Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, November 6, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

Table E-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Cashflow Detail
Source/
Land Use Assumption 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 123456789 1 0
Revenue Escalation [2] 3.00% 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.230 1.267 1.305 Scenario 1 - Proposed Rezone
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit) Table 2
General Fund $12,044,403 $0 $266,358 $274,349 $282,579 $291,057 $299,788 $308,782 $318,045 $327,587 $337,414 Special Taxes and Assessments $1,234,249 $0 $27,295 $28,114 $28,957 $29,826 $30,721 $31,642 $32,592 $33,569 $34,576 Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $13,278,651 $0 $293,653 $302,463 $311,536 $320,883 $330,509 $340,424 $350,637 $361,156 $371,991 30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $7,499,400
Special Taxes and Assessments $768,500
Total Including Taxes and Assessments $8,267,900
Scenario 2a - Existing Zoning (Year 15 start)
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit) Table 2
General Fund $16,215,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes and Assessments $606,622 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $16,821,872 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $8,394,000
Special Taxes and Assessments $314,024
Total Including Taxes and Assessments $8,708,024
Scenario 2b - Existing Zoning (Year 20 start)
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit)
General Fund $11,586,541 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes and Assessments $433,459 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $12,020,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $5,596,000
Special Taxes and Assessments $209,350
Total Including Taxes and Assessments $5,805,350
Source: EPS.

Total
(2024-2053)
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 E-1
DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

Table E-1
Roseville SVSP Parcel WB-42
Fiscal Impact Analysi
s
Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Cashflow Detail
Source/
Land Use Assumption
Revenue Escalation [2] 3.00%
Scenario 1 - Proposed Rezone
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit) Table 2
General Fund $12,044,403
Special Taxes and Assessments $1,234,249
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $13,278,651
30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $7,499,400
Special Taxes and Assessments $768,500
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $8,267,900
Scenario 2a - Existing Zoning (Year 15 start)
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit) Table 2
General Fund $16,215,250
Special Taxes and Assessments $606,622
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $16,821,872
30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $8,394,000
Special Taxes and Assessments $314,024
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $8,708,024
Scenario 2b - Existing Zoning (Year 20 start)
30-Year Net Surplus/(Deficit)
General Fund $11,586,541
Special Taxes and Assessments $433,459
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $12,020,000
30-Year Net Present Value (2023$) 3.00%
General Fund $5,596,000
Special Taxes and Assessments $209,350
Total Including Taxes and Assessment
s $5,805,350
Source: EPS.

Total
(2024-2053) 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1.344 1.384 1.426 1.469 1.513 1.558 1.605 1.653 1.702 1.754 $347,537 $357,963 $368,702 $379,763 $391,156 $402,890 $414,977 $427,426 $440,249 $453,457 $35,614 $36,682 $37,783 $38,916 $40,084 $41,286 $42,525 $43,800 $45,114 $46,468 $383,151 $394,645 $406,484 $418,679 $431,239 $444,177 $457,502 $471,227 $485,364 $499,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $871,839 $897,994 $924,934 $952,682 $981,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,616 $33,594 $34,602 $35,640 $36,710
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $904,455 $931,588 $959,536 $988,322 $1,017,972 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
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 E-2
DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Total
(2024-2053) 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1.806 1.860 1.916 1.974 2.033 2.094 2.157 2.221 2.288 2.357 $467,060 $481,072 $495,504 $510,369 $525,681 $541,451 $557,695 $574,425 $591,658 $609,408 $47,862 $49,298 $50,777 $52,300 $53,869 $55,485 $57,150 $58,864 $60,630 $62,449 $514,922 $530,370 $546,281 $562,670 $579,550 $596,936 $614,844 $633,289 $652,288 $671,857 $1,010,700 $1,041,021 $1,072,251 $1,104,419 $1,137,552 $1,171,678 $1,206,828 $1,243,033 $1,280,324 $1,318,734 $37,811 $38,945 $40,114 $41,317 $42,556 $43,833 $45,148 $46,503 $47,898 $49,335 $1,048,511 $1,079,966 $1,112,365 $1,145,736 $1,180,108 $1,215,511 $1,251,977 $1,289,536 $1,328,222 $1,368,069 $1,010,700 $1,041,021 $1,072,251 $1,104,419 $1,137,552 $1,171,678 $1,206,828 $1,243,033 $1,280,324 $1,318,734 $37,811 $38,945 $40,114 $41,317 $42,556 $43,833 $45,148 $46,503 $47,898 $49,335 $1,048,511 $1,079,966 $1,112,365 $1,145,736 $1,180,108 $1,215,511 $1,251,977 $1,289,536 $1,328,222 $1,368,069 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 E-3

Roseville WB-42 Site
September 2024
Westpark SV 400, LLC
Prepared for
Retail Analysis
2 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Roseville WB-42 Site
Retail Analysis
Section 1 – Community-Scaled Retail Development Trends 05 Section 2 – Site Context 08
Section 3 – Retail Market Analysis 15
Section 4 – Retail Opportunity Summary 39
Table of Contents

3 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
MXD Development Strategists Ltd. (‘MXD’) of Richmond, British Columbia, were commissioned by Westpark SV 400, LLC in August 2024 to prepare a Retail Analysis for site WB-42 in Roseville, California.

The primary objective of the overall assignment is to determine the optimal retail development program for WB-42 including size in square footage and acreage.

The analysis explores various retail demand perspectives, including local and regional consumer spending patterns, demographic trends, competitive positioning within the broader retail market, and emerging retail formats. It also examines the retail needs of the immediate catchment area, assesses potential gaps in the existing retail supply, and identifies opportunities for a strategic retail mix that would maximize the site's potential. The study aims to guide the development of a retail program that aligns with market demand and supports long-term viability.

The recommendations of this report, as highlighted in the final section, will inform the optimal Retail Tenant Mix for lease optimization and development of site WB-42.

The figures presented in the report are based on an evaluation of the current general level of the economy in the local and regional market, and neither take into account, nor make provisions for, the effect of any sharp rise or decline in local or general economic conditions.
MXD Development Strategies Ltd. do not warrant that any estimates contained within the study will be achieved, but that they have been prepared conscientiously on the basis of information obtained during the course of this market analysis.
Reference materials used for this report were derived from the project team, as well as from public and private sectors and government publications. This information was supplemented by MXD’s experience in urban planning and real estate development.
Preface
4 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Sacramento's retail market remains healthy, supported by an influx of new residents and a diversifying economy. However, new construction has been limited due to uncertainties in the retail sector and rising construction costs.

Most of the recent development is infill, with projects generally under 10,000 square feet. Vacancy rates in the city have declined to historic lows in recent years.

The Roseville/Rocklin area stands out as the region’s largest and best- performing retail submarket, though it faces challenges from an oversupply of Neighborhood Centers and Strip Centers, a result of over-development in past decades. Despite this, competition for Neighborhood Centers remains strong, and several new retail nodes are planned.

Continued population growth and rising incomes are expected in the submarket, but the growth of convenience retail, which typically anchors Neighborhood Centers, may be hindered by high vacancy rates for this particular format and a number of competing developments in the pipeline, including a major Costco-anchored development on Baseline Road.

A potential retail development at WB-42, while positioned in a leading submarket, faces significant challenges. The site is located on the edge of the built-up area and suffers from limited traffic counts, which are marginal for the scale of retail typically found in Neighborhood Centers. Furthermore, the completion of Santucci Blvd, a key infrastructure development, is not expected for at least 15 years.

Westbrook Blvd between Earl Rush Dr and Nicole Gee Dr has recently completed and will connect to Baseline Rd. This will increase pass by traffic, however, competing sites at Westbrook and Blue Oaks may be better suited to capture retail demand.

A trade area analysis suggests that WB-42 could support 63,400 square feet of shopping, dining, and entertainment space over the next five years, requiring approximately 6-7 acres of land based on standard floor-area ratios (FARs).

Over a five-year period, warranted floorspace could increase to 71,300 square feet, necessitating an estimated 7.3 acres (cumulative).

Due to smaller format neighborhood centers becoming more prevalent in North America, it is recommended that site WB-42 be built-out in one phase over an approximately 6 to 7 acres. This retail will aim to serve local residents within a 10-minute drive and offer fresh grocery, pharmacy, food & beverage, and daily services.

Executive Summary
5 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Community-Scaled
Retail Development Trends
1 6 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Community-Scaled Retail Development Trends
Community-Scaled Retail Development Trends
Community-scaled retailing refers to smaller shopping centers, typically anchored by a grocery or drug store, that serve their local neighborhood. They differ from regional-scaled retailing in their size, anchor stores and smaller ancillary retail tenant mix. Over the past decade, community-scaled retailing has undergone a significant transformation, driven by changing consumer preferences and technological advancements. Key trends include:
• Community-scaled retailing is getting smaller. This trend is referred to as “right-sizing” and is the result of many of the trends listed below.
• Many retailers are gradually reducing the size of their stores, leading to an overall decline in demand for retail space. Drug stores are one example of this trend in that despite strong sales over recent years, smaller store formats have become increasingly favored by consumers, landlords, and tenants. • For several decades there has been a pronounced shift to unique, personalized shopping experiences over the generic offerings of large format retail. This type of shift is now occurring in the grocery sector, as customers are shopping at both large discounters but also increasingly at smaller, specialized food retailers, thereby eschewing mid-sized grocery stores.
• Coffee shops are also adopting this trend; for example, Starbucks is reducing its store size to around 900 square feet. These smaller locations have shown strong results, drawing approximately 15% more visitors per square foot than the larger 2,500 square foot stores. Dunkin' stores are also downsizing to under 1,000 square feet, and Dutch Bros. coffee shops, known for their compact design, average 950 square feet. • Incorporation of strong culinary and food & beverage experiences within community-scaled retail developments such as restaurant clusters and craft breweries. The intent is to attract and retain customers from the surrounding neighborhood and create strong ‘Third Spaces’, outside of home or work life. Restaurant clusters can replace large format stores as anchors in many community-scaled retail developments. These clusters typically have lower land requirements than traditional anchor stores.

The Davis Collection, Davis CA
River Street Marketplace, San Juan Capistrano CA
Pine 43, Boise ID
7 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Trends in Community-Scaled Retail Development
Name of Project Location Date
Built
Building
Area (SF)
Acres Anchor
The Plaza at Blue
Oaks
Roseville, CA 2022 81,000 13.8 Raley’s Market
The Davis Collection Davis, CA 2025
(U/C)
90,000 8 Trader Joe’s
Pavilion Plaza West Garden
Grove, CA
2022 48,036 5 Sprouts Farm Market
The Vineyard
Freeway Center
Murrieta, CA 2025
(U/C)
50,239 2 Aldi
Market Park North
Village
San Jose, CA 2024 101,000 9.5 Safeway
River Street
Marketplace
San Juan
Capistrano,
CA
2024 60,000 5.5 N/A
San Gorgonio Village Beaumont,
CA
2020 46,070 4 Grocery Outlet
The Merge Eastvale, CA 2020 70,000 9.5 Sprouts
Pine 43 Boise, ID 2022 48,275 2 Multi-Tenant
• A blending of online and offline experiences with
omnichannel retailing that integrate physical stores with online platforms and mobile apps, increasing convenience and
individuating products and services. The growth of online food/grocery ordering and delivering services is blurring the line between bricks and mortar stores and food service, allowing retailers to operate in smaller, more flexible spaces.
• There is a shift towards greater tenant diversity in community- scaled retail centers, focusing on creating community hubs rather than just retail spaces. This includes medical facilities, residential development and office space in higher density mixed-use formats that require less land per building area.

This downsizing trend reflects a retail industry in transition, adapting to changing consumer preferences, economic pressures, and technological advancements. The future of retail will likely involve a more balanced approach between physical and digital presence, with a focus on creating unique, personalized experiences for consumers in potentially smaller, more efficient spaces.

Table 1.1 summarizes a list of newer community-scaled
developments that reflect many of the identified trends. These trends are highly applicable to the WB-42 site. The project should incorporate these trends by incorporating a mixture of right- sized retail and community spaces that are highly integrated with the public realm.

Table 1.1
Recently Completed and Under Construction Community-Scale Retail 8 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Site Context
2 9 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Site Context
The site under study is considered Site WB-42 by the City of Roseville. It is located towards the western boundary of Roseville, at the southwest corner of Westbrook Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (Figure 2.1). The immediately surrounding area is predominantly low to medium residential with supporting amenities including the Sol Centre Gym private HOA facility to the west and Westbrook Elementary School to the southwest.

Westbrook Blvd is currently under construction and will act as an important north-south connector, extending from Amoruso Ranch in the north to Baseline Road in the south, a future major commercial corridor. The segment from Earl Rush Drive to Nicola Gee Drive, south of the subject site is currently under construction.

Baseline Road is a major east-west commuter corridor with several large commercial and residential developments that are detailed in the following pages. Land to the west of the site in Placer County has been planned for development under the Regional University Specific Plan and Curry Creek Future Planning Area for further expansion of residential development with supportive commercial development on the eastern boundary on Pleasant Grove, also detailed on the following pages.

Site Context
Figure 2.1: Existing Site Context
Future Commercial Corridor
Amoruso
Ranch
Industrial
Area
Regional
University
Westbrook Road
north extension
Westbrook Road
south extension
Sierra Vista
Fiddyment
Farm
Sun City
Roseville
Westpark
10 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Figure 2.2 Adjusted 2035 Traffic Model for City of Roseville (2035) Site Context
Source: Fehr & Peers
Transportation Context
Transportation experts Fehr & Peers conducted a
transportation analysis of future traffic counts using
assumptions of future development patterns and
potential timing of new transportation projects. This
analysis was run for another Westpark Communities
project, focusing on potential future extensions of
Santucci Blvd. However, the results also indicate the
likely future volume of automobile traffic passing
alongside the WB-42 site.

Figure 2.2 illustrates projected traffic counts in 2035, with the full extension of Westbrook Road completed.

This estimates around 28,000 north/south vehicle
movements per day on Westbrook Road at the WB-42
site. East/west traffic along Pleasant Grove Blvd is
estimated at around 8,400 vehicle movements per day.

Traffic counts are considered a primary site selection
factor for end-user retail tenants when selecting a
leased retail space. Many retail developers and
grocery chains look for average daily traffic (ADT)
counts of at least 25,000-30,000 vehicles per day
along at least one adjacent roadway for a grocery-
anchored center to be considered viable.
2377
3880 6095
5334
3880
8439
2828 3
SITE
WB-42
Westbrook Road
11 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
SITE
WB-42
Figure 2.3 City of Roseville Specific Plan Areas
Site Context
Planning Context
As illustrated in Figure 2.3, there are five
Specific Plan Areas that have direct influence
on Site WB-42 including:
• Sierra Vista
• West Roseville
• Creekview
• Amoruso Ranch
• Regional University (Placer County)
The site is located within the Sierra Vista
Specific Plan, as detailed on the following
page. REGIONAL

UNIVERSITY
(Placer County)
12 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
The site is approximately 14.5 acres in size and currently entirely zoned as “Community Commercial” within the City’s zoning designations and the ‘Sierra Vista Specific Plan” (Figure 2.4).

Westpark Communities currently have an active rezoning application to change the zoning designation of the southern portion of the parcel from Community Commercial to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards and a Specific Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential (MDR), resulting in an approximate seven-acre Community Commercial site.

The Sierra Vista Specific Plan is the guiding planning document for the site and planned as a major growth area for the City of Roseville. The surrounding area has experienced significant construction in recent years with expansion of suburban residential developments in low to medium density configurations and typical suburban street patterns. Residential is supported by small commercial nodes, parks and schools.

A total of 232 acres of Community Commercial is planned within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. This is generally concentrated along Baseline Road as a major commercial commuter corridor, with four smaller scale neighbourhood residential corner sites planned throughout the residential area, including the subject site.

Site Context
Figure 2.4 Sierra Vista Specific Plan Land Use & Zoning Context 13 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Development Context
The City of Roseville Specific Plan areas are further delineated by Westpark Communities into the following eight development areas, as illustrated in Figure 2.5 (boundaries of development areas are approximate and for general illustrative purposes only). Table 2.1 below details the residential units, current build-out status and total planned commercial areas within each of these specific plan areas.

Table 2.1 City of Roseville Specific Plan Areas & Development Status Site Context
Specific Plan
Area
Development
Area
Residential
Units
Residential
Build-Out
Planned
Commercial
Sierra Vista
Sierra Vista 5,821 43%
232 acres
Solaire 2,951 72%
West
Roseville
Westpark 4,627 95%

55.5 acres
Fiddyment Farm 5,698 Over 90%
Creekview Creekview 2,011 50% 9.2 acres
Amoruso
Ranch
Amoruso Ranch 5,821 18% under
construction 50 acres
Regional
University
(Placer County)
Regional
University
2,000 (Phase 1
– 900 Homes)
Phase 1
construction
begins 2025

24.5 acres
Sierra Vista
Solaire
Fiddyment
Farm
Sun City
Roseville
Westpark
Creekview
Placer OneAburoso
Ranch
Regional
University
Figure 2.5 City of Roseville Specific Plan Areas
14 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Site Context
• Located in fast growing Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. • Limited retail offerings in proximity.
• Strong demographics and retail spending profile in local trade area.
• Flat rectangular site is ideal for development.
• Easy vehicle and pedestrian access to the site off Westbrook Blvd and Pleasant Grove Blvd.
• Planned north/south extensions of Westbrook Blvd.
• High traffic counts along both Westbrook Blvd.

Strengths
• Located on near edge of Roseville boundary.
• Significant amount of optimally located Community Commercial sites that are currently vacant and ripe for development, particularly at Pleasant Grove/Fiddyment and Baseline Road. • Major tenants confirmed within short drive of site including Costco and Safeway .
• Westbrook Blvd will connect to Baseline Rd increasing pass by traffic, however, competing sites at Westbrook and Blue Oaks may be better suited to capture retail demand.
• Site is located between two trade areas, not conducive for large- scale retail.

Weaknesses
• Smaller retail center providing daily staples such as drug store and grocery to the local area.
• Food & Beverage cluster including full-service and limited- service restaurants, which are underrepresented in the vicinity.

Opportunities
• New neighborhood retail centers in Sierra Vista and West Roseville Specific Plan areas have better locations than WB-42. • Baseline Marketplace and Placer Vineyards developments create destination retail appeal for shoppers.
• Demand for new retail stays relatively flat due to changing consumer patterns and rise of e-commerce.
• Completion of Regional University Specific Plan may take longer than expected, reducing potential catchment population. • Regional University Specific Plan has planned gateway commercial site for 100,000 SF+ in proximity to WB-42.

Threats
15 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
3 16 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Regional Economic Overview
The retail sector is entirely driven by growth in employment and population.

The Sacramento region saw significant employment growth over the past year, expanding by 2.9% (Figure 3.1). T otal jobs reached 1.1 million and the unemployment rate fell to 4.4% at this time of this analysis. Initially, this growth was driven by the construction sector and the return of workers in the various leisure-related sectors. But the region's efforts to diversify its economy are paying off, with several major enterprises expanding their operations locally.

Robert Bosch Semiconductor is investing $1.5 billion in the former TSI site in Roseville. The facility will begin production of 200-millimeter wafers in 2026.

Other developments include the Aggie Square project, will bring Cytvia and the Alice Waters Institute to the Sacramento area. This could be the first wave of companies attracted by the expertise at UC Davis. Additionally, Penumbra expanded its Roseville campus by 95,000 square feet at the end of 2021, and the biotech sector saw similar activity. JOINN Biologics purchased a 20,000 square foot office building in North Natomas in late 2021, and Thermogenesis followed in mid-2022 by acquiring 35,000 square feet in Rancho Cordova. Both companies plan to use these facilities for manufacturing.

Population growth has been fueled by Sacramento's relative affordability.

Residents from the Bay Area and Southern California continue to move to the region to escape high housing costs in coastal areas, a trend that accelerated during the pandemic. Relocations have since slowed in the past two years, but the influx is forecast by Oxford Economics to continue at a steady pace over the next several years (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1 Job Growth
Source: Oxford Economics
Figure 3.2 Population Growth Rate
Source: Oxford Economics
17 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Based on the Oxford Economics forecast, the Sacramento region’s population is expected to grow at an average of 14,000 people a year over the next five years (Figure 3.3). Based on current retail inventory, this population growth should support an additional 660,000 square feet of new redevelopment annually over the next five years.

The influx of new residents is changing the skill base of Sacramento's labor force. Historically, tech companies from San Francisco and the Bay Area were hesitant to relocate to Sacramento, preferring to stay close to venture capital, engineering schools, and the region's innovative culture.

