Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, March 5, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Shotgun Bean
Bag Round
6 Less than Lethal
Force
10 years Defense
Technologies
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $5.
each
Yearly: $0.00
835a PC &
Federal
and State

CA POST
Certified
Extended
Range
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Dispersion
dependent
case
precedent
Projectile
Munitions
(4hrs)
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Gas Launcher
Cup Attachment
3 Launch
Chemical
Agents
Unknown CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Used to propel
chemical
agents from
Gas Launcher
Cup
Initial: $260
ea.

Yearly: $0.00
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Gas Spike 1 Introducing
Chemical
Agents
Unknown Tomahawk
Tactical
Introducing
Chemical
Agents into
structure
remotely
Initial: $4K
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Flashbang 9 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years Defense
Technology
Light Sound
Diversionary
Device
Initial:

Yearly:

Rocklin PD
assumed cost
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
9 Bang
Flashbang
0 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years Defense
Technology
Light Sound
Diversionary
Device
Initial:

Yearly:

Rocklin PD
assumed cost
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Bang Pole 1 Introduce
LSDD’s
Unknown Thunderstick
American
Tactical Entry
Accessories MFG
Introducing
LSDD’s into
specific area
remotely
Initial: $500
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
MP5-SD 1 Lethal Force 15,000
Rounds
Heckler Koch
(HK)
Lethal Force Initial: $1,200
Yearly: $0

835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Jet Smoke 5210
JL
13 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $34 ea
Yearly: $0
Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Baffled Smoke
5210
5 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $35 ea
Yearly: $0
Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Baffled CS 5230 25 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $28 ea
Yearly: $0
Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Unbaffled CS
5230
15 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $28 ea
Yearly: $0
Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Aerosol OC CS
6343
17 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $36 ea
Yearly: $0
Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
TRI Chambers 7 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years DEF Tech Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: Rocklin
assumed cost
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
CS 8230 Tactical
Grenade Smoke
7 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: Rocklin
assumed cost
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Muzzle Bangs 50 Less than Lethal
Force
10 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Light Sound
Diversionary
Device
Initial: $7 ea
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Breaching Shells 27 Black
Caps, 32
Green Caps
Breaching
Barricaded
Entry/Lethal
Force
10 years Royal Arms Bolt/Hinge
Removal for
entry into
structures
Initial:$20 ea.
box
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Breaching
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Investigation -
Policy 1098
4210 40 MM
White SMOKE
2 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years CTS Combined
Tactical
Solution’s
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial:$50
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
CS Irritant
Smoke
4 Less than Lethal
Force
5 years Sage Control
Ordinance
Less Lethal
Force
Compliance
Initial: $50
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Gas School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Sniper Rifles 4 Lethal Force 10,000
Rounds
Kimber 308 Lethal
Force/Over
Watch
Initial:$3K ea.

Yearly: $100
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Sniper
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Inline Night
Vision (Sniper)
2 Night Vision Unknown Knight Force Rifle Mounted
Night Vision
Initial: $5K
Yearly: $0
Grant funded
OES
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Sniper
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Infrared Laser
Light
12 Night Vision
Illuminator
Unknown Steiner Rifle Mounted
Night Vision
Initial: $5K
Yearly: $0
Grant funded
OES
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Sniper
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Night Vision
Goggles
w/Weapon
Mounted
8 Night Vision Unknown PVS-14 Gen III
WP
Helmet
Mounted Night
Vision
Initial: 5K ea.

Yearly: $0
Grant funded
OES
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Rifle Mounted
Monocular
2 Night Vision Unknown SIMRAD
Optronics
Rifle Mounted
Night Vision
Initial: $5K
Yearly: 0$
Grant funded
OES
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Night Vision
Monocular
1 Night Vision Unknown NAIT Handheld
Night Vision
Initial:$2K 835a PC &
Federal
and State

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Yearly: $0
Grant funded
OES
case
precedent
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Red Dot Sight
Apertures
16 Sight Alignment 10 years EO Tech Illuminated
Sight
Alignment
Initial:$300
Yearly:$0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Night Vision
Goggles
1 Night Vision Unknown Armasight NVG Head Mounted
Night Vision
Initial:$2K
Yearly:$0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Pole Camera 1 Video Images
from Remote
Location
Unknown CORE Tactical
Electronics
Real Time
Video Display
from under
closed door or
unreachable
location
Initial: $700
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Robot
(Throwbot)
1 Video Images
from Remote
Location
4-5 years RECON Robotics Remote
Control
Maneuverabilit
y with Real
Time Video
Display
Initial: $6,000
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Magnifiers 15 Magnification
of Sight
Aperture
10 years EO Tech Sight
Magnification
Initial: $400
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Magnifiers
(Snipers)
4 Magnification
of Sight
Aperture
10 Years Sig Sauer Tango

