,240) (107.7%) Total Assessed Value $63,352,000 $63,336,240 $15,760 0.0 % Source: Gregory Group; CoStar; EPS.
[1] Note that assessed values (AV)s are expressed in 2023$ and include no real AV growth.
Amount Percentage
Difference
Assessed Value
per Unit/Bldg Sq. Ft. Proposed Project
Existing
Zoning
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx D-2
DRAFT
Table D-3
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Medium-Density Residential Comparable Sales
Project Name Developer Density City
Average
Lot Size
(Square Feet)
Average
Home Size
(Square Feet)
Average Base
Price
Average
Price per
Square Foot
Units Sold
(2024)
Units
Planned
Medium-Density Residential (MDR) [1]
Vibrance Tri Pointe Homes 14.5 Roseville 3,000 2,212 $637,530 $288 22 88 Windham Lennar Homes 12.4 Roseville 3,500 1,981 $615,240 $311 35 173 Palisade Village JMC Homes 12.1 Roseville 3,600 1,541 $558,990 $363 4 306 Firefly K. Hovnanian Homes 12.1 Roseville 3,600 2,128 $633,240 $298 15 122 Inspiration Village JMC Homes 12.1 Roseville 3,600 1,683 $589,990 $351 45 103 Breckenridge Lennar Homes 11.3 Roseville 3,850 2,571 $644,990 $251 49 281 Weighted Average/Total [2] 12.2 3,574 2,105 $620,280 $295 170 1,073 Source: The Gregory Group; EPS.
[1] Comparable project data obtained for year 2024 through Q2 from The Gregory Group. Data retrieved in July 2024. [2] Averages weighted based on number of units sold in 2024.
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx D-3
DRAFT
Table D-4
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Total and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet (2023$)
Item % [2]
Sales
Value % [2]
Sales
Value % [2]
Sales
Value % [2]
Sales
Value
Total Retail Sales per Square Foot
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers [3] $250 $327 3% $10 2% $7 5% $16 1% $3 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $525 $687 0% $0 7% $48 0% $0 10% $69 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $356 $466 0% $0 15% $70 0% $0 1% $5 Food and Beverage Stores [4] $598 $736 55% $405 24% $177 5% $37 3% $22 Gasoline Stations [5] $1,321 $1,948 1% $19 2% $39 10% $195 1% $19 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $370 $484 2% $10 5% $24 0% $0 20% $97 General Merchandise Stores $360 $471 5% $24 24% $113 0% $0 20% $94 Food Services and Drinking Places $492 $644 8% $51 10% $64 60% $386 20% $129 Other Retail $209 $273 12% $33 6% $16 20% $55 18% $49
Nonretail [6] N
A NA 14% N A 5% N A 0% N A 6% N A
Total Retail Sales Per Square Foot 100% $550 100% $560 100% $690 100% $490 Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot by Retail Center Type Percent Taxable by Shopping Center Type [7] 44% 54% 60% 98% Taxable Sales per Square Foot (Rounded) $240 $300 $410 $480 Note: Original data is based on an average of multiple sources and is presented in 2016$ unless noted otherwise in footnotes. [1]
Year CPI Adjustment to 2023$
2008 219.65 47.4%
2016 247.71 30.7%
2018 263.26 23.0%
2023 323.83 -
[2] Reflects percentage of total square footage by retail category by retail center type, estimated based on ULI's Dollars & Cents 2008. [3] Reflects motor vehicle parts only; excludes total retail sales per square foot for dealerships. [4]
[5] Estimated using ULI's Dollars & Cents, 2008 (2008$), escalated to 2023$. [6] Included to account for non-taxable retail space occupants, such as services. [7] Based on BOE Publication 61, March 2018.
Source: BizMiner 2016; ULI Dollars & Cents 2008; State of California Board of Equalization (BOE) Publication 61; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series) - West Urban"; RetailSails http://retailsails.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rs_spsf.pdf; eMarketer pulled February 2019; respective annual 10-K reports; EPS.
Sales per square foot are estimated based on data from BizMiner, RetailSails, eMarketer, and annual SEC 10-K reports. Some reported figures are from previous calendar or fiscal years and have been escalated to 2023$, except when noted otherwise.
Sales per square foot for Food and Beverage stores estimated based on the averages from BizMiner, RetailSales, eMarketer, and annual 10-K reports from 2018 (2018$), escalated to 2023$.
Original
Data
[see Note]
Escalated
Data
(2023$) [1]
Retail Sales by Shopping Center Typ
e
Neighborhood Community Highway Commercial Regional
Prepared by EPS 7/26/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242084 Roseville Westpark WB-42 Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\242083 Westpark FIA M1 06-19-24 .xlsx D-4
APPENDIX E:
Detailed Cashflow Analysis
Table E-1 Estimated Revenue and Expenditure
Cashflow Detail (3 pages) ............................................... E-1
DRAFT