However, a growing number of indicators suggest this trend may be shifting. Decentralized workforces are pushing employers toward hub- and-spoke models, allowing them to maintain connections with their talent pools. As a result, remote workers in tech-related industries are forecast to continue to move to the area, increasing the median household income in the Sacramento region (Figure 3.4).

Office employment is also on the rise, with a 2.1% year-over-year increase, bringing the total number of office-using jobs to 190,000. While government remains the largest office employer in the metro area, it has seen only modest growth of 0.2% during the same period. Nearly all recent growth in office jobs has come from the private sector, particularly in professional services, information services, and education/health services, which saw increases of 3.5%, 6%, and 2%, respectively. This rise in office sector employment is a positive sign for Sacramento's economy, which has long been a hub for back-office operations.

Figure 3.3 Net Population Change (YOY)
Source: Oxford Economics
Figure 3.4 Median Household Income
Source: Oxford Economics
18 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Regional Retail Absorption
The Sacramento retail market has been one of the greatest benefactors of the previously-described recent influx of California residents moving into the city.

Over the past 12 months, net absorption has reached 450,000 square feet and has remained positive in nine of the last 13 quarters (Figure 3.5). This growth is largely driven by strong demand from discount retailers and experiential businesses, both of which have rebounded significantly in recent years.

Large retailers continue to favor the suburbs, which account for 95% of the market’s inventory. Fitness centers and grocers are also increasingly occupying big-box spaces, particularly in suburban submarkets experiencing the greatest the fastest population growth.

Overall, the retail landscape in Sacramento has improved. The vacancy rate bottomed out at 5.8% in the third quarter of 2022, 30 basis points below the previous record from before the global financial crisis. Although vacancy has since risen slightly to 6.5%, it remains below the five-year average of 6.6%. The recent uptick in vacancy is linked to a recent decline in retail sales in the region and several corporate closures. Over the past two years, three companies— Bed Bath & Beyond, David's Bridal, and The 99 Cents Only Store—have declared bankruptcy, returning multiple spaces to the market.

Retail is notably lowest for General Retail which is defined as streetfront and standalone retail that is unaffiliated with a shopping center (Figure 3.6).

Netting out Mall space (much of which is obsolete) would reduce the region’s overall retail vacancy to below 6%.

Figure 3.5 Sacramento Region Net Deliveries, Absorption & Vacancy Rate Figure 3.6 Sacramento Region Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar
Source: CoStar
19 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Retail vacancy varies considerably throughout the Sacramento region. Affluent submarkets like Roseville/Rocklin, Elk Grove and Folsom boast stronger demand figures, higher rent levels, and lower vacancy rates, despite having the largest inventory bases in the region. In contrast, some of Sacramento’s older neighborhoods, such as Citrus Heights, Carmichael, and Highway 50, report vacancy rates of 10% or more as they struggle to fill space.

Leasing activity in 2023 was strong, surpassing 2.3 million square feet, although it fell just short of the 2022 total. Leasing activity in 2024 has so far been below average but is trending positively (Figure 3.7). Leasing continues to be driven by demand for smaller spaces, particularly those of 5,000 square feet or less. This demand, making up nearly half of the leasing activity for the year, has come primarily from food and beverage, fitness, and personal service users. However, the 450,000 square feet of net absorption over the past year was largely driven by larger tenants like Costco and Target. Discount retailers, grocers, and fitness users have been the most active in early 2024.

Years of minimal development (Figure 3.8) have reduced the amount of institutional-quality space on the market, and many of Sacramento’s premier retail destinations are nearing full occupancy. While a few construction projects currently underway are set to be completed over the next year, their impact on the vacancy rate is expected to be minimal. Most of this construction involves the expansion of existing high-end retail centers, such as Crocker Village in South Sacramento, which will add 59,000 square feet to the shopping center by late 2023, with 23,000 square feet available for lease.

Figure 3.7 Sacramento Region Leasing Activity
Source: CoStar
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.8 Sacramento Region Demolitions & Deliveries
20 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
In recent years, Sacramento has mirrored national trends with limited projects currently under construction (Figure 3.9), which has remained well below the average levels seen before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Currently, only 350,000 square feet of new space is under construction, representing just 0.3% of the total market inventory.

Demand for new construction is expected to remain strong, as vacancy in Sacramento’s 4- and 5-star properties is just 3.5%. The threat of rising supply levels due to new construction is minimal, as construction starts have been minimal in recent quarters (Figure 3.10) and development is concentrated in the market’s most sought-after locations and expanding high-end shopping centers. While there is some risk from declining retail sales and additional tenant closures, the overall impact of new construction on supply levels is expected to be limited.

A recent uptick in construction starts is not expected to continue. Much of this recent activity stems from two Costco build-to-suit projects in the latter half of 2023. This shortage of available space leaves large retailers with few expansion options in Sacramento, making new construction increasingly the best option.

Recent development has primarily been build-to-suit, with only 10% of the newly delivered space available for lease. As a result, the impact on market fundamentals has been minimal. Most new developments are small, typically under 10,000 square feet, and are located on out-parcels within existing shopping centers. High financing and construction costs have made new projects cost-prohibitive in many cases, which has significantly limited the overall volume of new construction.

Figure 3.9 Under Construction
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.10 Construction Starts
Source: CoStar
21 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Regional Retail Rents
Retail rents in Sacramento have stabilized at $23.00/SF, showing no change over the past 12 months. By comparison, asking rents grew nationally by an average of 2.4% during the same period, down slightly from their five-year average of 2.5%.

The lack of growth in Sacramento’s rents is largely due to declines in general retail, strip centers, and neighborhood centers, which offset gains seen in other retail segments (Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12). Power Centers were the best performing retail format, with a modest rent increase of 0.5% over the past year.

Rent levels generally track construction activity and are concentrated in areas with strong demographics, as retailers seek out the region's more affluent locations. In Sacramento, these areas include Roseville/Rocklin, Folsom, Elk Grove and Davis. All these submarkets report retail lease rates at or above the market average, and each has seen rent increases exceeding 2% year-over- year.

Looking ahead, the combination of low market availability and strong leasing activity is expected to drive modest rent increases in the short term, in line with the current low growth rates.

Figure 3.11 Market Asking Rent
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.12 Market Asking Rent Growth (YOY)
Source: CoStar

22 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Regional Retail Property Sales
In recent years, investors have been attracted to the aforementioned shift in Sacramento's retail market driven by in-migration and increased income levels.

While rent growth has slowed, demand for high-end inventory persists, driving strong capital markets activity despite declining sales volumes across most commercial sectors.

Sales volume for the past 12 months has reached $550 million, representing a 50% decline compared to 2022 (Figure 3.13). Since the start of 2021, private buyers have dominated the market, accounting for 70% of acquisitions and dispositions. Conversely, institutional investors have been reducing their holdings in the region, representing nearly 20% of sales but only 5% of acquisitions during this period. End users and REITs have stepped in to fill the gap, seeking opportunities to capitalize on reduced property values.

A shift to end users and REITs suggests the market has matured, offering more stable, long-term returns rather than speculative gains. REITs and end users are usually more focused on income-producing properties and operational efficiency, which align with a stable, predictable market.

Lower valuations are reflected in cap rates, which for recently closed deals have fallen in the 6.5% to 7.0% range (Figure 3.14). Until recently, market participants expected cap rate increases throughout the year, driven by persistently high interest rates. However, at the time of this reporting, there is widespread anticipation of a major rate cut as suggested by the Fed in recent announcements, with a likely commensurate compression in cap rates.

Figure 3.13 Sales Volume & Market Sale Price per SF
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.14 Market Cap Rate
Source: CoStar

23 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Roseville/Rocklin Retail Submarket Overview
Roseville/Rocklin (Figure 3.15) is Sacramento's largest retail submarket by inventory and is home to some of the premier shopping centers, such as Westfield Galleria at Roseville, Rocklin Commons and Rocklin Crossing. The submarket is also one of the most affluent, with employers like Oracle, United Natural Foods, Rabobank, and Kaiser Permanente.

The high concentration of Health Care workers employed in Roseville (Figure

3.16) elevates average household incomes in the area, along with strong representation in other high wage sectors. High wages have translated into strong buying power and abundant retail inventory.

Source: CoStar
Figure 3.15 Roseville/Rocklin Submarket
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure 3.16 Roseville Employment Profile
24 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Source: CoStar
Over the past decade, the Roseville/Rocklin retail submarket has shared a similar pattern to the wider Sacramento market, with absorption consistently exceeding net deliveries. This imbalance has resulted in a declining vacancy rate which currently sits at just 4.7% (Figure 3.17). In contrast to the wider Sacramento area, however, Mall space is at a 1% vacancy while Neighborhood Centers (typically grocery-anchored or drug store-anchored centers of less than 150,000 square feet) are at 8.3% vacancy and Strip Centers (small, unanchored centers) are at 7.7% (Figure 3.18). An over-development of these smaller centers in the Roseville area in previous decades underlies these higher vacancy rates.

Overall vacancy for all retail formats has remained stable over the past six months. Significant moveouts during the first half of 2024 have contributed to a trailing 12-month net absorption of -65,000 square feet. This negative figure is largely due to a few major moveouts, most notably Walmart closing its 45,000- square-foot store at 4080-4090 Douglas Blvd in Granite Bay and Rite Aid closing a 31,000-square-foot location at 4004 Foothills Blvd. Both these locations are Neighborhood Centers.

Although local leasing brokers highlight the shortage of Anchor and Junior Anchor space in the Sacramento market, it should be noted that no new move- ins to Roseville/Rocklin in recent quarters have exceeded 10,000 square feet. The market is forecast to remain in a balanced state between supply and demand, with vacancy rates remaining near to their current levels for each retail format over the next five years. For Neighborhood Centers and Strip Centers this will limit local landlords' ability to raise rents.

Figure 3.17 Roseville/Rocklin Net Absorption, Deliveries & Vacancy Figure 3.18 Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar
25 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Indicator Metro
Sacramento
Roseville/Rocklin
Submarket Comments
Inventory 113M SF 15.9M SF Roseville/Rocklin contains 14.1% of Metro Sacramento’s retail inventory. Vacancy Rate 5.8% 4.7% Retail markets with less than 5% vacancy can be supportive of new development. Roseville/Rocklin has a healthy vacancy rate.

Asking Rent Range
(NNN $/SF/YR) $23.46 $27.09 Higher rent than the Metro average.

Rental Growth (YOY) 2.2% 2.3% Moderate rental growth contrasts with low vacancy. Forecast is for continued slow growth rates.

Cap Rates 6.4% 6.3% Roseville/Rocklin cap rates tracking lower than the Metro average, likely due to extremely low vacancy rates and above average household incomes. Higher values equate to lower valuations.

Annual Absorption
(10-Year Average) 858K SF 164K SF The Roseville/Rocklin submarket contains 14.1% of total metro inventory but has garnered 18.6% of absorption over the past 12 months. Indicates positive momentum in the local area. Under Construction 336K SF
(0.3% of inventory)
13K SF
(0.08% of inventory)
Current construction is minimal in the submarket (3.9% of Metro Sacramento total), despite low vacancy and rapid absorption.

Sale Price per SF $247 $271 Sales prices are less than the cost of new construction, although based on a number of older properties.

Retail Market Analysis
Table 3.1 Metro Sacramento & Roseville/Rocklin Submarket - Retail Market Performance A comparison of the wider Sacramento market with the local submarket provides additional insights to current and future retail market dynamics (Table 3.1). Vacancy sits at 4.7% in the submarket, significantly below the 5.8% of the wider market. The Roseville/Rocklin submarket commands a rent premium due to its affluent population base and the strong performance of its retail locations. Rental growth, cap rates and sales prices show a slight premium to the wider market as well.

Notably, although Roseville/Rocklin has absorbed retail space at an above average pace over the past 12 months, the amount of new inventory currently under construction is minimal. In fact retail development has been minimal over the past 15 years, with construction surpassing 200,000 square feet only once, in 2013.

Source: CoStar
26 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Market observers frequently point to the oversupply of retail space from 2006 and 2007 as a reason for the lack of new construction during the subsequent economic expansion. Since early 2020, no groundbreakings have exceeded 50,000 square feet (Figure 3.19), and no new projects are expected to start over the next 12 to 18 months.

The area's average rent is nearly 20% higher than the metro average. It has always been one of the most expensive areas in Sacramento, commanding a premium for access to the more affluent population base and some of the best-performing retail locations in the market. However, over the five-year forecast horizon, rental rates are anticipated to remain near flat, with only modest gains by 2030 (Figure 3.20). The combination of flat rental rates and significantly inflated construction costs will likely keep new retail construction to a minimum over the forecast horizon.

Roseville/Rocklin is still one of the most popular locations for retailers. Leasing agents are optimistic about the submarket’s longer-term prospects and believe it will be one of the first areas to see development once construction begins to make financial sense again.

This sentiment is supported by a comparison of the market performance metrics with its 10-year historic average as illustrated in Figure 3.21. Vacancy and cap rates are currently tracking near to 10-year lows while asking rent, sales prices and sales volumes sit well above the historic average. This sets the stage for substantial retail development once costs and revenues begin to realign over the longer term.

Figure 3.19 Under Construction
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.20 Market Asking Rent
Source: CoStar
27 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.21 Roseville/Rocklin Submarket – Key Performance Indicators 28 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Retail Property Sales
Sales activity in the past 12 months has been strong, with a total of $127 million from 28 transactions. Investor interest in the area has nearly returned to the five-year average of $184 million (Figure 3.22).

Private buyers have dominated this submarket for years, making up 75% of acquisitions over the past five years. This share has increased to 90% in the current lending environment, as private buyers have taken over from some institutional players, who have been responsible for 60% of dispositions.

A prime example is Cane Companies' acquisition of Creekside T own Center from AEW Capital Management. Cane paid $125.5 million ($366 per square foot) for the Power Center, representing a 6.05% cap rate. The center, located at the intersection of Roseville Parkway and Galleria Boulevard, is one of the area’s premier locations and is anchored by Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, and Burlington.

Local brokerages cite a reserve pool of investors waiting for prices to drop, as seen in the Creekside T own Center deal. There is still demand for well- performing properties, and this is reflected in current cap rates which range in the mid-6% range (Figure 3.23). Roseville/Rocklin has several similar assets, positioning the area to achieve higher transaction levels more quickly than other submarkets within Sacramento.

Source: CoStar
Source: CoStar
Figure 3.22 Sales Volume & Market Sale Price per SF
Figure 3.23 Market Cap Rate
29 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
# Name Address Site Size Retail Type Retail SF Anchor Tenant (s) 1 Westpark Village Centre 2320 Pleasant Grove Blvd 3.5 Neighborhood Centre 24,700 Kitchen 747 2 Plaza at Blue Oaks 5351 Fiddyment Road 13.3 Power Centre 49,950 Rayleys O-N-E 3 Fiddyment Plaza 4701 Fiddyment Road 1.4 Strip Centre 8,802 Chevron Gas Station 4 Woodcreek Village Shopping Centre 4001-4051 Woodcreeak Oaks Blvd 10 Neighbourhood Centre 81,861 Rayleys, Wells Fargo, Starbucks 5 CVS 1771 Pleasant Grove Blvd 2.8 Strip Centre 30,000 CVS Outside of 10-Minute Drive Time Area
6 Woodcreek Oaks 1261-1271 Pleasant Grove Blvd, 7452 & 7480 Foothills Blvd Strip Centre 52,950 Arco, Medical Office and Individual Retailers 7 Arbor View Village 1241-1259 Pleasant Grove Blvd, 7441-7451 Foothills Blvd Neighbourhood Centre 83,646 Medical Offices and Individual F&B 8 Foothill Village Oaks 5100-5180 Foothills Blvd Neighbourhood Centre 83,438 Dollar Tree, Kiddie Academy of Roseville, F&B 9 Foothill Junction Shopping Center 5003-5181 Foothills Blvd Neighbourhood Centre 109,903 Savemart, CVS, F&B 10 Foothills Junction 5010-5098 Foothills Blvd Neighbourhood Centre 111,050 InShape Family Fitness, Kindercare 11 Brickyard Shopping Centre 4000 Foothills Blvd Neighbourhood Centre 129,382 Bel Air, Starbucks, Bank of America 12 Elk Hills Plaza 1225 Baseline Road, 3992 & 3994 Foothills Blvd Strip Centre N/A McDonalds, East West Foods, Individual F&B 13 Walgreens Shopping Centre 3981 - 3999 Foothills Blvd Power Centre N/A Walgreens 14 Crocker Ranch – Safeway SWC Blue Oaks Boulevard & Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre 81,000 Safeway 15 Campus Oaks SEC Blue Oaks Boulevard & Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre 115,300 Nugget Markets Competitive Analysis
The retail development at WB-42 will compete with numerous competitive nodes in Roseville. For community-scale retail developments, comparable centers located within a 10-minute drive-time zone present the most substantial competition, as most consumers will drive up to 10 minutes to shop for daily staple items such as grocery, drug store, alcohol, fitness and services. As shown in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.24, there are a total of five competitive retail nodes within a 10-minute drive from the WB-42, and an additional eight clustered along Foothills Blvd, just over 10 minutes drive.

Table 3.2 Competitive Retail Developments
30 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Figure 3.24 Competitive Retail Developments
Retail Market Analysis
WB-42 would be the current westernmost location for
retailing in the area. Competition in the immediate area is minimal, creating a captive market in the site’s vicinity.

However, WB-42 is somewhat of a “180-degree” retail site as opposed to the optimal “360-degree” sites that can
draw patronage from all directions. Future residential
development to the west is expected to commence over
the next several years, but developers typically “follow rooftops” and require a financial break-even point within seven years of development. As such, the appropriate
size for retail development at WB-42 is likely less than its 14.5 acres could accommodate, which is the subject
of further evaluation in the Trade Area Analysis section of this report.

Under Construction & Pipeline Retail
In addition to existing retail areas, a number of large retail developments that are either planned or under
construction (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.25). The major
developments are clustered along Baseline Road, which is envisioned to become a core retail and commercial
corridor in this area of Roseville. Based on this analysis, between 1.7 million to 2 million SF of retail is planned or under construction within the surrounding area.

31 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
A Safeway-anchored Neighborhood Centre has also been approved just to the east of the site at Pleasant Grove/Fiddyment Road, with plans for additional community commercial at the SE and SW corners of this key intersection. Of note, a large, Costco-anchored Power Center (Baseline Marketplace) is planned on the corner of Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road, proposed for 750,000SF of retail and F&B space including two additional major anchors. The average Costco markup is only about 11% compared to 20-25% for traditional supermarkets, making them highly competitive and impactful on the local areas they locate in. Large format discounters already take up 47% market share of the grocery business, making it a challenge for mid-sized grocery stores.

As a result, many grocery chains have adopted smaller format stores with an increased focus on fresh foods and prepared meals to differentiate from the bulk packaged goods offered by discounters. Specialized stores with curated selections are better able to compete on convenience, freshness, and service rather than price. With smaller, more specialized stores, land requirements for many new grocery outlets have shrunk substantially, along with the amount of ancillary retail they support. While 15-acre sites were the industry norm for new grocery-anchored centers in previous decades, these centers are now typically built in on 5- to 8-acre parcels.

Retail Market Analysis
West Roseville Marketplace - Safeway
1730 Pleasant Grove Blvd
Baseline Marketplace - Costco
5000 Baseline Road
Plaza at Blue Oaks – Rayleys (recently constructed)
5351 Fiddyment Road
32 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
# Name Address
Site Size
(Acres)* Retail Type Retail SF Anchor Tenant (s) Status 1 West Roseville Market Place 1798 Pleasant Grove Blvd 8.7 Power Center 75,042 Safeway Approved 2 Grocery Outlet 1751 Pleasant Grove Blvd 3.1 Strip Centre 20,600 Grocery Outlet Approved 3 Baseline Marketplace
5200 Baseline Road (DF -40,
DF-41, DF-42) 80 Power Center
160,529 Costco Approved
Total of ~750,000 planned Costco Costco Phase Approved
4 KT-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 8.45 Commercial ~73,616 N/A Planned (vacant) 5 KT-43 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 11.91
Commercial/Business
Professional ~103,760 N/A Planned (Vacant)
6 Placer Vineyards Baseline Road & Watt Ave 5,230 Neighborhood Centre 342,250 N/A Approved 7 Erickson Seniors Living 6000 Baseline Road 59 Seniors Living Community 0 N/A Approved 8 KT-40A/B/C Sierra Vista Specific Plan 23.42 Commercial Mixed -Use ~204,035 N/A Planned (vacant) 9 FD-40 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 7.55 Commercial
~10,000
Only 1 acre of this site is
developable due to powerlines Planned (vacant)
10 FD-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 5.71 Commercial Mixed Use ~49,746 Planned (vacant) 11 JM-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 13.5
Commercial/Business
Professional ~117,612 Planned (vacant)
12 Regional University Community
Commercial Placer County 12 N/A ~104,544 N/A Planned (vacant) 13 Blue Oaks & Westbrook Blvd
(SE Corner) 5480-5484 Philip Road 13
Commercial Centre
(adjacent Soccer Complex) ~113,256
Restaurants, Hotel, Sporting
Goods, Neighborhood Retail Planned (vacant)
14 Blue Oaks & Westbrook Blvd
(NE Corner) 3040 Blue Oaks Drive 9.2 Commercial Centre ~80,150 N/A Planned (vacant) Table 3.3 Planned & Under Construction Retail Developments *For Developments noted as Planned (Vacant), the retail square footage was calculated using a standard retail 0.2 floor area ratio and intended as an estimation of potential build-out. This is consistent with recent retail developments in the area.