MSR LPVO
Sight
Magnification
Initial:$400
Yearly:$0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Suppressors
(Snipers)
4 Noise
Suppression
10,000
Rounds
SureFire Noise
Suppression
Initial:$975
Yearly:$0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Suppressors
(Entry)
16 Noise
Suppression
10,000
Rounds
HUXWRK Noise
Suppression
Initial: $975
Yearly: $0
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Patrol Red Dot
Optics
130 Rifle Sight. Non
magnified
10 years Aimpoint Rifle Sight $30 year/
batteries
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
1 hour for
Zero.

After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Pepperball
Launcher
8 Less Lethal
force option
10 years Pepperball Inc Less Lethal
force option
Initial: entire
system $700
No annual
fee.
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
1 hour In-
House Trng
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
Pepperball
Munitions
1000 Less Lethal
force option
10 years Pepperball Inc Less Lethal
force option
$1000 year
for inert
rounds.
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
1 hours In-
House Trng
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
40mm Launcher 45 (+2 more
in SWAT)
Less Lethal
force
20 years LMT Less Lethal
force
$1000 year/
training
rounds
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4) hour
POST
Certified
course
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
40mm Multi-
Launcher
3 Less Lethal
force
20 years Milox Less Lethal
force
Initial $3600/
training
rounds
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4) hour
POST
Certified
course
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
40mm munition 300 Less Lethal Blue
Sponge Round
munition
5 years Def Tech Less Lethal
force
$0-$1500
year
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4)hours
POST
Certified
Course
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
40mm munition 50 Less Lethal
Orange OC
munition
5 years Def Tech Less Lethal
force
$0-$1000 per
year.
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4)hour POST
Certified
course
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Bean Bag
Launcher
65 Less Lethal
force
30 years Remington Less Lethal
force
$0 annually.

Being phased
out.
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4)hour POST
Certified
Course
Being Phased out
of dept use.

Roseville Policy
1098
Bean Bag
Munitions
400 Less Lethal
force munition
10 years Def Tech Less Lethal
force
$0 annually.

Being phased
out.
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent
(4)hours
POST course
Being Phased out
of dept use.

Roseville Policy
1098
Kinetic
Breaching Tool
1 Breaching
Barricaded
Entry
10 years Kinetic Breaching Forced Entry
Tool
Initial: $0
Yearly:

Dispersion
dependent
835a PC &
Federal
and State
case
precedent

CA POST
Basic SWAT
Breaching
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098

UAS SECTION
DJI Matrice 210 1
(Purchased
from DJI)
UAS – Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
9,000 initial /
400-800
annual
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
DJI Enterprise 2
(Purchased
from DJI)
UAS – Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
4500 initial /
800per /
annual
battery
maintenance
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
DJI Mavic Mini 2
(Purchased
DJI)
UAS – Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
400 initial /
200per /
annual
battery
maintenance
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
DJI Mavic 3T 2
(Purchased
DJI)
UAS-Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
5488 initial /
400-800per /
annual
battery
maintenance
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
DJI Avata 2
(Purchased
DJI)
UAS-Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
1,388 initial /
400-800per /
annual
battery
maintenance
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX B MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIST
DJI Mavic Mini 2 1
(Purchased
from DJI)
UAS – Remote
Piloted
2-5 years DJI See attached
RPD Policy
400 initial /
200 / annual
battery
maintenance
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
DJI Phantom 4 2
(Purchased
from DJI)
UAS – Remote
Piloted
At end of
lifespan
DJI See attached
RPD Policy
2000 per
initial / no
annual cost
FAA
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s.