These sites are zoned as Community Commercial which allows up to 0.4 FAR. 33 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Figure 3.25 Planned & Under Construction Retail Developments Retail Market Analysis
Retail
Non-Retail
# Name Retail SF Status
1 West Roseville
Market Place 75,042 Approved
2 Grocery Outlet 20,600 Approved
3 Baseline
Marketplace
160,529 Approved
Total of 750k planned Approved
4 KT-42 ~73,616
Planned
(vacant)
5 KT-43 ~103,760
Planned
(Vacant)
6 Placer Vineyards 342,250 Approved
7 Erickson Snrs Living 0 Approved
8 KT-40A/B/C ~204,035
Planned
(vacant)
9 FD-40 ~10,000
Planned
(vacant)
10 FD-41 ~49,746
Planned
(vacant)
11 JM-41 ~117,612
Planned
(vacant)
12 Regional University
Community
Commercial ~104,544
Planned
(vacant)
13 Blue Oaks &
Westbrook Blvd
(SE Corner) ~113,256
Planned
(vacant)
14 Blue Oaks &
Westbrook Blvd
(NE Corner) ~80,150
Planned
(vacant)
34 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Figure 3.26 Drive Time Isochrones from WB-42
5 min
WB
-
42 10 min
10 min
10 min
10 min
5 min
5 min
10 min
Trade Area Analysis
A retail trade area is a geographic region from which a retail development attracts 80% to 90% of its
customers. This area is determined by factors such as
travel time, competition, demographics, and
established consumer behavior patterns.

Understanding the retail trade area is crucial for a retail development as it helps identify the future customer
base, assess the competitive landscape and forecast
sales. Furthermore, by analyzing the demographics
and spending patterns within the trade area, the retail tenant mix can be tailored to local preferences thereby enhancing its overall performance.

Travel time is the most significant factor in delineating a trade area boundary. For suburban retail projects
travel time is measured as drive time as most
shopping, dining and entertainment trips are made
with a private automobile and ride sharing services.

Figure 3.26 illustrates the 5-minute and 10-minute
drive time zones from the site in non-rush hour
periods. For smaller suburban neighborhood-oriented
centers, a 10-minute drive time typically represents the outer limit of a trade area.
35 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Additional miscellaneous patronage is anticipated from beyond the trade area, primarily from Sacramento area residents living outside the trade area and visitors to the region. Both these patronage groups represent a significant potential source of business that must be considered as well in the retail forecast.

A demographic profile was collected for the trade area and its component parts. Key findings are detailed as follows.

Population: Currently approximately 51,000 people reside within the Trade Area. This total is forecast by ESRI to increase to 56,000 by 2029 at an average annual rate of 2.0%, which is four times the national rate of growth.

Income: Average household income exceeds $153,000 which is well above the national average of $87,800. The largest income cohort in the trade area is households earning more than $200,000 per year (Figure 3.27).

Educational attainment: Over 45% of local adults have at least a Bachelors Degree, which is nearly 20% higher than the national average.

Age Profile: Households in the trade area skew towards families with a large percentage of children and parent age cohorts (Figure 3.28). Seniors aged 65+ are prominent in the area but are a smaller percentage of the total population than they are nationally.

Overall, the trade demographics are highly supportive of retail development. Population growth is forecast to be high in the next five years, as additional higher-income, family-oriented households move to the local area.

Figure 3.27 Trade Area Household Income Distribution
Source: ESRI
Figure 3.28 Trade Area Age Profile
Source: Statistics Canada
Source: ESRI
36 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Data on retail expenditure was collected for both
the Primary Trade Area and Secondary Trade Area
(Table 3.4). Retail spending in the area is
commensurate with its higher income profile and is
well above the national average.

Spending is also shaped by the strong family-
oriented profile of local households, with
particularly high spending on Grocery, Sporting
Goods, Toys & Hobbies, and Limited-Service
Restaurants.

The Trade Area’s total aggregate retail
expenditure potential is currently estimated at
$616 million, of which $116 million is located
within the Primary Trade Area surrounding the
site.

As detailed in Table 3.5, the total T rade Area
expenditure is slated to grow from its current $616
million in 2025 to $757 million by 2030 at an
average annual growth rate of 3.2%.

Table 5.7: Total Aggregate Retail Expenditure Potential Per Capita Total Per Capita Total
Expenditure Expenditure ($M) Expenditure Expenditure ($M) Convenience $3,170 $31.9 $3,355 $137.2
Grocery $1,910 $19.2 $2,023 $82.7
Drugstore $504 $5.1 $561 $22.9
Alcohol & Tobacco $395 $4.0 $395 $16.1
Personal Services $362 $3.6 $377 $15.4
Comparison Retail $6,358 $64.1 $6,804 $278.2
Clothing Stores $751 $7.6 $775 $31.7
Shoe Stores $153 $1.5 $178 $7.3
Jewelry Stores $242 $2.4 $269 $11.0
Health & Beauty $463 $4.7 $516 $21.1
Furniture & Accessories $488 $4.9 $517 $21.2
Appliances & Electronics $966 $9.7 $1,032 $42.2
Home Improvement $295 $3.0 $314 $12.8
Books & Media $34 $0.3 $40 $1.6
Sporting Goods $134 $1.4 $153 $6.3
Toys & Hobbies $123 $1.2 $136 $5.6
Specialty Retail $127 $1.3 $138 $5.7
General Merchandise $2,582 $26.0 $2,736 $111.9
F&B/Entertainment $1,934 $19.5 $2,080 $85.0
Full Service Restaurants $887 $8.9 $945 $38.6
Limited Service Restaurants $725 $7.3 $773 $31.6
Family Entertainment & Concessions $322 $3.2 $362 $14.8 Total Expenditure $11,461 $115.5 $12,239 $500.3
Per Capita Retail Expenditure PRIMARY TRADE AREA SECONDARY TRADE AREA Table 3.4 Trade Area Retail Expenditure Per Capita and Total 37 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Market shares were estimated for 12 major retail categories for each of the identified potential sources of business for a retail development at WB-42.

This resulted in a forecast sales at the project for each retail category. Dividing the projected sales volume of each retail category by its associated sales productivity (ie “sales per square foot”) yields the warranted floorspace for that category at the subject development. Additionally, a comparison with MXD's North American mixed-use retail development database ensured that the tenant mix generally aligns with comparably located projects.

Figure 3.29 illustrates the warranted retail mix resulting from the analysis. For 2030, an estimated 63,400 square feet of net leasable retail space is forecast to be warranted at the subject site, generating $34 million in annual sales. This figure grows to 71,300 square feet over the first five years of operations. The mix is balanced between Convenience (grocery, drug store, services, etc.), Leisure (Full Service Restaurants, Limited Service Restaurants and Entertainment) and Comparison retail (ie mall-type merchandise) . This mix reflects WB-42’s location as well as the identified trade area opportunity.

Figure 3.29 Warranted Floorspace SF by Category, 2035Table 3.5 Total Retail Expenditure Potential by Source of Business The recommended Convenience mix includes a smaller 15,000 to 20,000 square foot grocery, 4,400 SF drug store, a specialty wine/liquor store and 6,800 SF of services including a smaller boutique fitness center. An additional 17,400 SF of Comparison retail and 21,500 SF of Leisure (Food & Beverage and Entertainment) would round out the WB-42 retail development’s appeal to the local trade area. Recommended tenants include kids clothing store, maternity wear, specialty sporting goods store, a day spa, several smaller house & home tenants and specialty retailers, along with 2-3 full-service restaurants, 2-3 fast food outlets, and a smaller kids entertainment concept.

As Table 3.6 details, total land area required is estimated at 6.5 acres based on industry standard floor area ratios (FARs), growing to 7.3 acres if the development is expanded over its first five years to capture the growing trade area demand.

Aggregate Retail
Expenditure Potential 2030 2035
Primary Trade Area $141,415,844 $174,515,082
Primary Trade Area $141,415,844 $174,515,082
Secondary Trade Area $612,339,042 $755,940,219
Secondary Trade Area $612,339,042 $755,940,219
Local Workforce $2,981,342 $3,723,529
Total $756,736,228 $934,178,830
38 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Market Analysis
Table 3.6 Retail Trade Area Model Summary
Spending
Potential
% Market
Share
Estimated
Sales
% of
Business
Spending
Potential
% Market
Share
Estimated
Sales
% of
Business
Primary Trade Area $141,415,844 10.9% $15,448,323 45.3% $174,515,082 10.9% $19,038,757 45.3% Secondary Trade Area $612,339,042 2.4% $14,882,629 43.6% $755,940,219 2.4% $18,315,125 43.6% Local Workforce $2,981,342 18.5% $552,602 1.6% $3,723,529 18.7% $696,826 1.7% Sub-total $756,736,228 4.1% $30,883,554 90.5% $934,178,830 4.1% $38,050,708 90.5% Misc. Inflow 9.5% $3,226,987 9.5% 9.5% $3,994,792 9.5%
Total Sales $34,110,541 100.0% $42,045,499 100.0%
Target Sales PSF $538 $590
Warranted Net Leasable SF 63,400 71,300
Convenience SF 29,800 32,400
Grocery & Specialty Foods 18,100 19,600
Drug Store 4,000 4,400
Alcohol & Tobacco 1,600 1,600
Services & Fitness 6,100 6,800
Comparison SF 15,600 17,400
Fashion & Footwear 2,700 2,900
Health & Beauty 5,300 6,100
House & Home 1,700 1,900
Specialty Retail 3,000 3,200
General Merchandise 2,900 3,300
Leisure SF 18,000 21,500
Full Service Restaurants 9,900 11,500
Limited Service Restaurants 4,600 5,400
Entertainment 3,500 4,600
TOTAL NET LEASABLE SF 63,400 71,300
Building Efficiency Ratio est. 0.90 0.90 Gross Building Area SF 70,444 79,222
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) est. 0.25 0.25
Land Area Requirement SF 281,778 316,889
Land Area Requirement (Acres) 6.5 7.3
Summary
2030 2035
39 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
Retail Opportunity Summary
4 40 Roseville WB -42 Site – Retail Analysis
• Sacramento has an overall healthy retail market supported by an influx of new residents and a diversifying economy. • New construction has been limited due to uncertainty in the overall retail sector and increased construction costs. Most development is under 10,000 square feet and is infill.
• Vacancy has declined to historic lows in recent years. • Roseville/Rocklin is the region’s largest retail submarket and one of its best performing. However, it has an excess of Neighborhood Center and Strip Center space due to over- development of this format in prior decades.

Retail Opportunity Summary
Key Takeaways
Market Overview
Trade Area Analysis
• A trade area analysis identified support for 63,400 SF of shopping, dining and entertainment space at WB-42 over the next five years. Such a development would require approximately 6-7 acres of land based on industry standard floor-area ratios (FARs).
• Over five years, warranted floorspace increases to 71,300 SF requiring an estimated 7.3 acres of land were the development to be expanded.

Retail Opportunity Summary
• WB-42 could support a smaller retail development serving local residents living within a 10-minute drive of the site.
• However, such a development is likely to be considerably smaller than the original plan for the site and would require
approximately seven acres of land.

Competitive Environment
• Competition for Neighborhood Centers is strong in the local market, and a number of additional retail nodes are planned. • The submarket is expected to see continued population growth and rising incomes. However, growth in expenditure on
“Convenience” retail (the daily staple goods and services typically sold at Neighborhood Centers) will be challenged to overcome the relatively high vacancy rates in the local area for this retail format, given the number of planned competing developments. • While a retail development at WB-42 would benefit from its location in a leading submarket, the site faces several challenges, most notably being a “180-degree” site on the edge of the current built-up area.
• Traffic counts are marginal for Neighborhood Center scale retail, and Santucci Blvd may not be completed for at least 15 years.

Location Evaluation
www.MXDDevelopment.com
Mary Jo Flynn-Nevins
7056 Greenford Way
Roseville, CA 95747
Sean Morales
Associate Planner
Development Services Department - Planning Division
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
RE: WB-42 REZONE PROJECT SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS
Dear Mr. Morales,
I would like to offer my support with amendments for the proposal to change the size of two parcels for lot WB-42. I would like to request that in the community commercial designated lot, drive-through businesses be prohibited. Further, the property owner indicated that the split lot was 1 acre too small to support a gas station (a requirement of Safeway grocery at 8.5 acres) and I would like to request a prohibition of gas stations as well. As a safety consideration for school-aged children traveling to Westbrook Elementary, I ask for assurance that a traffic signal at Solaire and Westbrook is installed before either lot breaks ground for development.

I oppose rezoning the remaining lot as medium density housing. Within the Sierra Vista Plan almost all of the designated community commercial along Pleasant Grove has been reduced or eliminated over the last several years. The original designation promised to be a solution to the walkability of the Sierra Vista Plan allowing residents to make car-free trips to shopping and dining. This will lead to higher costs for residents over time as the state continues to tighten restrictions around air quality, carbon footprint, carbon credits, etc.

I am very concerned that in the 20-30 year horizon we will see a vast need for the previously eliminated commercial zoning and I would hate to see the current planning commission and city council authorize the building of future food and retail deserts. I believe doing so will only see a decline in housing values if residents seek amenities and buy or rent housing in other more pedestrian friendly communities.

For the lot proposed to change zoning, I would much prefer to see this lot zoned as mixed-use with retail/professional office on the first floor, and residential on the second and third floors. I believe this honors the original intent of the master plan for community commercial for the entire

14.5 acres, but allows the immediate use of residential which will help the housing stock in Roseville. Aesthetically, a three-story structure is no different than the same height structure adjacent to St. John’s Church.

I’m including links to single-family and townhouse style architectural plans that I believe would be suitable for development in this area. I know much interest around mixed-use is within downtown centers focused on revitalization. However, what if there was an opportunity to create a vibrant live-work and retail space from the ground up? I believe the walkability and environmental benefits along with having a live-work lifestyle in a suburban community brings a different vibe than an active all-hours downtown core. Having a known pool of workers, I believe, would also entice restaurants and other amenities to the commercial lot, something that housing alone may not accomplish.

Concept 1: Detached Home
4 New Live/Work Housing Design Solutions | ProBuilder
ARCHITECT: Kevin L. Crook Architect, Kevin Crook, [email protected], 949.660.1587 DIMENSIONS: Width: 24 feet, Depth: 37 feet, Living area: 1,998 sf A Work space on ground level
B Private powder room
C Work space private entry
D Shared entry to living area, work space, and garage
E First-floor living space features common areas
F Second-floor living space is dedicated to bedrooms/private areas Concept 2: Townhouse “Main Street” Style
4 New Live/Work Housing Design Solutions | ProBuilder
ARCHITECT: Dahlin Group Architecture | Planning, [email protected], 925.251.7203

DIMENSIONS: Width: 26 feet, Depth: 46 feet, Living area: 1,734 sf A Street-facing work space provides visibility to vehicle and pedestrian traffic B Separate entry to the living area is set back and has contrasting finishes C Work space with private bathroom
D Dedicated storage for work space, with access to rear-loaded garage E Main living located on second floor in an open-concept layout F Third floor features the master suite, maximizing privacy from both the main living and work spaces
Article supporting live-work housing:

The Case for Live-Work Design Buildings (Zero Commute) Living Above the Store: The Case for Live-Work Buildings - Moss Architecture (moss-design.com) In summary, I believe the owner has been honest in the challenges of finding a developer for the entire 14.5 acre parcel. However, I believe converting the balance of the lot to mixed-use does more to allow independent operation of ground-floor business, is a solution for the ever-growing

work from home lifestyle, encourages local business development, and supports the government with a mix of sales, business license, and property taxes.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal and appreciate your careful consideration of resident comments for this decision.

Respectfully,
Mary Jo Flynn-Nevins
cc: John Prior, Planning Commission Chair
Scott Alvord, District 5 Council Member

From: JLP Faulk
To: Morales, Sean
Subject: Comment re: Westbrook Commercial Property
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:40:32 PM
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Project Title: SVSP PCL WB-42-Rezone and Land Use Amendment File #: PL24-0397
Address: 2931 Pleasant Grove Blvd/ Westbrook Commercial Property To: S. Morales, Roseville City Planning Commission
From: Jennifer Faulk, Resident, 4025 Sungate Lane, 95747 I am a resident of Heritage Solaire in Westpark and am writing to submit my comments regarding the above proposal:

After attending two neighborhood forums where Mr. Tallman has explained his plan to rezone this commercial property for housing instead of commercial use, I am opposed to the rezoning. As I expressed at the first forum, the Westpark area is in danger of becomming an "anyplace USA" jungle of stucco houses with a few routine chain stores and restaurants here- and-there. The only place that brings any character to our community is the tiny 747/MoJo's commercial development. The 14 ½ acre commercial site being discussed is the perfect place to break the mold and plan an attractive shopping/service/entertainment center that has a mix of locally owned and "chain" type shops, eateries, services and things to do. It can be a beautiful place for Westpark neighbors to walk to, for people from the nearby soccer complext to stop by between games, and a destination for people from other areas of Roseville. Goggle "The Marketplace", Bakersfield CA, for an example of this. Initially, that developer wanted to break up that large commercial parcel into a mix of apartments, business offices and the usual grocerty store/gas station. The neighbors wanted a walkable-village concept of mixed shopping/dining/entertainment. The developer said it couldn't be done but the neighbors pushed back and the result was a beautiful and unique venue that attracted people from all over the city.

Mr. Tallman pointed out that he's been trying to market the development to commercial buyers for many years, but I would point out that it is still too early to give up on commercial use. Westbrook Blvd has yet to be expanded to six lanes, the soccer/sports complex has yet to be opened, and nearby housing has not yet been built out. It seems reasonable to assume that certain types of commercial developers may be more interested in the property once these things come to pass. I believe that it's too soon to "give up" on this commerical parcel and turn it into housing. Once half of the commercial property is gone, it's gone forever. There will always be an opportunity to revisit the rezoning issue again in the future, but for now I believe that the whole 14 ½ acres should remain commercial.

When I bought my property here in the Heritage Solaire 55+ community, I bought with the understanding that there would be shopping and services within walking distance on both ends of our neighborhood and that there would be a large multi-use park behind the community on Solaire Drive. It was a perfect scenario for this soon-to-be Grandma to relocate for the rest of my retirement. I envisioned being able to access shopping and services long after I am too old to drive, and to walk my toddler/preschool-aged grandchildren to the park to play. So far I have been disappointed: The commercial lot on the corner of Pleasant Grove and Daylight was turned into housing, and the original plans for the park were scaled back severely.

I am still pleased to be living in such a beautiful part of northern California where the City Planners have had the foresight to build around swaths of green spaces with lovely multi-use trails and to have ample water and electricity to support Westpark. I still have faith that the City of Roseville will continue to support the promise of ample shopping, dining and services for the people in this area, and that you will strive to attract the mix of independently owned and "chain" style retail/services that will give this area character and an outstanding lifestyle.

Thank you for considering my comments.

From: Claudia McEnerney
To: Morales, Sean
Subject: SVSP PCL WB-42 – Rezone and Land use Amendments Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 11:58:38 AM
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mr. Morales, my name is Claudia McEnerney and I live directly behind this lot in question. 9080 Starry Night Lane. When I bought my home in Heritage Solaire in 2019, I bought it with the understanding that the lot behind me was to be for commercial use. I was fine with that because I was hoping the commercial business(es) would be things I could use and be able to walk to.

Now I understand that the developer has come to the city requesting a change from commercial to building 52 two story homes on half of the lot. WOW, these 2 story homes will have to be close to my home and they will have a direct effect on the quality of living in my home. A two story home behind me would block my early morning sun and wind breezes, which is why I bought this house for how the sun affects it. And those two story houses would allow people who live in them, look directly into my living room and master bedroom, not to mention my backyard. That makes me very uncomfortable.