FAA Part
107, RPD
monthly
training/skill
s
Sergeant and Lt
oversight of the
team / Monthly
Reporting to FAA
Professional
Standards Unit
Roseville Policy
1098
PAN Disruptor 4 General
disruption tool
At end of
lifespan
Ideal
Explosives/Carbo
n Fire
See attached
RPD Policy
$5000 per
unit/ No
annual cost
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
PAN Rounds 96 Rounds General
disruption tool
Consumabl
e
Carbon Fire See attached
RPD Policy
Part of a
$5500 annual
consumable
budget
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
High Explosives 130 LBS Used in general
disruption
tools, render
safe, and
counter
charging
Consumabl
e
Alpha Explosives See attached
RPD Policy
Part of a
$5500 annual
consumable
budget
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
ICOR Robot 1 Remote piloted At end of
lifespan
ICOR See attached
RPD Policy
$75000/ Part
of a $1500
annual
maintenance
budget
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
RONS Robot 1 Remote piloted At end of
lifespan
ANDROS See attached
RPD Policy
10-33
program/
Part of a
$1500 annual
maintenance
budget
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098
PacBot 2 Remote piloted At end of
lifespan
PacBot See attached
RPD Policy
10-33
program/
Part of a
$1500 annual
maintenance
budget
FBI
Requirem
ents and
Regulation
s
FBI
Hazardous
Devices
School
After Action
Review, UOF
Admin review,
Internal Affairs
Investigation -
Policy 1098
Roseville Policy
1098

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE

DATE MILITARY EQUIPMENT USED REASON FOR USE
Jan 2nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 3rd, 2024 Mavic 2 Enterprise UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 3rd, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 4th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 7th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 8th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 14th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 15th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 16th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 17th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jan 22nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Jan 22nd, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Jan 22nd, 2024 Night Vision Night Vision- Patrol Assist Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Jan 28th, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist Feb 2nd, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat- Patrol Assist Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Feb 9th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Feb 16th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Feb 20th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Feb 26th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 1st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 2nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 6th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 8th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 10th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 10th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 11th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 12th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Mar 16th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Armed Stolen Vehicle Mar 17th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 19th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 19th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 19th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 21st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 21st, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 21st, 2024 Rons Robot Rons Robot- Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Mar 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Mar 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 1st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 2nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 4th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 6th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Apr 8th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 13th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 14th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 18th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 22nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Apr 22nd, 2024 Pole Camera Pole Camera - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Apr 22nd, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Apr 22nd, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Apr 30th, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist
Apr 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 8th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Outside Agency Active Shooter May 8th, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist
May 8th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 10th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 11th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
May 14th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out May 14th, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out May 14th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out May 14th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out May 14th, 2024 Pole Camera Pole Camera - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out May 16th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 19th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 20th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Outside Agency Dignitary Protection May 24th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist SWAT call-out May 24th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist SWAT call-out May 24th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist SWAT call-out
May 24th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist SWAT call-out May 24th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist with outside agency Homicide Suspect Arrest May 25th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
May 29th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Outside Agency Search Warrant SWAT call-out

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
May 29th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Outside Agency Search Warrant SWAT call-out May 29th, 2024 Pole Camera Pole Camera - Patrol Assist Outside Agency Search Warrant SWAT call-out May 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 2nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 7th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 11th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 11th, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 13th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 19th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 20th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 21st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 26th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 27th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jun 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Jun 30th, 2024 Avata UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 7th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 15th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 23rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 28th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Jul 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 12th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Aug 12th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Aug 12th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Aug 12th, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Aug 17th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 18th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 18th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Aug 19th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 19th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 23rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 25th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Aug 31st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 2nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 4th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 11th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 14th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 16th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 17th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Sep 22nd, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Sep 23rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 6th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 7th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 9th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 9th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 12th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 13th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 15th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 16th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 17th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 17th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 20th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 21st, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 21st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 21st, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Outside Agency SWAT call-out armed suspect

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Oct 24th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist armed suspect Oct 27th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Oct 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 1st, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 3rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 9th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 10th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 12th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 12th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Nov 12th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Nov 12th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search Warrant SWAT call-out Nov 19th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist
Nov 23rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 4th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 6th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Dec 6th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 6th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search/Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 7th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 10th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 10th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 10th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 10th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 11th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 19th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 9 Bang Flashbang 9 Bang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 TAG SWAT Sprinter Van TAG SWAT Sprinter Van - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 19th, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Dec 20th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 Avata 2 UAS - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 TRV TRV - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 Flashbang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 TAG SWAT Sprinter Van TAG SWAT Sprinter Van - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 Pole Camera Pole Camera - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 20th, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 22nd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 23rd, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 27th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 28th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 28th, 2024 Bearcat Bearcat - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 28th, 2024 9 Bang Flashbang 9 Bang Flashbang- Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 28th, 2024 TAG SWAT Sprinter Van TAG SWAT Sprinter Van - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out

APPENDIX A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
Dec 28th, 2024 40mm Baton Round 40mm Baton Round - Patrol Assist Search and Arrest Warrant SWAT call-out Dec 29th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist
Dec 30th, 2024 Mavic 3 Thermal UAS - Patrol Assist

2/7/23, 4:08 PM Print Document
https://ecm-web-prd.roseville.ca.us/OnBaseProdIDPEP4/PrintHandler.ashx 1/2

2/7/23, 4:08 PM Print Document
https://ecm-web-prd.roseville.ca.us/OnBaseProdIDPEP4/PrintHandler.ashx 2/2

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3768
File #:
0210 & 0201-01
Title:

Community Facilities Districts - Budget Adjustments
Contact:

Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 6.15.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve the attached budget adjustments for the City's community facilities districts (CFD) to true up the district budgets to the FY2024-25 tax levies that were submitted to Placer County for the property tax roll and to budget for CFD bond issuances and draws since the beginning of the fiscal year.