We need more services here as opposed to more housing on that lot. There are plenty of other places around here to add more two story houses, how about next to an already existing two story development. Please reconsider bringing us more needed services than more two story housing.

Maintain this lot status as commercial. Don't do a bait and status switch, we all bought with the understanding it was going to bring us commercial services.

I'm a 72 year old woman in an over 55 community who loves her home and community. Please don't take away my privacy and let me stay in my home. If these houses go in, I shall have to move.

Thank you for your reconsideration of keeping that lot commercial.

Claudia
Claudia McEnerney
[email protected]
916-295-4030
From: Chris Preston
To: Morales, Sean
Subject: Westbrook Proposal
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 3:06:58 PM
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have attended the meetings concerning the acreage along Pleasant Grove and Westbrook.

My husband and I live in the Heritage 55+ community and our home backs up to the brick wall. We are in full support of the plan of dividing the property between houses and commercial. The current housing plan is very thoughtful giving those whose backyards are along the brick wall.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion.

Sincerely,
Kenneth and Christine Preston
2033 Gemini Lane.

Sent from my iPhone

STARRY NIGHT LANE
1 3
181920212223242526
37383940
4567891011121314151617272829303132
3334353641424344454647484950515253
2 "C" Lane
"A" Drive
"C" Lane
"B" Lane "B" Lane"B" Lane
"C" Lane
"A" DriveN00°52'17"W 515.41'
N89°18'02"E 638.92'
N01°14'02"W 131.02'
N00°16'44"W 382.50'
N89°07'43"E 635.79'
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE EX. 50' PUE PERDN 2018.0076838(PORTION TO BEABANDONED) EX. PUE PERDN 2018.0076838(WIDTH VARIES
EX 20'X20' BUS SHELTERESMT PER DD MAPS
PROP. 30' EAE & PUE
EX. 30' PUE PERDD MAPS 79EX. 20' EVA PERDD MAPS 79
50' PUE PERDN 2018.0076838
PROP. 35' PUE
LC-50.37 ± AC

0.15 ± ACLC-2 0.14 ± ACLC-1

0.04 ± ACLC-3

0.04 ± ACLC-4
WB-42Parcel 1Existing: 6.03 ± AC (GR)
20' EVA
Proposed: 7.00 ± AC (GR)

EXISTING PARCEL LINE

PROPOSED PARCEL LINE
R=40'33'86' 25'71'72'45'45'47'47'47'47'47'47'47'41'
19'45' 252'70'
72'86'
10'45'45'39'
77'R=30'46'9'R=35'28'R=17'14'R=22'35'
77'77'
40'45'45'47'47'47'47'47'47'47' 77'77'77'77'77'77'77'77'77' 56'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'55' 75'
75'34'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'33' R=22'35'
53'
53'
53'
53'R=22'35'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
34'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'33' R=22'35'R=22'35'
56'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'55'75'
75' 34'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
75'
53'
53'
R=22'35'
22'45'48'10'75'
40'153'48'20'
75'
76'R=22'35'R=17'14'R=35'28'4'13'
34'45'45'45'45'45'45'45'33' R=22'35'53'
53'
R=22'35'
R=22'35'
R=40'47'80'
223'
504' 80'50'13'14'R=40'48'35'
R=30'47'155'
346'
R=63' 430'
45' 45'
3'4'4'3'
40'
33'
7'7.54 ± AC (GR)Parcel 2WB-4253 Lots - 45' x 75' (Typ)
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BOULEVARDFULHAMWAY

GEMINI LANE
WESTBROOK BOULEVARDEXISTING ARTERIALn.t.s.A

EAST SIDEWEST SIDE
50'3'cg 12'travel lane6'bike 50'3'cg 12'travel lane6'bike10'walk35' LANDSCAPE CORRIDORPUE/LSE8' min.landscapetype 2c&g 50' LANDSCAPE CORRIDORPUE/LSEROW ROWCL 8'landscape8'walk100' masonrywall 11'travel lane 11'travel lanetype 1barrier curb PL PL
18' 18' 36'median
21'3'cg 14'travel lane 14'travel lane3'cg4'walk
ROWMINOR RESIDENTIAL STREETROSEVILLE STD DETAIL ST-2B
CL21'42'ROW
4'walk

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL
type 1 c&g
10'PUE10'PUE
42' ROW (attached sidewalk)n.t.s.
42'4' walk3' cg
R=22'85° - 95°R=40'
MODIFIED ELBOWn.t.s.ROWROW RESIDENTIAL ENTRYC
15'median3'cg 27'travel lane4'walk
ROW37.5'CL 37.5'75' 20'(PUE/LSE)20'(PUE/LSE)

LANDSCAPECORRIDOR
PL PL
type 2 c&gtype 2barrier curb8'lc
MODIFIED ROSEVILLE STD DETAIL ST-25n.t.s.
masonrywall 4'walk8'lc27'travel lane3'cg
ROW

LANDSCAPECORRIDOR
WESTBROOK BOULEVARDEXISTING ARTERIALn.t.s.A-1

EAST SIDEWEST SIDE
60'3'cg 12'travel lane6'bike 60' 3'cg 12'travel lane6'bike10'walk25' LANDSCAPE CORRIDORPUE/LSE type 2c&g
40' LANDSCAPE CORRIDORPUE/LSECL 8'landscape8'walk120'
masonrywall
11'travel lane 11'travel lanetype 1barrier curb
PL PL
18' 18' 36'median 10'turn lane
ROW
10'travel lane
ROW
type 1 c&g±15'landscape15'rear setback, typ.

EXISTING HERITAGERESIDENTIAL
±87'
existing 6'masonry wall3:1 slope max.existingpad = ±97.0 MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREETROSEVILLE STD DETAIL ST-2B-1

SIDE-ONRESIDENTIAL
10'
42' ROW (attached sidewalk)n.t.s.
proposedpad = ±98.0
5'ROWROW42'roadway3'cg 14'travel lane 14'travel lane3'cg4'walk4'walk 6' woodfence
MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREETROSEVILLE STD DETAIL ST-2B-2

FRONT-ONRESIDENTIAL
15'-20'front setback, typ.
42' ROW (attached sidewalk)n.t.s.
42'roadway
proposedpad = ±99.1type 1 c&g10'landscape15'rear setback, typ.

EXISTING HERITAGERESIDENTIAL
±82'-87'
existing 6'masonry wall3:1 slope max.existingpad = ±99.4 ROWROW3'cg 14'travel lane 14'travel lane3'cg4'walk4'walk

1.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 in Book 36 of Parcel Maps, Page 77, Placer County Records.2.Lot dimensions and acreages are approximate and are subject to change.3.Lot lines and lot areas may be adjusted at the time of Final Map(s) preparation provided noadditional lots are created, subject to approval by the City of Roseville.4.The Final Mapping and subsequent development of parcels and streets may be phased.Project improvements are deferred to individual Small Lot Final Maps or project developmentplans.5.Pursuant to Government Code Section 66463.1, the subdivider may file multiple Final Mapsbased upon this Tentative Subdivision Map. The filing of a Final Map on a portion of thisTentative Subdivision Map shall not invalidate any part of this Tentative Subdivision Map.6.Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.20.2, the land shown hereon may bemerged and resubdivided without reversion to acreage and may constitute abandonment ofportions of the existing right of way, subject to the approval of the City of Roseville, including thefollowing:a. A portion of the PUE to the City of Roseville per DN 2018.0076838 (to be abandoned).7.The Final Mapping and subsequent development of parcels and streets may be phased.Phasing is to be consistent with the performance criteria in the Development Agreement andapplicable infrastructure phasing matrix.8.Additional easements to accommodate new public utility improvements, access required forparcel development, rights to construct, or other similar mapping requirements needed toaccomplish the final design may be added prior to each Small Lot Final Map based on thisTentative Subdivision Map.9.Street sections are per the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (Chapter 6) and the Sierra Vista DesignGuidelines (Appendix B), except as modified hereon.10.A minimum 10' Public Utility Public Easement (PUE) will be located adjacent to all rights-of-wayunless otherwise noted.11.Landscape corridor widths may be reduced for ancillary right-turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, busturn-outs, standard tapers, and the like per the provisions in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.12.The following lots are to be offered to the City of Roseville with the corresponding phase at thetime of each Final Map: Lots LC-1 and LC-2.13.Landscape corridor lots are not to be counted as "lots" towards any future boundary lineadjustment.14.Design and placement of entry signage and masonry walls to be consistent with previousphases of the Solaire project.15.Parcel WB-42 may be a gated community, to be determined at the time of Improvement Plans.16.If Parcel WB-42 is determined to be a gated community, the builder will be required to provideadditional entry, gate, and fencing exhibits subject to the approval of the City of Roseville.

TENTATIVE MAP NOTES
Document Number
ProposedLandscape CorridorDN
PROP.LCExistingEX.Curb & GutterCGEasementESMTEmergency Access EsmtEAEABBREVIATION KEY Public Utility EasementPUE

VICINITY MAP
BLVD

BASELINE ROAD

PLACER COUNTYSACRAMENTO COUNTYDOUGLAS

FOOTHILLS BLVD
BLVD

ATLANTICST

WAYCIRBY
E.ROSEVILEUREKARDHARDINGBLVDGALLERIABLVD

ROSEVILLEPKWYRIVERSIDE

FIDDYMENT ROADINDUSTRIAL BLVDSUNSETBLVDSTANFORD

RANCH RD

COOK-RIOLO ROAD
U. P. R. R.

U. P. R. R.

PLEASANT

PFE ROAD
city limits, typ.

PKWY

WATT AVENUEBLVD

WOODCREEK OAKS
city limits, typ.

GROVESIERRA VISTASPECIFIC PLANBOUNDARY

BLUEOAKSROSEVILLECITY OFCOUNTYPLACERROCKLINCITY OF
80 65
BLVD
LE

WESTBROOK BLVDSANTUCCIBLVD
58'
SITE
August 02, 2024a portion of the Sierra Vista Specifc PlanRoseville, CA COVER SHEETTENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPPARCEL WB-42
N
Sheet 1 of 218437.PH3.WB42 SLTM SUB02PLN 24-0397
StandardRight-of-WaySTDROWTop of BermTB

TENTATIVE MAP INFORMATION
(916) 773-1189Roseville, CA 95678-35751025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 150MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.

SERVICE PROVIDERS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO:ENGINEER:

SITE ACREAGE:Community Commercial (CC)EXISTING LAND USE:

ELECTRIC SERVICES:DOMESTIC & RECYCLED WATER:SANITARY SEWER:SCHOOL DISTRICTS:PARKS & RECREATION:City of RosevilleCity of RosevilleRoseville Joint Union High School District / Roseville City School DistrictPOLICE & FIRE PROTECTION:City of Roseville CCEXISTING ZONE:

TELEPHONE:City of RosevilleNATURAL GAS:AT&T & Consolidated Communications MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
58 TOTAL MAPPED LOTSNUMBER OF MAPPED LOTS:
496-100-0997.54 ± AC.

City of RosevillePacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E)CABLE:Comcast/Consolidated Communications MDR Small Lot Residential lots53:Landscape Corridor lots (Major Roads)Landscape Corridor lots (LC) (Residential)2:3:

APPLICANT:Westpark SV 400, LLC1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265Roseville, CA 95661 MDRPROPOSED LAND USE:RS/DSPROPOSED ZONE:

Emergency Vehicle AccessEVA

LAND USE SUMMARY

EX METERTO BE RELOCATED
WAYFULHAMWESTBROOK BLVD.

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.
"C" Lane
"A" Drive
"C" Lane
"B" Lane "B" Lane
"B" Lane
"C" Lane
"A" Drive
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132 333435363738394041424344454647484950515253
P=98.0
TB 98.4
TB 98.4
TB 98.2
TB 98.1
TB 97.9
TB 97.8
TB 97.6
TB 97.4
TB 97.4TB 97.6
TB 97.7
TB 97.9
TB 98.1
TB 98.2
TB 98.3
TB 98.5
TB 98.7TB 99.2TB 99.4TB 99.5TB 99.7TB 99.9TB 100.0TB 100.2TB 100.3TB 100.5TB 100.9TB 101.2TB 101.2 LC-2
P=98.0P=98.1P=98.3P=98.5P=98.7P=98.9
P=98.8P=98.6P=98.4P=98.2P=98.0P=98.0
P=99.1P=99.2P=99.5P=99.7
P=99.8P=99.8P=99.2P=99.1P=98.9
P=98.0P=98.0P=98.2P=98.4P=98.6P=98.8P=98.9P=99.1P=99.3P=99.6 P=99.6
P=99.8
P=100.2
P=99.8P=99.8
P=99.3P=99.1P=98.9P=98.8P=98.6P=98.4P=98.2P=98.0P=98.0
P=98.5P=98.8P=99.0P=99.1P=99.3P=99.5P=99.6
LC-1
LC-5
LC-4
LC-3
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE EX. 50' PUE PERDN 2018.0076838(PORTION TO BEABANDONED) EX. PUE PERDN 2018.0076838(WIDTH VARIES
EX 20'X20' BUS SHELTERESMT PER DD MAPS
PROP. 30' EAE & PUE
EX. 30' PUE PERDD MAPS 79EX. 20' EVA PERDD MAPS 79
50' PUE PERDN 2018.0076838
PROP. 35' PUE
WB-42Parcel 1Existing: 6.03 ± AC (GR)
20' EVA
Proposed: 7.00 ± AC (GR)

EXISTING PARCEL LINE

PROPOSED PARCEL LINE

EX DRAIN INLETTO BE REMOVED &RELOCATEDEX STREETLIGHTTO BE RELOCATED

DESCRIPTIONSANITARY SEWER PIPEEXISTINGPROPOSEDLEGEND

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLEWATER LINEGATE VALVEFIRE HYDRANTBLOW-OFF VALVESTORM DRAIN MANHOLEDROP INLETPAD GRADE

STORM DRAIN PIPE
OVERLAND RELEASEFOR DRAINAGEP=XXX.X

RECYCLED WATER LINE
P=XXX.X

1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.2.UTILITIES MAY BE PHASED DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE OF THE PROJECT,SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.3.THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SEWER, AND STORMDRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN, SUBJECT TOREVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS.4.ANY OFFSITE GRADING SHALL REQUIRE RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM ADJOINING PROPERTYOWNERS. IF A RIGHT OF ENTRY CANNOT BE OBTAINED, RETAINING WALLS ALONG PROPERTYLINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN HEREON.

UTILITY NOTES

MASONRY WALL WITH PILASTERS

PROPERTY LINESECTION A-A
P/L2'

PROPERTY LINESECTION B-B
P/L
2:1
N.T.S.

PROPOSEDMASONRYWALL2'PROPOSED PAD

PROPERTY LINESECTION C-C
P/L
N.T.S.

EXISTINGMASONRYWALL2'8'20' EVA

EXISTINGCONTOURS
WESTBROOKVILLAGE 1B
WESTBROOKVILLAGE 1A

EXISTINGMASONRYWALLTB
August 02, 2024a portion of the Sierra Vista Specifc PlanRoseville, CA GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITIESTENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPPARCEL WB-42 N
Sheet 2 of 218437.PH3.WB42 SLTM SUB02PLN 24-0397
10' - 16'
3:1 MAX.

ROW
2:1 MAX2% MIN
LOT LC-5
PROJECT9,400 ± CY9,400 ± CYCUTFILLPRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIESTOTAL9,400 ± CY9,400 ± CY N.T.S.

WB-42PARCEL 1

FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE
STARRY NIGHT LANEPARCEL 2(36 PM 77)8.519 ± AC
PARCEL 1(36 PM 77)6.019 ± ACCC
CC

FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE

STARRY NIGHT LANE
PARCEL 17.001 ± ACCC
PARCEL 27.537 ± ACCC
EXISTINGN PROPOSEDLOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EXHIBITPARCEL WB-42March 27, 2024Scale: 1"= 200'SURVEYORSENGINEERSPLANNERS Community Commercial (CC)Community Commercial (CC)PARCEL NO.21 LAND USEEXISTINGPROPOSEDACRES (GR.)ACRES (GR.)TOTALS8.5196.01914.5387.00114.5387.537

From: GIOVANNI MIANO
To: Bitter, Greg
Subject: Re: WB-42 possible appeal
Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 11:57:00 AM
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Greg,
Thanks for reading my email.

I worked for a very large bureaucratic organization, I was a senior manager in one of the largest departments in that organization for 39 years. I was involved in many construction projects as just a small part of my responsibilities.

I was in a highly regulated industry, Federal, State, County, City, Union and know how negotiations go on behind the scenes (high level), as well as the relationships that are formed between government and industry representatives. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but these relationships

develop based on a trust that forms after working on many big projects over the years. I know there are conversations between these entities, that are not discussed in public, and are not communicated to the public at large, off the record discussions, some times off the record agreements. I have been a part of those discussions and agreements, “ok, these are the issues and the facts, here is what we have agreed to, and this is what we are going to present and say when we get into the room, remember we are NOT going to say…, if it comes up, here is are vague response, everybody on board”? That being said, the City and the Westpark Developers have that relationship after years of working together and realizing success.

Both entities have respectful
influencing on the other.

I also know construction entails more than hey, let’s put a ACE Hardware on that spot and next year construction starts.

We used to say there are years then there are the
organization years. We used to buy acreage 10 years before planning the build, then it took another 10 years for planning, plans, drafts, permitting, environmental studies, regulatory requirements, approvals, then another 5 years for start of construction, then another 5 years for construction, 30 years before the doors were ever opened. Now we are talking major construction of a complicated building site, probably 10 times the project scope of a shopping center.

All I’m saying is, the City can say to Westpark Developers, let’s think about “right sized” small neighborhood ACE Hardware Store as an anchor. All the housing, people need to put in yards, paint kids bedrooms, regular maintenance, they have to drive 8 miles to the nearest hardware store, down congested Pleasant Grove (ALWAYS

PLEASANT GROVE TO GET TO ANYWHERE

FROM WEST ROSEVILLE FOR ANYTHING!), wouldn’t it be nice to decrease the congestion of Pleasant Grove? Even the current widening is not going to relieve the congestion. This adds 30 minutes, one way, to an 8 mile drive, depending on the time of day! Have you reached out to ACE Hardware? Could you reach out to ACE hardware? Anyone else in mind? Could you reach out to them? Do you think Chevron would be interested, could you reach out to them? Then once they are on board, reach out to a sports bar, Casa Ramos (Casa Ramos west)? In Bakersfield we had Mexicali down town, popular, was there since the 40’s, as Bakersfield grew west they established a Mexicali West, just as popular, and didn’t decrease the foot traffic of the original restaurant, the new restaurant just got as busy due to the reputation and the city growth. Get tentative agreement and communicate we have tentative agreement with ACE, Chevron, if, would you be interested? THE SPORTS COMPLEX IS EXPECTED TO BRING IN “X” foot traffic (and I know you know what that would be). Then this will bring in other small business like a small cakes, maybe another unique restaurant. I’m saying be proactive!

Yes, it will be 5 years, but 5 years is coming

no matter what, we could start now, or wait 5 years, and then it will be another 5 years (hmm-by design?).

I told my kids when they were young, the decisions you make today don’t affect you today, they affect you 5 years from now, are we purposely delaying to add another 5 years?
So, if dividing the lot to accommodate 58 housing units (which will add to the traffic on Pleasant Grove) and a 7.5 acre commercial lot speeds up the development of the commercial lot, then ok, but you’d better be right, Cause this decision is irreversible, as no one knows if the market will shift back to accommodate a 14.5 acre commercial site. Everyone is now going back to the office!

A wise man once told me ,” you make your own luck”, let’s make our own luck and

be PROACTIVE and secure the ANCHOR STORE NOW, use the Cities influence & relationship to scratch

Westpark Developers back, respectfully ask them to get more serious about finding retail for developing that 7.5 commercial lot, make it a priority if you want 58 housing units (the neighborhood doesn’t need) to scratch our surrounding neighborhoods backs. Not a quid pro quo, but a compromise. I think most of the area residence can get behind amendment (accept the compromise) if they know Westpark was really trying to develop that property and not just trying to appease one of their home builder influencers. I used to tell my employees, don’t give me a 100 reasons why we can’t do something, give me just reason or way that we can do something! Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, what’s the point? If it’s going to take forever and a 1 day to develop 14.5 acres, and only forever to develop 7.5 acres, it’s still forever. I’d

say we don’t need more housing to clog up Pleasant Grove our only way to get to anything we need. Just leave it undeveloped or, turn it into a park with bathrooms, and/or put bath rooms in the park on summer fare! I am not convinced Westpark Developers are

doing due diligence in actively securing commercial retail for either acreage scenario. It’s

just easier to find a home builder
that could build 58 units quickly without much work (less than a year), and the city can start collecting $67,000 a year in fees, next year, rather than waiting another 5 years to start build and another year to start collect $301, 000 a year off the commercial site. Hmm, what is $67,000 a year for 5 years, $335,000, coincidence?? And you think I’m being cynical about how things work with the bureaucracy?

Please add this to the packet that will go to the City Counsel.

Sincerely Yours
Giovanni (John) S. Miano
Sent from my iPhone

RESOLUTION NO. 24-372

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), as shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council considered the 13th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendment changing the Land Use Map (attached as Exhibit B) is hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Development Services Director is hereby directed to retain said General Plan Amendments on permanent public display in the Development Services Department of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILM EMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 24-373

AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN

WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the land use designation of Parcel WB- 42B of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan from Community Commercial (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), as shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, the proposed land use amendment requires a Specific Plan Amendment to change the text and land use map within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; and

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

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council considered the 13th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and

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

The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

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

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

FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE
STARRY NIGHT LANEEXISTING LAND USE: CC
EXISTING LAND USE: CCPARCEL 17.001 ± AC
PARCEL 27.537 ± AC FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE

STARRY NIGHT LANE
PROPOSED LAND USE: CC
PROPOSED LAND USE: MDR
PARCEL 17.001 ± AC
PARCEL 27.537 ± AC
EXISTINGN PROPOSEDSPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBITPARCEL WB-42March 29, 2024Scale: 1"= 200'SURVEYORSENGINEERSPLANNERS Medium Density ResidentialCommunity CommercialPARCEL #21 PROPOSED LAND USEEXISTINGPROPOSEDACRES (GR.)ACRES (GR.) TOTALS7.5377.00114.5387.00114.5387.537(MDR)(CC)Community CommercialCommunity CommercialEXISTING LAND USE(CC)(CC)

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT &



City of Roseville 3-3

VISION AND PRINCIPLES

Figure 3-1: Community Form Elements

4-2 City of Roseville
Table 4-1: Plan Area Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation
Applied
Zoning
Districts
Acres % of Total
Acres Units % of Total
Units
Residential Neighborhoods
LDR Low Density Residential RS/DS 595.6 28.7% 3,049 34.8% LDR LDR – Age Restricted RS/DS 94.3 4.6% 493 5.6%
MDR Medium Density Residential RS/DS 351.1 16.9% 2,614 29.8% HDR High Density Residential R3 93.6 4.5% 2,367 27.1%
Sub-totals 1,134.6 54.8% 8,523 97.2%
Commercial and Employment
CC Community Commercial
(Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 29.1 1.4% 249 2.8%
CC/BP Community Commercial/
Business Professional (Mixed
Use)
CC/SA 25.4 1.2% -- --
CC Community Commercial CC & GC 167.2 8.1% -- --
Sub-totals 221.7 10.7% 249 2.8%
Open Space/Public
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public P/QP 64.7 3.1% -- --
PR Parks & Recreation PR 102.8 4.9% -- --
OS Open Space OS 302.0 14.6% -- --
OS Paseo (60’-wide) OS 13.4 0.6% -- --
UR Urban Reserve UR 38.7 1.9% -- --
Sub-totals 521.6 25.2% -- --
Right of Way/ Landscape Corridor 193 .82 9.2% -- --
TOTAL 2072.2 ac 100% 8,772 du 100%
Note: See Table 7-4 for net Paseo total acres
Last Updated September 2023
214.2
1,142.1 8,576_______ _______
_______

City of Roseville 4-3

LAND USE PLAN
Figure 4-1: Land Use Map

City of Roseville 4-7

LAND USE PLAN
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATED

UNITS DENSITY
UR-92 Urban Reserve UR 38.72
Sub-totals (Urban Reserve) 38.72 0

WB-1A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 30.30 126 4.2 WB-1B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 22.20 133 6.0 WB-2A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.81 58 4.9 WB-2B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 7.67 39 5.1 WB-3A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.10 66 5.9 WB-3B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.23 71 6.3 WB-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 16.50 100 6.1
WB-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 30.50 157 5.1
WB-6 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.70 103 4.7
WB-7 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 25.14 145 5.8
WB-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.88 66 7.9
WB-21 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 11.80 81 6.9
WB-22 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.80 32 6.7
WB-23 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 9.88 71 7.3
WB-24 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 7.50 53 7.1
WB-25 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.30 100 7.0
WB-30 HDR (Residential) R3 8.06 237 29.4
WB-31 HDR (Residential) R3 11.10 293 26.4
WB-32 HDR (Residential) R3 5.11 128 25.0
WB-41 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.5 63 7.4
WB-42 CC (Commercial) CC 14.55
WB-50 PR (Park) PR 8.74
WB-51 PR (Park) PR 4.47
WB-52 HDR (Residential) R3 1.50
WB-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 10.00 WB-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Well) P/QP 0.31
WB-62 Public/Quasi-Public (Lift Station) P/QP 0.80
WB-80 OS (Open Space) OS 36.58

Sub-totals (Westbrook) 365.64 2,029

ROW Right of Way/Landscape Corridors 193.82
Sub-totals (ROW) 193.82 0

Total 2,072.16 8,772
Table Updated September 2023
(GIS acreages revised January 2021)

City of Roseville 5-5

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN

Figure 5-1: Affordable Housing Sites (refer to Table 5-3 for most current allocations)


City of Roseville 6-5

CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN
Figure 6-1: Roadway System
MDR

City of Roseville 6-9

CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN
Figure 6-6: Arterial Roadway Traffic Signals and Median Breaks MDR

City of Roseville 6-23

CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN
Notes: Creek crossings are subject to approvals from the appropriate federal and state agencies.

Decomposed granite/gravel shoulders not included for Class I bikeways along Santucci Blvd.

Figure 6-21: Class I and II Bikeways


City of Roseville 6-27

CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN
Figure 6-24: Bus Pull-Out and Shelter Locations
MDR

City of Roseville 6-29

CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN
Figure 6-25: Park & Ride Facilities


City of Roseville 7-3

PPUUBBLLIICC SSEERRVVIICCEESS
Figure 7-1: Parks and Open Space Plan


City of Roseville 7-23

PPUUBBLLIICC SSEERRVVIICCEESS
Figure 7-2: School Sites and District Boundaries


City of Roseville 8-5

UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS PPLLAANN
Figure 8-1: Water Distribution System, Storage Tank, and Well Locations


City of Roseville 8-7

UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS PPLLAANN
Figure 8-2: Recycled Water Distribution System


City of Roseville 8-9

UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS PPLLAANN
Figure 8-3: Wastewater Collection System


City of Roseville 8-11

UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS PPLLAANN
Figure 8-4: Drainage Improvements
NOTE: This is a graphic representation. Refer to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan, prepared by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., for additional details.

City of Roseville 8-19

UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS PPLLAANN
Figure 8-6: Electrical Substation and Power Line Alignments



City of Roseville 9-5 RREESSOOUURRCCEE MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

Figure 9-1: Open Space Preserve Areas



City of Roseville 10-5 IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN

Figure 10-1: Phasing Plan


City of Roseville B-11

DDEESSIIGGNN GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS
Figure B-2: Entry Feature Locations
MDR

City of Roseville B-15

DDEESSIIGGNN GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS
Figure B-3: Wall and Fence Locations
MDR

City of Roseville B-23

DDEESSIIGGNN GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS
Note: Bikeway alignments in open space areas are conceptual and may be refined as detention facilities are designed.

Figure B-5: Paseo Plan
MDR


City of Roseville B-41

DDEESSIIGGNN GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS

Figure B-22: Village Node District

Figure B-25: Neighborhood Connectivity and Gated Subdivisions - updated April 2021 City of Roseville B-47
G
G G
MDR
ORDINANCE NO.

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

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

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

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

SECTION 2. Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Parcel WB-42B of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as shown and so designated in Exhibit “B”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby rezoned from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS).

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

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

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

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE
STARRY NIGHT LANEEXISTING ZONE: CC
EXISTING ZONE: CCPARCEL 17.001 ± AC
PARCEL 27.537 ± AC FULHAM WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

WESTBROOK BLVD.

GEMINI LANE
STARRY NIGHT LANEPROPOSED ZONE: RS/DS
PROPOSED ZONE: CCPARCEL 17.001 ± AC
PARCEL 27.537 ± AC
EXISTINGN PROPOSEDREZONE EXHIBITPARCEL WB-42March 29, 2024Scale: 1"= 200'SURVEYORSENGINEERSPLANNERS PARCEL #21 PROPOSED ZONEEXISTINGPROPOSEDACRES (GR.)ACRES (GR.) TOTALS7.5377.00114.5387.00114.5387.537RS/DSCCEXISTING ZONECCCC

ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND WESTPARK S.V. 400, LLC, RELATIVE TO

THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Roseville, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City of Roseville enter into a Fifth Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, pertaining to property located within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area.

SECTION 2 . Prior to considering the proposed Fifth Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the 13 th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. The Fifth Amendment to Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

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

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

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION

311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

13th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)

Project Title/File Number: SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment/ File No.

PL24-0397

Project Location: 2931 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95747 (APN 496-100- 098-000) (Parcel WB-42)

Project Description: The project consists of a request for a Lot Line Adjustment between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-42. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would modify the east-west line by shifting southerly in order to increase the size of Parcel 1 (WB-42A) from ±6.0 acres to ±7.0 acres. The request also includes a Rezone to change the zoning designation of Parcel 2 (WB-42B) from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS) and a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use from Community Commercial (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). A Tentative Subdivision Map is included for Parcel 2 for a 53-unit subdivision and an Amendment to the Westbrook Development Agreement to reflect the proposed land use changes.

Project Applicant: Westpark SV 400, LLC
Contact: John Tallman

Property Owner: Westpark SV 400, LLC

Lead Agency Contact: Sean Morales, Associate Planner, (916) 774-5282

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

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 2 of 43 ends

Here, the relevant Final EIR was prepared and certified for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) in 2010. That document combined project-level review for most areas but only program-level review for areas within the so- called Urban Reserve (UR) , inclusive of the two parcels on which the proposed SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning project (Project) addressed in this document would be located. Subsequently , however, with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in 2012 (2012 MND), this entire UR area was given General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning designations anticipating a mix of residential, retail, commercial, public space, and open space uses. Taken together, the programmatic analysis of the UR area in the 2010 Final SVSP EIR and the project -level analysis for the former UR area in the 2012 MND create the practical equivalent of a project-level EIR for the former UR area, matching the project-level analysis for the rest of the SVSP area found in the 2010 Final SVSP EIR.

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

Consistent with these legal principles and CEQA Guidelines provisions governing subsequent review, the City of Roseville (City) prepared the analysis below in order to determine whether any of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. For purposes of this analysis the prior EIR under consideration is the 2010 SVSP Final EIR as augmented by the project-level analysis for the former UR areas as set forth in the 2012 MND. For pur poses of the subsequent review provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, these two documents are treated as the practical equivalent a single, complete, integrated project-level EIR for the former UR areas, in which the two subject parcels are located.

After conducting its analysis in light of the Final EIR and 2012 MND, the City determined that an addendum to that previously certified Final EIR/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the Project, as discussed and demonstrated below. This Addendum appropriately focuses only on those aspects of the Project or its impacts that require additional discussion in light of the environmental analysis already found in the SVSP Final EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 3 of 43 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Purpose and Scope of Addendum …………………………...…………………………...…….... 6

Environmental Documents Relied Upon ………………………………………………….....…….. 8

Explanation of Environmental Checklist …………………………………………………………… 8

Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics …………………………………………….…..…..…. 10
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources …………………..…..…..….. 12 III. Air Quality …………………………………………….…..…..…. 13
IV. Biological Resources ……………………………………..…..…. 15
V. Cultural Resources …………………………………..…..…..…. 17
VI. Energy ……………………………………………………..…..…..….. 18
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………...…..…..…. 19
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………...…..….... 21
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials …………………..…..…..….. 22 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ……………………………..…..… 24
XI. Land Use and Planning ……………………………….…..…..… 26
XII. Mineral Resources …………………………………..…..…..….. 27
XIII. Noise ………………………………………………….…..…..… 28
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………...…..…..… 29
XV. Public Services ………………………………………..…..…..… 30
XVI. Recreation ………………………………………………..….... 32
XVII. Transportation / Traffic ………………………………..…..…..… 33 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources …………………………….…..…..…. 35 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ……………………………..…..… 38 XX. Wildfire ……………………………………………….…..…..…. 40
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance …………………..…..…..... 41

Environmental Determination ……………………………………………………………………...... 43

Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 4 of 43 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project is located in the northern part of the City of Roseville (City) Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area, south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and west of Westbrook Boulevard. The affected area consists of Parcel WB- 42, which is made up of two lots and is approximately 14.55 acres in size. The northern parcel will become known as WB-42A and the southern parcel will become known as WB-42B. The site address for WB-42A is 2931 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95747 and the Assessor’s Parcel Number is 496-100-098-000. The site address for WB-42B is 1961 Westbrook Boulevard and the Assessor’s Parcel Number is 496-100-098-000.

See Figure 1 below and PC Exhibits for additional locational maps.

Figure 1: Project Location (SVSP PCL WB-42)

Background and Environmental Setting
The SVSP was approved on May 5, 2010 (file #2007PL-044). An EIR was certified (SVSP EIR) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) was adopted along with the SVSP. At the time, Parcel WB-42 was not yet created and instead was included as part of a larger piece of land within the northwest portion of the plan area known and designated as the Urban Reserve (UR) area. While the majority of the Specific Plan area was analyzed on a project level within the SVSP EIR, the UR area was analyzed mostly at a programmatic level. Subsequently, on June 15, 2012, the UR area was redesignated and rezoned into a mix of residential, retail, commercial, public space, and open space land uses. This action, which included approval of GP and SVSP amendments, a rezone, and a tentative map (file #2011PL- 043), created the parcel that is the subject of this document. Prior to taking these planning actions, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that augmented the SVSP EIR and provided any missing project-level CEQA analysis for the UR area (2012 MND). Taken together, the SVSP Pleasant Grove Bl.

Westbrook Bl.

WB-42A
WB-42B
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 5 of 43 ends

EIR and the 2012 MND constitute the totality of the EIR upon which this Addendum is based.1 Parcel WB-42 is currently designated in the City of Roseville General Plan (GP) and the SVSP as Community Commercial (CC) and zoned for Community Commercial (CC). The parcel is undeveloped. The immediate area surrounding the parcel is developed with single-family homes.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Parcel WB-42 CC Community Commercial (CC) Undeveloped
North RS/DS Low Density Residential (LDR) Developed with single-family homes (Parcel W-13)
South RS/DS Low Density Residential (LDR) Developed with single-family homes (Parcel WB-1B)
East RS/DS Low Density Residential (LDR)
(Age Restricted)
Developed with single-family
homes (Parcel WB-5)
West RS/DS Low Density Residential (LDR)
(Age Restricted)
Developed with single-family
homes (Parcel WB-1A)

The Project site as described above is undeveloped but has been previously graded during construction operations related to adjacent and nearby development. It is dominated by relatively flat topography supporting annual grasslands. There are no structures on the properties. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcel as the area has been rough graded in the past and maintained.

Proposed Project
The project would redesignate a portion of Parcel WB -42 from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential through a GP amendment and rezone a portion of it from CC (Community Commercial) to RS/DS (Small Lot with Development Standards) and create a Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map with 53 medium- density residential lots . The Project includes an amendment to the SVSP to reflect these changes (see PC Exhibit C for Amended Sierra Vista Specific Plan).

This action will require the following approvals and entitlements:
• Consideration of the Addendum together with the Final EIR for the SVSP (inclusive of the 2012 MND) • GP Amendment for SVSP Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential • Rezoning for SVSP Parcel WB-42B from CC to RS/DS
• Amendments to SVSP:
o Change Parcel WB-42B from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential and revise the SVSP Land Use Map
o Revise text regarding Parcel WB-42B to include the zoning change and the 53 units • Amendment to the Westbrook Development Agreement

1 The SVSP Final EIR serves as the primary source of information from which this Addendum derives its analysis and conclusions, with reliance on the 2012 MND as necessary. The environmental impacts assessed in this document were considered in detail in the SVSP Final EIR and were addressed in numerous mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project. The SVSP FEIR, therefore, retains substantial relevancy and informational value to this action. (See Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 9 51).2 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good- faith effort to provide the most up- to-date information to decisionmakers and the public (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 6 of 43 ends

• Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for SVSP Parcel WB-42B including 53 medium-density residential lots.
• Lot Line Adjustment for the large lot parcel to modify the parcel sizes

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

Notably, in assessing whether a proposed project change is eligible for an addendum, public agencies may account for mitigation measures to which an applicant has agreed ( see, e.g., River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168 [“even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require … the preparation of an SEIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance”]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 809-811 [“[t]o offset the loss of four acres of burrowing owl habitat, the eight[h] addendum includes a number of mitigation measures”]; and Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, 802 [discusses mitigation required in connection with addendum]). The addition of new mitigation measures triggers the need for a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR only in two circumstances. Under the first, measures “previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measur e” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1)(3)(C)). Under the second circumstance, measures “considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” ( id. at Section 15162(a)(1)(3)(D)). Under both circumstances, an applicant’s agreement to the mitigation measures in question preserves the project’s eligibility for an addendum. Where there are new or revised regulatory standards, new technology and modern data, and/or updated best practices, mitigation measures may be updated in an addendum from those approved in the certified Final EIR and approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) without triggering the need for a subsequent EIR (see, e.g., Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1403 [“[m]itigation measures adopted when a project is approved may be changed or deleted if the agency states a legitimate reason for making the changes and the reason is supported by substantial evidence”]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 359).

Substantial evidence presented in this Addendum demonstrates that the Project, described above and analyzed below, does not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Nor are there any new circumstances or new information that would create such impacts or require more robust analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)). All of the impacts of the Project were examined in the applicable prior CEQA documents. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 7 of 43 ends

Significant and Unavoidable Impact Conclusions in the Previous EIR The SVSP EIR identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable at full buildout:
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 • Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
The SVSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable at full buildout:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Air pollutant emissions from construction
• Air pollutant emissions from operation
• Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming • Onsite noise levels that exceed City standards
• Offsite noise levels that exceed City standards
• Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities • Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Change in visual character
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts when it certified the SVSP EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
• Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, certified May 5, 2010 (SCH# 2008032115) The SVSP EIR was certified by City Council on May 5, 2010 . The analysis within this Addendum relies mostly on the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to Sierra Vista Specific Plan MND, listed below), with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate, and attached hereto. As demonstrated in the environmental checklist below, the project‘s impacts remain the same as or lesser than the impacts described in the SVSP EIR because the project presents the same uses and use types envisioned and analyzed for the entirety of the SVSP area . In the case of the change from a community commercial designation to a residential designation, the footprint-related impacts would be no different. The 2010 SVSP EIR is available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_ areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 8 of 43 ends

• Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to Sierra Vista Specific Plan MND, adopted June 15, 2012 (SCH# 2008032115)
The SVSP was amended in 2012 to redesignate and rezone the Urban Reserve (UR) area. As a result, this 2012 MND was prepared and adopted by City Council on June 15, 2012. The analysis within this Addendum rel ies mostly on the SVSP EIR but references this MND are included, where applicable. The MND is available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_ areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.
• 2035 General Plan Update EIR, certified August 5, 2020 (SCH# 2019080418) The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (GP EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. When applicable, the topical sections within the checklist summarize the findings within the GP EIR. The GP EIR is available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines.