BACKGROUND
The City's budget is developed and proposed for adoption before the final tax levy budget for each CFD budget is determined. The recommended budget adjustment amends the CFD budgets to include bond proceeds received prior to September 2024 and pay-as-you-go developer reimbursements. These adjustments help align the FY2024-25 budgeted amounts with what was submitted to Placer County for the property tax roll as well as what was received and reimbursed through bond proceeds.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient fund balances in all the identified CFDs to accommodate the budget adjustments.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world

Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6913
ORDINANCE NO. 6913

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Community Facilities Districts true- ups.

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
2/12/2025 2
Attachment to Budget Adjustment

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT

Page 1 ends

ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2101 5558 80251 (23) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2101 5550 80251 38 Increase in consulting fees
2102 5550 80251 72 Increase in consulting fees
2102 5453 80251 108 Increase in utility budget
2102 5558 80251 (26) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2103 5550 80251 192 Increase in consulting fees
2103 5558 80251 (64) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2104 5453 80251 108 Increase in utility budget
2104 5558 80251 (2,436) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2105 5558 80251 (94) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2106 5453 80251 324 Increase in utility budget
2106 5558 80251 (575) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2107 5558 80251 (2,809) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2108 5558 80251 (1,435) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2109 5550 80251 881 Increase in consulting fees
2109 5558 80251 (101) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2109 5564 80251 142,000 Increase to sinking fund expenditures for Woodcreek East CFD 2 2110 5550 80251 896 Increase in consulting fees
2110 5558 80251 (270) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2111 5453 80251 432 Increase to utility bill budget for Fiddyment CFD 2 2111 5558 80251 (6,819) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2112 5550 80251 2,570 Increase in consulting fees
2112 5558 80251 2,594 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2113 5453 80251 432 Increase to utility bill budget for Westpark CFD 2 2113 5512 80251 5,113 Increase to automotive replacement budget for Westpark CFD 2 2113 5558 80251 (8,399) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2114 5558 80251 (45) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2115 5312 80251 (21,918) Decrease for contract services-landscapes based on final tax levy 2115 5550 80251 212 Increase in consulting fees
2115 5558 80251 (799) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2116 5550 80251 119 Increase in consulting fees
2116 5558 80251 (281) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2117 5558 80251 (3) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2117 5434 80251 100 Increase in expenditures for Repairs and maintenance - Tree work 2118 5453 80251 1 Increase to utility bill expenditures for N Roseville CFD 2 Zone E 2118 5550 80251 17 Increase in consulting fees
2118 5558 80251 4 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 110,116

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2101 4050 80251 (2,277) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2102 4050 80251 (2,528) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2103 4050 80251 (6,304) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2104 4050 80251 (243,541) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2105 4050 80251 (9,394) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2106 4050 80251 (57,513) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2107 4050 80251 (279,894) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2108 4050 80251 (143,521) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2109 4050 80251 (31,701) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2110 4050 80251 (26,921) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2111 4050 80251 (403,768) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2112 4050 80251 259,403 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 2113 4050 80251 (839,832) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2114 4050 80251 (4,472) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2115 4050 80251 (79,948) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2116 4050 80251 (28,061) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2117 4050 80251 (230) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2118 4050 80251 405 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL (1,900,097)

NET ADJUSTMENT 2,010,213
2/12/2025 2
AVAILABLE RESOURCES Page 2
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2101 3601 00000 000000 (2,292) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2101 2102 3601 00000 000000 (2,682) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2102 2103 3601 00000 000000 (6,432) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2103 2104 3601 00000 000000 (241,213) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2104 2105 3601 00000 000000 (9,300) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2105 2106 3601 00000 000000 (57,262) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2106 2107 3601 00000 000000 (277,085) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2107 2108 3601 00000 000000 (142,086) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2108 2109 3601 00000 000000 (174,481) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2109 2110 3601 00000 000000 (27,547) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2110 2111 3601 00000 000000 (397,381) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2111 2112 3601 00000 000000 254,239 Increase in available resources for Fund 2112 2113 3601 00000 000000 (836,978) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2113 2114 3601 00000 000000 (4,427) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2114 2115 3601 00000 000000 (57,443) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2115 2116 3601 00000 000000 (27,899) Decrease in available resoures for Fund 2116 2117 3601 00000 000000 (327) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2117 2118 3601 00000 000000 383 Increase in available resources for Fund 2118 FUND BALANCE TOTAL (2,010,213)
Attachment to Budget Adjustment
2/12/2025 2