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

Checklist Evaluation Categories
Where Was Impact Analyzed in Prior EIR?
This column provides a cross -reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

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

Any New Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the Project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the Project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the certification of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current Project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Since certification of the previous EIR, there have been five amendments to the SVSP with fi ve accompanying addenda to its EIR. Each amendment was found to be within the scope of the environmental impact conclusions presented in the SVSP EIR, and no mitigation measures required updating or revisions. Thus, although some circumstances have changed within the vicinity of the Project site, those changes did not result in new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the SVSP EIR. Nor did they substantially increase the severity COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 9 of 43 ends

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

Since certification of the prior EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019.
2 This updated checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), as it does not constitute any change in governing law or any new facts showing the existence of new significant effects or substantially more severe significant effects. Moreover, as demonstrated below, none of the updates to the Appendix G Checklist require new analysis related to impacts that were not known or that could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared. Nor is the City aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified CEQA documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects. Moreover, the City is not aware of any other new information not already included in this document that might bear relevance on the Project’s CEQA analysis. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.” Any Mitigation Measures?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures (MMs) to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the MMs have already been implemented. A “ Yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time or whether it would apply to development on the Project site. If “No” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

Discussion of Checklist Answers
A discussion is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue and how the Project relates to the issue. The discussion also provides details on applicable mitigation measures from the prior EIR and their status, denoting the ones that require ongoing or future implementation and that would be required for development on the Project

2 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decisionmakers and the public (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 10 of 43 ends

site. Mitigation measures that are either not relevant to the Project because they pertain to a different area or land use or have already been implemented are not discussed. Each discussion section also contains an ultimate conclusion, including whether the City can conclude that the Project does not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.14.2 of the SVSP EIR. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099(d) (applicable only to specific types of infill projects within transit priority areas), would the Project:

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-3 No No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings, within
a state scenic
highway?
Same No No No No
c) In non-urbanized
areas, substantially
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an
urbanized area, would
the project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic
quality?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-1 No No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or
glare, which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-2 No No No Yes

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 11 of 43 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . All aesthetic impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. There is no change in the Project significant enough so as to alter the environmental impact conclusions for this issue. The proposed density and land use changes do not introduce development to properties not already planned for development. The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the buildout assumptions for the SVSP and would not increase the severity of already identified aesthetic significant impacts (see 2012 MND, p. 11). Indeed, impacts related to light and glare from the previously approved commercial development on Parel WB-42 onto adjacent open space (Impact 4.14- 2) would be reduced by its conversion to residential use.

The Project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. As they relate to aesthetics, these standards ensure the high-quality design and architectural character of any buildings developed as well as minimum landscaping standards. As it relates to light and glare, mitigation would ensure that outdoor lighting would not significantly impact the adjacent open space area to the north . Also, lighting is conditioned to comply with the CDG to limit the height of light standards and also require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: As described above, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding aesthetic resources.

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

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural
use? (V.1b-DEIR volume)

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-5 No No No Yes
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-3 No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 12 of 43 ends

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

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Agricultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND); there are no forest resources within the SVSP area. There is no element of the Project that would change the environmental impact for this section—the Project site will still be fully developed. The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would convert fallow grazing land to urbanized development. The Project will result in the same impact, as it falls within the planned development footprint of the SVSP. The Project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City that has been designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. Although in the past, portions on or near the Project site were classified as “Farmland of Local Importance,” that classification changed once the site was redesignated and rezoned in 2012 (see 2012 MND, p. 12). Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the Project regarding agriculture and forestry resources. • SVSP EIR MM 4.1-2. Agricultural Conversion Policies
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding agricultural and forestry resources.

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

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 13 of 43 ends

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.4-1
to 4.4-4, 4.4-5
No No No Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality
standard?
Same No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.4-4 No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.4-6 No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Air quality was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For construction, the SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain significant.

However, all construction-related impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels (see 2012 MND, p. 15). Construction activity associated with the Project remain consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For operation, the Project changes the balance of land uses in the area from the approved changes made in 2012, but not in a manner that would increase emissions. Indeed, the proposed redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-42B from commercial to residential would substantially reduce the anticipated traffic trips generated by the development , as well as reduce projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) (see XVII. Transportation/Traffic) , which would in turn reduce operational air emissions for the SVSP area related to vehicle use . Furthermore, any impacts associated with odor would be reduced with the de crease in commercial development because commercial development has the potential to produce some objectionable odors whereas residential development rarely does (see GP EIR, p. 4.4-50). Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding air quality impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1. Dust and Construction Control Policies; • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-1. Reduction of Operational Emissions COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 14 of 43 ends

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures , the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding air quality.

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

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-2,

4.8-3 to 4.8-6,

4.8-11, 4.8-13 to

4.8-17
No No No Yes
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by
the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-2,

4.8-4 to 4.8-7,

4.8-10, 4.8-11,

4.8-13 to 4.8-17
No No No Yes
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-1
to 4.8-2, 4.8-11
No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-8 No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 15 of 43 ends

established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-9 No No No No
f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-12 No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Biological Resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to wetlands, vernal pool species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other protected raptors nesting and foraging habitat to less -than-significant levels. No wetlands or water features exist on the Project site, although some exist on parcels near the site (see 2012 MND, p. 19). Further, the site is devoid of trees or other natural features. It is primarily populated by non-native annual grasses, and the ground has undergone significant disturbance, likely as a result of nearby roadway and parcel development.

However, the site does retain some potential to host special -status species. There are no differences between the Project and the approved SVSP that are significant enough to change the environmental impact conclusions for this section. The Project site was already planned for full development, and that will not change (see 2012 MND, p. 19) . Further, the subject property, as part of a larger development area, has received a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as Section 401 certification from the State. Moreover, the Applicant has purchased the required compensatory mitigation. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding biological resources impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.8-3. Avoid Nesting Sites
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4. Onsite and Offsite Grassland Preservation • SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐5. Wildlife Movement Protection Policies • SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐7. Offsite Surveys
• SVSP EIR MM 4.14-3. Avoid Light Spillover in Open Space Areas Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding biological resources.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 16 of 43 ends

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1
to 4.9-2, 4.9-4
No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1,

4.9-4
No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Same No No No Yes

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR found that no known cultural resources exist on the Project site (see also 2012 MND, p. 22) . The SVSP then discussed the potential for subsurface remains or deposits to be found during onsite or offsite construction, and included mitigation measures requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. The Project would result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the Project. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the Project regarding cultural resources impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1. Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding cultural resources.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 17 of 43 ends

VI. Energy
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.12.5.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.5-
1 to 4.12.5-2
No No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Same No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Energy was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Electricity in the area is provided by Roseville Electric and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The SVSP EIR concluded that development and implementation of the SVSP would add land uses that would increase the demand for electrical services. However, Roseville Electric determined there were no constraints to providing a reliable energy source to serve the development proposed in the SVSP area. Impacts 4.12-5.1 and 4.12-5-2 in the SVSP EIR evaluated the potential for development of the SVSP to increase demands fo r electricity and natural gas and found these impacts to be less than significant.

The Project would consume energy both during construction and operation, but consumption would be within the scope originally considered in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) because both parcels are planned for full development and will remain planned for full development. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy efficient or which would be wasteful. The completed Project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the Project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These include, to name a few, standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. The Project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the Project.

The SVSP was distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments prior to its publication, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; thus , energy supplies are available to serve the Project .

The Project will not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy . Nor would it conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, especially in consideration of COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 18 of 43 ends

efficiency requirements in SVSP EIR MM 4.5- 2 (discussed below) . Moreover, the substantial reduction in operational traffic trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-42 from commercial to residential would in turn reduce the localized consumption of fossil fuels, which is the “largest energy consuming sector in California” (GP EIR, p. 4.15-12; see XVI. Transportation/Traffic for more detail).Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: No MMs are applicable to the Project regarding impacts to energy resources because no significant impacts exist; however, the following MM is included as a means to further reduce energy usage. • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2. Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions (Provisions relating to Energy and Water Efficiency)
Conclusion: As described above, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) .

Additionally, implementation of SVSP EIR MM 4.5.2, Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions (Provisions relating to Energy and Water Efficiency), would further reduce energy usage by the Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding energy.

VII. Geology and Soils
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.7.2 (and 4.9.2 for paleontological resources) of the SVSP EIR.

Would the Project:

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

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-4 No No No No
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-4 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 19 of 43 ends

iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.7-1,

4.7-3
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-2 No No No No
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-2 No No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.9-3 No No No Yes

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Geology and soils were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR concluded that there would be no impacts to or around the Project site associated with seismic activity, landslides, or soils, and no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, as neither are planned for the SVSP area (see 2012 MND, p. 24) . The SVSP did find a potential impact related to the discovery of subsurface paleontological resources during onsite or offsite construction, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work and review should any such item be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. These same conclusions would apply to the Project , especially given that they are site -specific and not specific to any particular land use. Further, site development would require a grading permit that would be reviewed for compliance with the City standards to ensure erosion control measures were implemented (see 2012 MND, pp. 23 to 24). Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding impacts associated with geology and soils.
• SVSP EIR MM 4. 9-3. Cease Work Until Review conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 20 of 43 ends

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding geology and soils.

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.5-1
to 4.5-2
No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.5-1 No No No Yes

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) .

The SVSP EIR concluded that buildout of the Project area would cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to GHG emissions. M itigation measures were adopted to reduce the Project ’s GHG emissions and resultant impacts, but they still remain significant and unavoidable (see 2012 MND, p. 17). Construction activity associated with the Project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For operational impacts, while the Project proposes changes to the balance of land uses in the area from the approved changes made in 2012, it does not do so in a manner that would increase emissions. Indeed, the proposed redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-42 from commercial to residential would substantially reduce the anticipated traffic trips generated by the development as well as reduce projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) (see XVII. Transportation/Traffic), which would in turn substantially reduce GHG emissions for the Project site related to vehicle use (mobile emissions are the number one source of GHG emissions [see GP EIR, p. 4.5- 20]). GHG emissions, from both the construction and operational phases, would result in impacts consistent with or lesser than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding GHGs. • SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1. Dust and Construction Control Policies • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-1. Reduction of Operational Emissions COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 21 of 43 ends

• SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2. Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding GHGs.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.10.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-1 No No No No
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.10-3
to 4.10-7
No No No Yes
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste within ¼ miles of an
existing or proposed
school?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-1 No No No No
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-5 No No No Yes
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted,

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 22 of 43 ends

within two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard
for people residing or
working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-2 No No No No
g) Expose people or
structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences
are intermixed with
wildlands?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hazards or hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts resulting from hazards or hazardous materials associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less -than-significant levels. The same s tandard construction activities, which involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents, that were analyzed in the SVSP apply to the Project. The same is true of the use of the same common household materials that were discussed as part of SVSP operation. Further, the Project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The SVSP EIR analysis also found that there would be sufficient emergency services and facilities to serve the Project area, and that the area was not located within an airport land use plan or other aviation hazard area. These conclusions still fit for the Project, which occurs within the same development footprint.

Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol. Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging. Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels. Moreover, the Project site is not near any wildlands; therefore, risks associates with wildland fires are not applicable (see Section XX. Wildfire). The Project site is located in an area that has been used for agricultural purposes, which could have involved the use of pesticides and/or herbicides, but mitigation ensures any impacts resulting from these prior uses would remain less than significant (see 2012 MND, p. 25). The proposed uses are substantially consistent with SVSP buildout assumptions. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 23 of 43 ends

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous materials. • SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1. Identify and Remediate Soil Contamination Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding hazards and hazardous material.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.13.2 (and Section 4.12.1.2 for groundwater) of the SVSP EIR.

Would the Project:

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.13-5 No No No Yes
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
2, 4.12.1-6 to

4.12.1-7
No No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.13-4 No No No Yes
ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site; or

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.13-2
to 4.13-3
No No No Yes
iii) Create or contribute SVSP EIR No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 24 of 43 ends

runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned storm water
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff,
Impact 4.13-1
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or
seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
N/A No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. A Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan was prepared and approved by the City as part of the SVSP EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Plan demonstrated that the increases in impervious surfaces being caused by buildout of the SVSP would be offset by proposed drainage facilities and stormwater improvements. Further, no development would occur within the 100- year floodplain area, and consistency with existing City regulations would ensure that all homes would be elevated at least two feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. With regard to stormwater quality, the SVSP EIR noted that there are existing programs, regulations, and permits in place to ensure that all development would not have significant effects related to water pollution from construction or operation, though a mitigation measure is included to require compliance with th ese regulations. The Project would be subject to all adopted City standards and programs as well as applicable state standards that require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to grading activities (see 2012 MND, p. 28). The SVSP area is largely flat and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project falls within the development footprint of the S VSP, and , although some infrastructure modifications will need to be made to accommodate the change in land use on Parcel WB-42, the drainage modifications would not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts . Stormwater quality evaluations conducted for the Project site support this assessment (see the Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan for Westbrook prepared for the 2010 Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (File #2011PL- 043). Preliminary Stormwater Quality Evaluation for Parcel WB -42 by the City’s Engineering Division did not determine any significant impacts to drainage associated with the project . The Engineering Division determined that stormwater treatment for the site has been addressed with existing drainage basin. Also note that the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which is the governing groundwater sustainability agency for the region, has not yet finalized and adopted a sustainable groundwater management plan; therefore, there can be no conflict with such a sustainable groundwater management plan, pursuant to checklist item e .

Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding hydrology and water quality. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-2. Pay fair share of Roseville Regional Stormwater Retention Facility improvements
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 25 of 43 ends

• SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1. Implementation of Construction Activity Stormwater Protection Standards Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding hydrology and water quality.

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

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-2 No No No Yes
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-1
and 4.1-4
No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Land use and planning were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR concluded that there were some potential land use incompatibilities, but that these could be addressed by a mix of mitigation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and Grading Ordinance. Land use issues discussed and addressed included noise from McClellan overflights, agricultural uses in Placer County next to urban uses in the SVSP, construction noise, and commercial land use noise. The overflight noise is a potential nuisance discussion requiring disclosure to future purchasers within the Project site area; however, SVSP is outside an airport land use compatibility planning area for any nearby airport . and noise impacts from aircraft overflights to a project and its future residents outside an airport land use compatibility planning area is not a CEQA issue (see GP EIR, p. 4.6 -47; see also 2012 MND, p. 33 ). Nevertheless, noise volumes do not exceed standards. It was concluded that the SVSP would not physically divide an established community and that it did not conflict with any land use policies or regulations. The EIR concluded that all impacts of the SVSP related to land use and planning could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation.

The Project involves the same use types within the same development footprint, and therefore the conclusions of SVSP EIR remain applicable to the Project. The Project site area has been planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community (see SVSP, COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 26 of 43 ends

Chapter 6 [Circulation Plan]; 3 see also GP Circulation Element 4). The Project involves frontage improvements including new driveways, sidewalks, and pedestrian connections. As such, the Project will not physically divide an established community. Indeed, the conversion of Parcel WB-42 from commercial to residential better aligns with the approved surrounding uses, which are primarily residential. Thus, t he impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the Project regarding impacts associated with land use; other mitigation in the SVSP required for land use impacts applies to future commercial development only and is therefore not applicable to the Project.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.1-2. Policies to Minimize Agricultural Impacts • SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1. Construction Noise Reduction
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding land use and planning.

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

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally-
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 See SVSP Chapter 6 (Circulation Plan):
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/Specific%20Plans%20&%20Planning%20Areas/Sierra%20Vista/06.%20Circulation.pdf . 4 See GP Circulation Element:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%202020/03%20Circulation_Final.pdf .

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 27 of 43 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The SVSP EIR indicated that there were no significant mineral resources in the area. Therefore, this checklist section does not apply.

XIII. Noise
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.6-1
to 4.6-10
No No No Yes
b) Result in exposure of
persons to or generation
of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne
noise levels?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.6-1 No No No Yes
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Noise was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR addressed construction noise, roadway noise, noise from non-residential land uses, and aircraft overflight noise. Overflight noise has been addressed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Addendum. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an issue for all of the major roadways in the SVSP area. Mitigation was found to reduce noise volumes to levels within GP standards for some impacts, and so these impacts were found to be less than significant. However, construction noise and the increase in COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 28 of 43 ends

traffic noise above existing conditions were found to be significant and unavoidable. Project construction and operation should not exceed noise levels anticipated in the SVSP to such a degree that impact conclusions reached in the SVSP EIR would change (see 2012 MND, p. 32). Indeed, with the reduction in traffic associated with WB-42, traffic -related noise should be substantially less than anticipated in the SVSP EIR (see XVII.

Transportation/Traffic).

Implementation of existing SVSP EIR mitigation measures would reduce noise volumes to levels within GP standards for the Project. The Project would be designed consistent with the mitigation measures to include six- foot masonry sound walls adjacent to the lots located along major roadways, among other measures, to ensure noise volumes stay within the GP thresholds. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding noise impacts. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-2. Construction Noise Policies
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-8. Onsite Traffic Noise Attenuation
• SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1. Construction Noise Reduction
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding noise.

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

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

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.2-4 No No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.2-3 No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 29 of 43 ends

Population and housing were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR indicated that the plan would increase the number of housing units above those that had been anticipated in the then-current General Plan, and analyzed the effect on supporting services, infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. It was concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Project further increases number of housing units within the plan area. Notwithstanding, the impact conclusion in the SVSP EIR would not change—it is significant and unavoidable under the currently approved SVSP and will remain significant an d unavoidable with the change proposed in this Addendum . The SVSP EIR also indicated that the plan would displace a small number of residences over a 20 -year time frame, and therefore the impact would be less than significant. However, the Project site contains zero residences, and therefore its development per the Project would have an even lesser impact in this regard (see 2012 MND, p. 34). Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: As described above, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding population and housing.

XV. Public Services
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.11.1-2 to 4.11.2 -2, 4.11.3-2, 4.11.4-2, and 4.11.5- 2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Fire protection? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.2 No No No Yes
b) Police protection? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.1 No No No No
c) Schools? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.3 No No No Yes
d) Parks? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.5 No No No No
e) Other public facilities? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.4 No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Public Services were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR concluded that the SVSP would have a less-than-significant impact to fire and police protection services, parks, and other public services, such as libraries, without mitigation and a less-than-significant impacts to schools with COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 30 of 43 ends

mitigation. For fire protection services, existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. The site developer or Applicant is required to pay a fire service construction fee , which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the City Fire Department. Further, a new fire station is approved for construction within the SVSP and Fire Station #9 exists in the West Plan ar ea (see 2012 MND, p. 35). For police protection services, sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for police services. Properties in the SVSP also pay into Community Facilities District No. 3 that provides services for fire and police. For parks, t he developer will be required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District No. 2, which provides funding for park services. As well, future park and recreation sites and facilities have already been identified and approved as part of SVSP. For other public facilities, the SVSP area would be adequately served by existing libraries, and the City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services.

None of the impacts to these services or facilities would change as a result of the Project. The newly proposed residential units would be required to adhere to all existing codes, regulations and funding agreements to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Indeed, some impacts may decrease. For example, a decrease in commercial land uses may lead to a decrease in the need for police services as more law enforcement assistance is normally required at commercial properties versus residential.

For schools, the SVSP EIR concluded that three new elementary schools and one new intermediate school would be required in the plan area. The high school students generated from the SVSP were assumed in the nearby high schools located outside the SVSP. A portion of the SVSP is located within the Center Joint Unified School District and a portion is located within the Roseville City School District, although the current Project site is entirely within the Center Joint Unified School District. The Project involves an increase in residential units within the SVSP and, therefore, a potential slight increase in students. The Project is estimated to generate an additional 19 students in grades K-6, 8 students in grades 7- 8, and 14 students in grades 9-12; thus 41 students more than assumed in 2012 (see SVSP, Section 7.3, p. 7-22). The project developer and the Center Joint Unified School District entered into the Landowner Development Agreement setting forth the mitigation fees to be paid by the Project to provide full mitigation of the Project’s impacts to school facilities. Under state law, such payments are deemed to constitute “full and complete mitigation” of impacts to school facilities (Gov ernment Code Section 65995(h)); therefore, the increase in students associated with the Project does not translate into a more severe environmental impact than what was anticipated in the SVSP EIR. In addition, the developer or Applicant is required to work with the School District to identify a Safe Routes to School program. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure impacts continue to be less than significant. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the Project regarding impacts associated with public services.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.11.3-2. School Transportation Policies Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures , the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding public services.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 31 of 43 ends

XVI. Recreation
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.11.5-2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.5 No No No No
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
See Other
Sections No No No Yes

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Recreation was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP indicates that the required parkland dedication was met by dedication of parkland throughout the plan area and through payment of park dedication in-lieu fees. As noted in the SVSP EIR, the payment of Citywide and neighborhood park fees will be required, and the payment of fees combined with the dedication of parkland will ensure that impacts to park services are less than significant. The Project will increase total number of residential units anticipated for buildout of the SVSP area, but full buildout of this former UR area includes the construction of

15.5 acres of neighborhood parks and 36 acres of open space that will be used by the future residents on the Project site (see 2012 MND, p. 37). The impact to parks was considered less than significant in the SVSP EIR and 2012 MND, and it will remain less than significant after the change proposed with the Project because any increased usage of planned neighborhood parks would be incremental. The construction of these parks within the SVSP are analyzed as part of the overall plan throughout the SVSP EIR and assigned mitigation measures as necessary. Thus, t he impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures : See other sections for MMs that would apply to park construction, such as MMs for biological and cultural resource impacts, etc.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 32 of 43 ends

XVII. Transportation/Traffic
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.3.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.3-1
to 4.3-25
No No No Yes
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-4 to 4.3-14,

4.3-16 to 4.3-24
No No No Yes
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a design
feature (for example, sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (for
example, farm
equipment)?
Same as (a) No No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.10-2,

4.11-2
No No No No

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Transportation and traffic were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that, with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to several adjacent agency roadways were identified as a significant and unavoidable, and mitigation to lessen the impact was presented . Specific mitigation measures were assigned to the Project site and its surroundings in the 2012 MND , which reflected the potential impacts that might occur from traffic increases resulting from full buildout of the UR area (see 2012 MND, pp. 40 to 46). That mitigation would apply to the current Project and is listed below. However, as explained below, the current Project would produce less traffic that the project that was approved in 2010 and contemplated in the 2012 MND.

The City’s Engineering Division uses the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2017) and the City’s traffic demand model to determine the trip generation of various uses . The Engineering Division concluded that the change in land use designation and zoning on Parcel WB -42 from commercial to residential would generate fewer site trips, fewer trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and less VMT. 5 Typically,

5 Note that VMT is included here for informational purposes only. An analysis of VMT is not required for this CEQA document because such analysis was not included in the underlying 2010 Final EIR upon which this Addendum is based was prepared. The provisions of CEQA that require VMT analysis, such as CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, were not COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 33 of 43 ends

a rezone from commercial to residential creates less than 20% of the daily trips. Therefore, the proposed rezone would result in fewer trips and lessen impacts to traffic and transportation systems, than those described in the SVSP EIR.

The Project does not introduce any hazards resulting from circulation design, as it does not introduce hazards such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections . Nor does it present substantial safety risks associated with emergency access. The Project has been reviewed by the City Engineering Division and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City project s require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards.

Compliance with existing regulations ensure that traffic safety -related impacts are less than significant. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to transportation/traffic.

Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures : The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding transportation and traffic impacts.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.3 -1. Roseville Intersections: Pay Fair Share of Improvements in the CIP including Improvements to Intersections
• SVSP EIR MM 4.3-6. State Facilities Segments: Pay Fair Share Costs • SVSP EIR MM 4.3-7. Sutter County Facilities: Pay Fair Share Costs Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding transportation and traffic.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.9.2 of the SVSP EIR.

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

in full effect until July 1, 2020, and only apply to documents released to the public after that date (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) [stating that its VMT provisions applied only prospectively, as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, which provides, among other things, that “[n]ew requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments,” and that “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements”]). Here, the Final EIR for the SVSP, on which this Addendum relies, was prepared in 2010, more than a decade before the VMT requirement took effect (see also Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626 [court refuses to address legal challenge to EIR based on a failure to include VMT analysis because the EIR at issue was prepared prior to July 2020]).

Moreover, the circumstances and evidence surrounding this project do not necessitate a VMT analysis. As stated by Fehr & Peers, the project would result in a dramatic decrease in traffic trips below what was considered in the SVSP EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 34 of 43 ends

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1
to 4.9-2, 4.9-4
No No No Yes
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe
Same No No No Yes

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Tribal cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR found that no known cultural resources exist on the Project site, inclusive of tribal cultural resources (see V.

Cultural Resources) . The SVSP then discussed the potential for subsurface resources to be found during construction, and included mitigation requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest, inclusive of tribal interests, be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. The Project would result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the Project . Moreover, notice of the Project was mailed to tribes that had requested such notice pursuant to S.B. 18 for early consultation for the amendment of general plans. No request for consultation was received within or beyond 90 days from the request being sent. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding cultural resources impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1. Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 35 of 43 ends

analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding tribal cultural resources.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.12.1.2, 4.12.2.2, 4.12.3.2, 4.12.4.2, and 4.12.5.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the Project:

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

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.3-
1 to 4.12.3-2,

4.12.5-1 to

4.12.5-2
No No No Yes
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
1 to 4.12.1-2,

4.12.2-1
No No No Yes
c) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.12.1-3 No No No Yes
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.4-
1 to 4.12.4-4
No No No Yes
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
1, 4.12.1-4
No No No Yes

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 36 of 43 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Utilities and services systems were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . The SVSP EIR concluded that most potentially significant impacts to utilities and services systems associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. However, impacts associated with increased use of the landfill and its eventual expansion would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation because this expansion is outside the City’s jurisdiction (2012 MND, p. 51) . The SVSP EIR indicated that the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facilities would be used to dispose of solid waste, and that there was insufficient capacity to accept solid waste from the SVSP at full buildout . Solid waste generation is based on population, and the Project would increase the estimated population for the plan area with the increase in residential units. However, the impact conclusion would not change —it is significant and unavoidable and will remain as such. Furthermore, the amount increase of solid waste would not be substantially more severe, but rather an incremental increase. Notwithstanding, since the time the SVSP EIR was adopted, the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Western Regional Sanitary Landfill has expanded and currently has a remaining capacity of 29.1 million cubic yards and a projected closure date of 2058, whereas during preparation of the SVSP EIR, it had a remaining capacity of approximately 25 .4 million cubic yards and a closure date of 2041 (SVSP EIR, p. 4.12.4-12). Therefore, this impact would be lesser under the Project than was concluded under the SVSP.

The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the plan area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands f rom full buildout , excluding ultimate buildout of the UR area. Upon the redesignation/rezoning of the UR area, it was determined that existing City water supplies would need to be augmented and that the additional water would come from the City’s current water entitlements for corporate business centers because no suc h centers were planned (see 2012 MND, p. 49). This arrangem ent left a remainder 46 acre feet of unused water supply for future use. Furthermore, given the myriad of water conservation legislation that has been passed since 2012, which requires significant progressive reductions in personal water use over a series of years ,6 the Project likely would use less water than currently anticipated.

The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the Project and concluded that water uses by the Project would fall below the water supply that is available for City use. Therefore, impact conclusions related to water supply remain the same.

Development of the Project area will require the construction of water lines and sewer lines and facilities, but these were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP (see 2012 MND, p. 50). The Project site land use changes in 2012 required that the Project at that time be required to fund its fair share payment toward construction of a new recycled water storage tank and an upgrade to the existing WRSP recycled water pump station, but no other major changes to infrastructural facilities was expected (see 2012 MND, p. 51) . The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the plan area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the Project (see 2012 MND, p. 51) . The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the Project and determined that project changes fell within the scope of prior assessment in regard to these infrastructure facilities. Thus, the impacts of the Project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the Project regarding impacts associated with utilities and service systems.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.11-5. Treatment Plant Capacity
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-7. Expand the WRSL Landfill (occurred)

6 For example, A.B. 1660 (2018) and S.B. 606 (2018) caps indoor residential water use and requires water efficient controls on residential landscaping irrigation.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 37 of 43 ends

• SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-11. Divert Construction Debris
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures , the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding utilities and service systems.

XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, w ould the Project:

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

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

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

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 38 of 43 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones and designates state responsibility areas. The City is not located within or near a state responsibility area and also is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, this checklist section does not apply.

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

Biological
Resources; V.

Cultural
Resources; VII.

Geology and
Soils; XVIII.

Tribal Cultural
Resources
No No No Yes
b) Have impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of
other current projects, and
the effects of probable
future projects.)
See SVSP EIR
Section 5.7.3 No No No Yes
c) Have environmental
effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
See above
Sections III. Air
Quality; VIII.

Greenhouse
Gases; XI.

Hazards and
Hazardous
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 39 of 43 ends

Materials; X.

Hydrology and
Water Quality;
XIII. Noise

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in the SVSP and listed in this document , and permit conditions, the Project will not exceed the scope of any impact contemplated SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) that is associated with habitat, species, historic/prehistoric resources, or adverse effects on human beings.

Furthermore, cumulative impacts associated with the Project would not exceed those contemplated in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) because no Project-related individual impact exceeds the scope of that same impact in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

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

Conclusion: With the implementation of the applicable mitigation measures listed in this Addendum checklist, the Project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) . Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to the mandatory findings of significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Based on analysis conducted in this Addendum, the previously certified EIR, and the 2012 MND, it is determined that implementation of Project modifications, as described herein, would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, either directly or as a result of new circumstances or information. The City may take the following actions in compliance with CEQA:
• Certify the Addendum
• Adopt the SVSP amendment
• Approve the General Plan and specific plan amendments and rezone

In reviewing the site specific information provided for the Project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2008032115, adopted May 5, 2010), inclusive of the

WESTBROOK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN MI TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ( SCH # 2008032115, adopted June 15, 201 2), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the Project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
September 19, 2024
SVSP PCL WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment; File # PL24-0397

Page 40 of 43 ends

[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Addendum Attachment 1 – Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR

ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 1

One acre of open space shall be preserved within Placer County for each acre of open space impacted within the Specific Plan area. This is to be accomplished through the recordation of conservation easements that result in the formation of preserve lands (as a “mitigation property or “preserve site” and collectively, “mitigation lands” or “preserve lands”). For the purposes of assessing impacts associated with a specific development project, “open space” impacts shall include all land proposed to be developed for urban uses .

For purposes of mitigation for the specific development project, the term “open space” shall include any and all undeveloped land proposed to be preserved by conservation easement or otherwise required by any governmental agency to be preserved for any reason, specifically including all lands preserved for habitat or agricultural mitigation is required beyond the 1:1 open space requirement noted above, as long as a substantial portion, as determined by the Planning Director, of the mitigation lands acquired are (1) in agricultural production, (2) are undeveloped and have the same or higher value CDC categorization as lands being affected within the Specific Plan property at issue.

In-kind mitigation is not required for agricultural land development within the Specific Plan area.

The Applicant shall be
responsible for securing
the offsite grassland
mitigation prior to
approval of tentative
maps proportional to
the development
proposed.

Prior to the
issuance of
a Grading
Permit.

Planning
Director,
City Open
Space
Preserve
Manager,
and CDD
Director
Documentation
of conservation
easements

SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1. Roseville Intersections: Pay Fair Share of Improvements in the CIP including Improvements to [] Intersections

• Fiddyment/Baseline Road: improve intersection as part of the project • Watt Avenue/Baseline Road: improve intersection as part of the project Improvements would be necessary to the following intersections, as part of the project to achieve acceptable service levels under the 2025 CIP plus Project scenario. However, as noted, many intersections cannot be mitigated because of constraints.

1. Foothills Boulevard and Baseline Road: No feasible mitigation

2. Industrial Avenue and Alantown Drive: No feasible mitigation

3. Cirby Way and Northridge Drive: No feasible mitigation The Development
Agreements between
Applicant and the City,
require the City to
update the CIP and the
Applicants to pay fair
share fees.

In
accordance
with
Developme
nt
Agreement
s, the traffic
mitigation
fees shall
be paid on
a pro-rata
basis prior
to the
issuance of
Public
Works
Director
Project will pay
fair share of
fees

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only

4. Foothills Boulevard and Junction Boulevard: No feasible mitigation

5. Junction Boulevard and Baseline Road: No feasible mitigation

6. Roseville Parkway and Sierra College Boulevard: No feasible mitigation

7. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Crocker Ranch Road: Re-stripe to include two south bound to east bound left turn lanes and a separate right turn. This improvement shall be added to the City of Roseville’s Capital Improvement program. Development within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area shall be required to pay fair share costs for this improvement

8. Blue Oaks Boulevard and New Meadow Drive: Re-stripe the southbound through lane to a shared through and left-turn lane. This improvement shall be added to the City of Roseville’s Capital Improvement program. Development within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area shall be required to pay fair share costs for this improvement. As such, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.

9. Foothills Boulevard and Baseline/Main: No feasible mitigation

10. Sunrise Boulevard and Sandringham/Kensinton: add a dedicated southbound right-turn lane

11. Woodcreek Oaks and Baseline Road: construction of a second eastbound through lane. This improvement is currently in the City’s CIP program. SVSP would be required to pay fair share costs for this improvement.

The SVSP will develop over a period of years. Therefore, the impacts on these impacts would occur over a period of time. As with other improvements in the 2025 CIP, the City shall monitor traffic conditions and determine when specific improvements are needed. The City of Roseville’s traffic impact fees should be revised to include the SVSP area. The City of Roseville’s Traffic Impact Fees should be revised to include the SVSP. Specific Plans and/or development proposals shall provide for fair share contributions of the cost of the improvements through the updated traffic impact fees.

Construction of intersection improvements could have impacts on biological and cultural resources, air quality, water quality, and noise levels. These impacts will be evaluated as part of the CIP update to incorporate the adopted mitigation. any
building
permit.

SVSP EIR MM 4.3-6. State Facilities Segments: Pay Fair Share Costs

No specific improvements have been identified to mitigate project The City and Sutter
County shall implement
a regional traffic fee to
fund the identified
improvements.

Payment of
applicable
fees by the
Applicant
at the time
Sutter
County
Public
Works
Director
Project will pay
fair share of
fees

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
impacts on I-80, SR 70/99, or SR 65; however, the City is willing to work with Caltrans & the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) to establish a regional approach to institute a fee program for the purpose of funding improvements on these facilities. If and when Caltrans and the City enter into an enforceable agreement, the Project shall pay impact fees to the City of Roseville in amounts that constitute the Project’s fair share contributions to the construction of transportation facilities and/or improvements, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000
et seq.). The City shall determine the means of providing the project’s fair share of the funds for these improvements to Caltrans through the inter-agency agreement or other arrangement required by Mitigation Measure 4.3-7.

Applicant within the
SVSP shall be required
to contribute to the
regional fee to fund a
portion of the
improvements per the
Development
Agreements. The State
shall be responsible for
overseeing the
improvements.
of each
building
permit.
and the
City Public
Works
Director SVSP EIR MM 4.3-7. Sutter County Facilities: Pay Fair Share Costs

• Reigo Road and Pleasant Grove South
• Riego Road and Pleasant Grove North
• Riego Road
The City of Roseville shall negotiate in good faith to enter into a fair agreement with Sutter County regarding Sierra Vista’s fair share mitigation for this improvement. In reaching an accommodation with Sutter County, the City and Sutter County, in order to better ensure an effective sub-regional approach to mitigating transportation-related impacts, may choose to include within the same agreements or Joint Powers Authority additional public agencies with whom it must work to mitigate transportation-related impacts, such as Placer County, Sacramento County, and Caltrans. As the City strives to achieve agreement(s) with one or more of these other agencies, the City shall insist that “fair share” fee obligations be reciprocal, in the sense that the other local agencies, in accepting fair share contributions from the SVSP developers, must agree to require new development occurring in their own jurisdictions to make fair share contributions towards mitigation the significant effects of such development on the City’s transportation network. Any such arrangement(s), with just Sutter County or with additional agencies, shall account for existing inter-agency fee programs in order to avoid requiring redundant mitigation or fee payments exceeding fair share mitigation levels. The City intends that its arrangement(s) with Sutter County and any other agencies shall permit the participating agencies flexibility in providing cross-jurisdictional credits and reimbursements consistent with the general “fair share” mitigation standard, and The City and Sutter
County shall implement
a regional traffic fee to
fund the identified
improvements.

Applicant within the
SVSP shall be required
to contribute to the
regional fee to fund a
portion of the
improvements per the
Development
Agreements. Sutter
County shall be
responsible for
overseeing the
improvements.

Payment of
fees by the
Applicant
at the time
of each
building
permit.

Sutter
County
Public
Works
Director
and the
City Public
Works
Director
Project will pay
fair share of
fees

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
require an updated model run incorporating the best available information in order to obtain the most accurate, up-to-date impact assessment feasible and to generate the most accurate, up-to-date estimates of regional fair share contributions. These arrangements, moreover, should also include provisions that allow for periodic updates to the traffic modeling on which fair share payment calculations depend in order to account for (i) newly approved projects cumulatively contributing to transportation-related impacts and that therefore should contribute to the funding of necessary improvements (e.g., the Curry Creek Community Plan in Placer County), (ii) additional physical improvements necessitated in whole or in part by newly approved projects, (iii) changing cost calculations for the construction of needed improvements based on changes in the costs of materials, labor, and other inputs. Implementation of MM 4.3-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level; however, these improvements lie outside the jurisdiction of the City of Roseville. As such, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1. Dust and Construction Control Policies

In accordance with the PCAPCD, the applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations as listed above (e.g., Rule 202, 218 and 228). In addition, at the time of tentative map the applicant(s) shall implement a minimum of five (5) of the following measures unless superseded by state or other more stringent standards:

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce short-term construction-related air quality impacts. In addition, dust control measures are required to be implemented by all projects in accordance with the City of Roseville Grading Ordinance, and the PCAPCD Fugitive Dust Rule 228. • Applicant shall submit to PCAPCD a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan within 30 days prior to groundbreaking. If the PCAPCD does not respond within 20 days, the plan shall be considered approved. The plan must address the minimum requirements found in section 300 and 400 of District Rule 228, Fugitive Dust (www.placer.ca.gov/airpollution/a irpolut.htm). The applicant shall keep a hard or electronic copy of Rule 228, Fugitive Dust on-site for reference. • The Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan shall include a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower (HP) of greater) that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. The project representative shall The Applicant shall
submit construction
management plans as
part of the Grading
Permit application. The
Public Works Director
shall review grading
plans for inclusion of
these measures prior to
issuance of grading
permits. The City Code
Enforcement Officer
shall respond to
complaints.

Prior to
issuance of
Grading
Permits.

Director of
Public
Works
Dust Control
Plan and proof
of submittal to
PCAPCD

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
provide PCAPCD with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. The plan shall demonstrate that the heavy-duty (> 50 HP) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. PCAPCD shall be contacted for average fleet emission data. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. Contractors can access the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s web site to determine if their off-road fleet meets the requirements listed in this measure (http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Construction_Mitigation_Calculator.xls).

The following measures are also included to reduce construction-related ROG, Nox, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition.

Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for verification. This measure will reduce combustion emissions of all criteria air pollutants. • Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction will be used, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Low emission equipment is defined as meeting the California Air Resources Board’s Tier III standards. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the PCAPCD as well as City Planning Staff. This measure will primarily reduce ROG, Nox, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions.
• Paints and coating shall be applied either by hand or by high volume, low- pressure spray. This measure will reduce evaporative ROG emissions. • All construction shall comply with the following measures to reduce fugitive dust related emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
o Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on soil haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
o Suspend grading operations during high winds (greater than 15 mph).

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
o Sweep streets as necessary if silt is carried off-site to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
o Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
o Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
o Phase grading into smaller areas to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion over extended periods of time.
o Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
o Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and water.
o Clean earth moving construction equipment with water or sweep clean, once per day, or as necessary (e.g., when moving onsite), consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices and the Roseville Grading Ordinance. Water shall be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite. Operational water truck(s), shall be on-site, as required, to control fugitive dust. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned, as needed, to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off-site.
o Spread soil binders on unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking areas. Soil binders shall be non-toxic in accordance with state and local regulations. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers, or vegetated mats, etc. according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all-inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). o Minimize diesel idling time to a maximum of five minutes. o Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators, if feasible. o An applicant representative, ARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely (i.e., once per week) evaluate project related off-road and heavy-duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement for projects grading more than 20 acres in size, regardless of how many acres are to be disturbed daily. o Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed the PCAPCD Visible Emissions Rule 202. Fugitive dust is not to exceed 40% opacity and not go beyond property boundary at any time. Operators of vehicles and

The City of Roseville is currently working with the Placer County Pollution Control District to update the standard mitigation measures. The following measures will likely be required at the time specific development is proposed. 1c. Prior to approval of Grading/ plans the applicant shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan to the Placer County APCD. The plan must be submitted by certified mail, or receive a date stamp or other submittal proof.

This plan must address the minimum Administrative Requirements found in section 300 and 400 of APCD Rule 228, Fugitive Dust. The applicant shall not break ground prior to receiving APCD approval of the Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan. If the applicant has submittal proof of submittal and no response is received from the District within 20 working days the plan shall be deemed complete, and construction may begin.
1c. Include the following standard note on the Improvement/Grading Plan: The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower of greater) that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall the prime contractor shall contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman.
1c. Prior to approval of Grading/Improvement Plans, the applicant shall provide a plan to the Placer County APCD for approval by the District demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent Nox reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.

Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available.

2. Include the following standard note on the Improvement/Grading Plan: If required by the Public Works Department, the contractor shall hold a pre-

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
construction meeting prior to grading activities. The contractor shall invite the Placer County APCD to the pre-construction meeting in order to discuss the construction emission/dust control plan with employees and/or contractors.

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

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

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

Listed Decorative Gas Appliance. (Rule 225)

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

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

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

9. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, an enforcement plan shall be established, and submitted to the APCD for review, in order to evaluate project -

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
related on-and-off- road heavy-duty vehicle engine emission opacities on a weekly basis, using standards as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194. An Environmental Coordinator, hired by the prime contractor or property owner, and who is CARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely evaluate project related off- road and heavy duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified by APCD and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194) PCAPCD Rules (Existing District requirements to be added as construction notes or referenced in conditions of approval)
New Standard Condition of Approval (for all projects): The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction.

The following air quality notes shall be added to the grading and/or improvement plans:
• The contractor shall use CARB ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel– powered equipment. In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article

4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations).
• Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
Registration Program, Section 2452).
• The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
• During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
Contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman.

1. Prior to approval of Grading/Improvement Plans, the applicant shall provide a plan to the Placer County APCD for approval by the District demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent Nox reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.

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

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only

Listed Decorative Gas Appliance. (Rule 225)

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

9. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, an enforcement plan shall be established, and submitted to the APCD for review, in order to evaluate project - related on-and-off- road heavy-duty vehicle engine emission opacities on a weekly basis, using standards as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194. An Environmental Coordinator, hired by the prime contractor or property owner, and who is CARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely evaluate project related off- road and heavy duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified by APCD and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194) PCAPCD Rules (Existing District requirements to be added as construction notes or referenced in conditions of approval)
New Standard Condition of Approval (for all projects): The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and

Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)
• Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction. In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501)
• All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452).
• The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
• During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)

SVSP EIR MM 4.5-1. Reduction of Operational Emissions

Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Measures listed in Section 4.3 Air Quality would reduce operational and construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, and would also act to reduce GHG emissions The Applicant shall
submit construction
management plans as
part of the Grading
Permit application. The
Public Works Director
Prior to
issuance of
Grading
Permits.

Director of
Public
Works
Operational
Emissions Plan

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
associated with project construction and operation. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 found in the Air Quality section of this EIR, is relevant to impact 4.5-1 because both criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions are frequently associated with combustion byproducts. In addition, the City shall implement the following measures to reduce direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Certain measures would already be components of the project (i.e., Specific Plan policies, design guidelines and standards), and/or would be applied consistent with the City’s General Plan Policies, addressing GHG emissions and climate change, but are provided here for purposes of completeness.
shall review grading
plans for inclusion of
these measures prior to
issuance of grading
permits. The City Code
Enforcement Officer
shall respond to
complaints.

In addition, plans will be
reviewed by the Placer
County Air Pollution
Control District for
compliance with their
rules and regulations.

SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2. Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions

For each new development within the project site requiring a discretionary approval (e.g., tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit), the City shall impose mitigation measures that reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible and to the extent appropriate with respect to the state’s progress at the time toward meeting GHG emissions reductions required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

The City shall require feasible reduction measures that, in combination with existing and future regulatory measures developed under AB 32, will reduce GHG emissions associated with the operation of developments and supporting infrastructure that are part of the proposed project by 30% from business-as- usual emissions levels projected for 2025, if feasible.

The Applicant shall
submit construction
management plans as
part of the Grading
Permit application. The
Public Works Director
shall review grading
plans for inclusion of
these measures prior to
issuance of grading
permits. The City Code
Enforcement Officer
shall respond to
complaints.

In addition, plans will be
reviewed by the Placer
County Air Pollution
Control District for
compliance with their
rules and regulations.

Prior to
issuance of
Grading
Permits.

Director of
Public
Works
Construction
Management
Plan

SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1. Construction Noise Reduction

These measures shall
be included on building
plans. The Chief
Prior to
approval of
grading
Chief
Building
Inspector,
Measures shall
be located on

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

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

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

Building Inspector shall
review plans for
inclusion of these
measures prior to
issuance of building
permits. The Code
Enforcement Inspector
shall respond to
complaints.
permits
and/or
building
permits.

Building
Official,
Code
Enforceme
nt
Inspector
Building Permit
Plans
SVSP EIR MM 4.8-3. Avoid Nesting Sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:

Raptors
a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30th and February 15th to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area.
b) For Swainson’s hawk, if avoidance of tree removal outside the breeding season is not feasible, and a nest is present, the applicants would be required to obtain a 2081 permit from CDFG to mitigate for potential “take” under CESA.

If no nesting is occurring, a take permit would not be required. c) Prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15th and August 30th, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days prior to disturbance. If Results of
preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted to
the Chief Building
Inspector prior to the
issuance of a grading
permit. Applicable
construction restrictions
shall be reflected within
building plans. The
applicants shall prepare
annual reports on the
status and success of
mitigation and shall
submit these reports to
USFWS and CDFG.

The applicants shall
coordinate with USFWS
and CDFG to modify as
Prior to
approval of
grading
and
building
permits.

Chief
Building
Inspector,
Building
Official,
Code
Enforceme
nt
Inspector,
Environme
ntal
Coordinato
r
Nesting Bird
Surveys

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
active raptor nests or burrows are found, and the site is within 350-feet of potential construction activity, a highly visible temporary fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 350-feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area.
d) Preconstruction and non-breeding season exclusion measures shall be developed in consultation with CDFG, and shall preclude burrowing owl occupation of the portions of the project site subject to disturbance such as grading. Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from burrows in construction areas by placing one-way doors in the burrows according to CDFG protocol. The one-way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation must be cleared with the one way doors. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of the one-way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow. e) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones) unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species.
f) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.

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

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

necessary any
mitigation plans in an
effort to attain
mitigation success.

Swainson’s Hawk
a) CDFG recommends that projects that result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (which includes grasslands) within 10‐miles of an active nest site provide mitigation for that loss. To the extent feasible, strategies for preserving on‐site grasslands as raptor and migratory bird foraging habitat will be addressed in the Operations and Maintenance Plan prepared pursuant to the Section 404 Permit. Some of these strategies could include; but are not necessarily limited to, grazing for grassland management, monitoring for biological values, and adaptive management. Mitigation for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would concurrently mitigate for loss of habitat for a number of other wildlife species in the region such as burrowing owl, red‐tailed hawk, white‐tailed kite, northern harrier, Ferruginous hawk, and logger ‐head shrike among others.

Based on information obtained through consultation with CDFG and otherwise, a Swainson’s Hawk Grassland Habitat Mitigation Plan shall be developed to mitigate for the loss of grassland foraging habitat, consistent with the ratios set forth in Table 4.8‐7. Areas within Placer County including the Toad Hill Mitigation Bank, the Western Placer Schools Mitigation Area and a portion of Koshman Ranch and other sites that will be located within Placer County via conservation easements or other mechanisms would provide a total of 1,036 upland/grassland acres. This would reduce the impacts to Swainson’s Hawk to a less than significant level.
[See Table 4.8-8 in SVSP EIR]

Long‐billed Curlew, Burrowing Owls
Mitigation for the Swainson’s hawk would ensure that adequate grassland is preserved at ratios identified in Table 4.8‐7. For foraging within one mile of an active nest, mitigation would be 1:1. Greater than a mile would be at an amount of .75:1. This would set aside adequate grassland that would reduce impacts from loss of grasslands to these species to a less than significant level.

The applicant shall
submit documentation
certifying that grassland
habitat has obtained to
the City’s
Environmental
Coordinator.

Prior to
grading
plan
approval.

Environme
ntal
Coordinato
r
Documentation
of
Conservation
Easements

SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐5. Wildlife Movement Protection Policies

The Applicant shall
enter into a Section
Prior to
approval of
NPDES
Coordinato
1600 Alteration
Agreement

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
To protect the long term habitat of the stream channels and the WAPA corridor and their potential use by wildlife as movement corridors, the project applicants shall ensure that movement corridors are not obstructed. Through compliance with Section 1600 of the CDFG Code, the applicant(s) will enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to conducting any construction activities within a stream corridor, which sets forth mitigation measures that the applicant must implement. These measures shall include, but not be limited to; the use of either bridges or culverts that are large enough that wildlife have enough space to pass through road crossings without having to travel over the road surface, the implementation of bank stabilization measures, and/or restoration and re- vegetation of stream corridor habitat that has been damaged due to the project’s construction. Furthermore, the recreational trails shall be lined by post and rail fence and signage would be used to direct trail users to stay within the designated trail corridor. The trails would be closed after dark and no exterior lighting would be used. Lastly, the implementation of MM 4.8-1 which provides for the conservation of onsite open space along the WAPA corridor and the stream channels would ensure adequate opportunities for wildlife movement through the plan area.
1600 Streambed
Alteration Agreement
with CDFG. The City’s
NPDES Coordinator
shall ensure measures
are included in the
project to reduce water
quality impacts.
grading
permits.
r,
Environme
ntal
Coordinato
r
SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐7. Offsite Surveys

Prior to construction of any off- site infrastructure, a qualified biologist shall perform detailed, and if necessary, focused biological surveys of any undisturbed areas that would be affected by infrastructure development.

Because infrastructure for the proposed project would be located in road right - of-way, or undeveloped land similar to the project site, the biological resources that would be expected to occur would not differ substantially from those identified in this EIR. If it is determined that wetland resources or sensitive species would be impacted MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 shall be implemented, as appropriate to the resource. If it is determined that active nests exist within the off-site improvement location, MM 4.8-3 shall be implemented as appropriate to the species. If it is determined the off-site improvement is located within or adjacent to a wildlife movement corridor, MM 4.8-5 shall be implemented.

Appropriate biological
surveys, environmental
review, and appropriate
permits shall be
conducted in
accordance with
applicable rules and
regulations governing
the protection of listed
species.

Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit.

Public
Works
Director,
Environme
ntal
Coordinato
r
Biological
Survey

SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1. Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist

Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains, be encountered This condition shall be
reflected in all
construction and
building plans. The
Public Works Director
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit
and/or
Public
Works
Director,
Building
Official,
Measure to be
reflected on all
construction
plans

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100-feet of the find. The City of Roseville Planning and Public Works Staff shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City of Roseville shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed, to assess the resource (i.e., whether it is an “historical resource” or a “unique archaeological resource”) and provide proper management recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be found to be significant. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or, where avoidance is infeasible in light of project design or layout or is unnecessary to avoid significant effects, data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed feasible and necessary by City staff, in consultation with the archaeologists, to be to avoid or minimize significant effects to the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.98 or the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

UPDATED TEXT:

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

All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional archeologist, and consulting tribe(s), and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.
shall review plans for
inclusion and permits of
specifications prior to
the issuance of building
permits
approval of
improveme
nt plans.

Code
Enforceme
nt
Inspector

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource. The subsequent actions will be determined by the type of discovery, as described below. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

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

The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
• Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determine that the find is negative for any cultural indicators and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative.. No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provid e written documentation of this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
• Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non- tribal resources. Notice shall
include the photograph and
description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of t his measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non- tribal, work shall not resume within the no- work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
• Response to Tribal Discoveries : If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is th e preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no- work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
• Response to Human Remains : If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on- site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).

If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, dete rmines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

SVSP EIR MM 4.9-3. Cease Work Until Review conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented

Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g. fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance, if feasible in light of project design or layout, or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed feasible and necessary by City staff in consultation with the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.

This condition shall be
reflected in all
construction and
building plans and
permits. The Public
Works Director shall
review plans for
inclusion of
specifications prior to
the issuance of building
permits.

During
constructio
n, as a
condition of
Grading
and
Building
Permits.

Public
Works
Director,
Building
Official,
Code
Enforceme
nt
Inspector
Measure to be
reflected on all
construction
plans

SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1. Identify and Remediate Soil Contamination

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

The Applicant shall be
responsible for
conducting soil testing
and/or recommendation
of the Phase I
environmental site
assessments.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.

Fire
Departmen
t
Documentation
indicating soil
has been
remediated

SVSP EIR MM 4.11-5. Treatment Plant Capacity

Prior to obtaining building permits for development that would cause total wastewater flows from SVSP to contribute to total flows at the PGWWTP The applicant shall
demonstrate that the
PGWWTP shall be
expanded.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permit that
Environme
ntal Utilities
Director
Documentation
of the measure
to be provided

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
exceeding 75 percent utilization of treatment plant capacity (General Plan Policy 3), the City shall confirm that the PGWWTP has adequate capacity and/or will be expanded to accommodate total flow from the SVSP by the time needed to serve that development. This includes obtaining all necessary permits to discharge the treated flow. The City shall also demonstrate that the timing of the plant expansion will be adequate to serve the SVSP area without impeding other planned development within the 2005 SAB. The City shall ensure that all relevant mitigation measures identified in the Wastewater Master Plan EIR are implemented. A list of mitigation measures applicable to this project area are found in Appendix H of this EIR.
would
cause total
wastewater
flows to
exceed 75
percent
utilization
of
treatment
plant
capacity.

SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1. Implementation of Construction Activity Stormwater Protection Standards

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

This condition shall be
reflected in all
construction and
building plans. The
Public Works Director
shall review plans for
inclusion of
specifications prior to
the issuance of building
permits.

Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits.

Public
Works
Director,
Building
Official,
Code
Enforceme
nt
Inspector
Measure to be
reflected on all
construction
plans

SVSP EIR MM 4.14-3. Avoid Light Spillover in Open Space Areas

Areas Outdoor lighting shall be placed, designed and directed so as to avoid light spillover into the habitat of Curry Creek and the Open Space Preserve areas located immediately adjacent to the open space, as shown on the Land Use Map as parcels KT-1, KT-40, KT-30, KT-41, DF-1, DF-2, DF-40, CG-1, CG- 82m JM-21, JM-3, and JM-4.

The City shall
implement policies to
reduce the nuisance
effects of
nighttime/daytime
and/or high-intensity
illumination from the
project.

Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits;
the
disclosures
shall occur
prior to the
issuance of
Occupancy
Permits
Parks and
Recreation
Director
Plans will be
reviewed to
ensure
compliance

Condition of Approval for Deed Disclosure and WMM 4.1-2 Policies to Minimize Agricultural impacts; WMM 4.5-2 Construction Noise Policies, and WMM 4.4-3 Reduction of Construction Emissions
In order to reduce potential conflicts between sensitive uses and agricultural uses, residential units within 100-feet of undeveloped parcels to the west of the SVSP are where agricultural uses exist shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring potential agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties. A written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor prior to the completion of the purchase or rental agreement, until such time, the uses are converted to urban development. The text of the disclosure language shall be approved by the City Attorney.

To ensure that residents are made aware of other land uses in proximity to their respective neighborhoods, the developers shall also provide through deed disclosure or other similar notice approved by the City Attorney; proximity to the WAPA corridor and overhead power lines, high pressure gas lines in Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road, use of recycled water, and proximity to parks and schools that may generate noise and light.

The Applicant shall
include site-specific
design measures, such
as setbacks, landscape
buffers, building
orientation, and
appropriate design
features, through the
specific plan.

Prior to
occupancy
of any
residence
or sensitive
use.

City
Attorney,
Public
Works
Departmen
t, Code
Enforceme
nt
Included in the
SVSP

SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-2. Construction Noise Policies

The Applicant shall
include site-specific
design measures, such
as setbacks, landscape
buffers, building
orientation, and
appropriate design
features, through the
specific plan.

Prior to
occupancy
of any
residence
or sensitive
use.

City
Attorney,
Public
Works
Departmen
t, Code
Enforceme
nt
CC&R’s shall
be submitted
for review

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
To ensure that residents are made aware of other land uses in proximity to their respective neighborhoods, the developers shall also provide through deed disclosure or other similar notice approved by the City Attorney; proximity to the WAPA corridor and overhead power lines, high pressure gas lines in Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road, use of recycled water, and proximity to parks and schools that may generate noise and light.

SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-8. Onsite Traffic Noise Attenuation

The project developer shall demonstrate through an acoustical study that residences along roadways will be subject to noise levels consistent with the City’s standards. The standards could be achieved through a combination of setbacks, soundwalls or other barriers, building orientation or other measures.

An acoustical analysis shall be required to demonstrate that these measures will result in acceptable noise levels.

Done Done Done

SVSP EIR WMM 4.11.3-2. School Transportation Policies

The applicants shall work with the school districts to identify safe routes to school. The school district should encourage an appropriate mechanism for transporting students to schools, both within the specific plan area, as well as outside the project area. Bus programs would reduce traffic congestion and reduce potential air quality impacts.

Prior to building permits
being issued within the
SVSP, school
transportation policies
should be developed in
coordination with
appropriate school
district.

Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.

Planning
Director,
Public
Works
Director
Done

SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-7. Expand the WRSL Landfill (occurred)

WMM 4.11-7 Expand the WRSL Landfill
Development in the SVSP Area and Urban Reserve shall pay collection fess to the City of Roseville, a portion of which shall be used to service bonds necessary to fund landfill expansion. As a member of the WPWMA, the City of Roseville can support the expansion of the landfill, as needed; however, the City cannot compel the WPWMA to expand the landfill.

The City shall support
the WPWMA efforts to
expand the Western
Regional Sanitary
Landfill.

At the time
of
constructio
n debris
will be
diverted to
an
appropriate
recycling
facility.

Environme
ntal Utilities
Director
Done

SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-11. Divert Construction Debris

The applicants shall ensure a 50% reduction in the development’s The applicant shall
submit evidence of their
waste diversion plan to
Prior to
Building
Permit
issuance.

Building
Division
Records of
diversion

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Reviewing
Party
Documents to
be Submitted
to the City
Staff Use
Only
construction waste stream. In Developer contracts with construction contractors and their sub-contractors, the Developer shall require that construction waste be reduced by 50%. The Developer shall further require that contractors and sub-contractors submit records of diversion and disposal to the City’s Environmental Utilities Department in order to verify compliance with this requirement.
the City’s Building
Division.

SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-1. Prepare Site Specific Drainage Study

If a larger detention basin near the main branch of Curry Creek is used for the Remainder Area, and includes flows for the WRSP Area, Specific Plans and/or other development proposals for the Remainder Area Urban Reserve shall prepare a site specific drainage study. The study shall identify appropriate sizing and to ensure that Remainder Area Urban Reserve flows, in combination with flows generated in the WRSP Area, can be accommodated in the larger basin The study shall also be used to identify features that will limit peak flow runoff from the areas drained to Curry Creek to pre-development levels per the PCFCWCD SWMM and City standards. The study shall also be used to demonstrate the larger basin will not cause or exacerbate downstream flooding conditions in the SOI Amendment Area or at downstream locations outside the SOI Amendment area. The drainage study shall be submitted to the PCFCWCD and the City of Roseville for review. If a basin in the Remainder Area is used to store flows generated by sheds C-WP7 and C-WP8 in the WRSP Area, in addition to Remainder Area generated flows, the drainage study shall ensure that sufficient capacity is provided to manage total flows into the basin.

Done Done Done
SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-2. Pay fair share of Roseville Regional Stormwater Retention Facility improvements
The City shall collect the Pleasant Grove Drainage fee from the applicants prior to the approval of each building permit, which would cover the cost of retention for that development’s portion of the Roseville regional retention basin at Reason Farms.

The City shall collect
the Pleasant Grove
Drainage fee from
applicants.

Prior to the
issuance of
Building
Permits.

Public
Works
Director
Fees will be
collected

From: GIOVANNI MIANO
To: Morales, Sean
Subject: Re: WB-42 Rezone Project City Council Notice
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 7:18:23 PM
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.

I am deeply opposed to the amendment!
I think the developer should do due diligence in finding an anchor store.

The developer is not taking into consideration the foot traffic that will be generated by the massive sports complex being developed down the street on Westbrook! If I understand the argument, the current property will not be developed for several years, thus, the request for the amendment to divide the parcel in half for housing and a smaller commercial site. However, their further prediction is the smaller commercial site will not be developed in 5 years, most likely 10 years, if ever, even with the amendment, then what’s the point?!
If both parcel sizes are unlikely to be developed in several years, halving the site now to build houses, is a permanent decision, that can’t be reversed and permanently limits the size or future commercial site.

If it is several years for development with either scenario, what’s the hurry? I would rather leave the lot undeveloped, to secure future options! You can always amend the parcel in the future and build more houses! The houses don’t need to be built now! What we don’t need is more houses without infrastructure in West Roseville.

This gives time to see what the future will bring , and doesn’t limit future options.

Please read this into the record.

Giovanni Miano
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2024, at 3:30 PM, Morales, Sean <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

A public notice for the City Council hearing for this project was sent to property owners within 300 ft of the project, sent to the Press Tribune, and posted on the RCONA website. I attached the notice to this email for your reference. The meeting agenda (which will include the staff report and exhibits) will be posted by the end of the week on the City Council website. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Sean Morales
Associate Planner
Development Services Department – Planning Division.
<image001.png>
(916) 774-5282
<image002.png>
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA 95678 <image003.png>
Working together to build a quality community.

<PL24-0397, 2931 Pleasant Grove, WB-42 - Rezone and Land Use Amendment, 00 legal newspaper.pdf>

Roseville City CouncilNovember 6, 2024

Roseville City Council
November 6, 2024