Page 3 ends

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2119 5312 80251 (1,147) Decrease for contract services-landscapes based on final tax levy 2119 5314 80251 (3,671) Decrease for contract services-Parks based on final tax levy 2119 5453 80251 108 Increase in utility bill budget for Westbrook CFD 2 2119 5558 80251 (485) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2120 5558 80251 (954) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2120 5562 80251 1,063 Increase to CFD LLD Admin Fees - Open Space 2121 5312 80251 (630) Decrease for contract services-landscapes based on final tax levy 2121 5425 80251 3,000 Increase in Contract services - lighting 2121 5453 80251 324 Increase in utility bill budget for Creekview CFD 2 2121 5550 80251 2,564 Increase in consultant fees
2121 5558 80251 62 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2122 5312 80251 18,451 Increase for contract services-landscapes based on final tax levy 2122 5453 80251 540 Increase in utility bill budget for Sierra Vista CFD 2 2122 5550 80251 2,748 Increase in consultant fees
2122 5558 80251 1,574 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2124 5558 80251 23 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 2124 5550 80251 163 Increase in consultant fees
1001 6801 10001 (809) Decrease transfer from General Fund (1001) to Transit Fund (6511)

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 22,924

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2119 4050 80251 (48,488) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2120 4050 80251 (95,407) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 2121 4050 80251 6,228 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 2122 4050 80251 38,715 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 2124 4050 80251 2,284 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 6511 4801 10001 (809) Decrease transfer to Transit Fund (6511) from General Fund (1001) REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL (97,477)

NET ADJUSTMENT 120,401

AVAILABLE RESOURCES
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2119 3601 00000 000000 (43,293) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2119 2120 3601 00000 000000 (95,516) Decrease in available resources for Fund 2120 2121 3601 00000 000000 908 Increase in available resources for Fund 2121 2122 3601 00000 000000 15,402 Increase in available resources for Fund 2122 2124 3601 00000 000000 2,098 Increase in available resources for Fund 2124 1001 3601 00000 000000 809 Increase in available resources for Fund 1001 6511 3601 00000 000000 (809) Decrease in available resources for Fund 6511 FUND BALANCE TOTAL (120,401)
Attachment to Budget Adjustment

Page 4 ends

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3007 5569 80301 75,001 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Westpark CFD 1 (Fund 3007)
7425 5569 80701 75,001 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Westpark CFD 1 (Fund 7425)
3012 5569 80301 395,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Westbook CFD 1 (Fund 3012)
7431 5569 80701 395,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Westbook CFD 1 (Fund 7431)
3013 5569 80301 295,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for HP Campus Oaks CFD 1 (Fund 3013)
7432 5569 80701 295,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for HP Campus Oaks CFD 1 (Fund 7432)
3019 5569 80301 123,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Creekview CFD 1 Capital (Fund 3019)
7434 5569 80701 123,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Creekview CFD 1 (Fund 7434)
3020 5569 80301 98,268 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD 1 Capital fund
7439 5569 80701 98,268 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD 1 (Fund 7439)
3021 5569 80301 28,892 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Torrente at Sierra Vista CFD 1 Capital (Fund 3021)
7440 5569 80301 (24,892) Zeroing out budget in wrong fund/center from Fund 7440-5569- 80301 to 3021-5569-80301
7440 5569 80701 4,000 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Torrente at Sierra Vista CFD 1 (Fund 7440)
3022 5569 80301 1,696,234 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 Capital (Fund 3022)
7441 5569 80701 1,696,234 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 (Fund 7441)
3023 5569 80301 155,920 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Creekview CFD 1-IA 2 (Fund 3023)
7443 5569 80701 155,920 Increase in pay as you go expenditures budgeted for Creekview CFD 1-IA 2 (Fund 7443)
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 5,684,846

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 3007 4780 80301 75,001 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Westpark CFD 1 3012 4780 80301 395,000 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Westbrook CFD 1 3013 4780 80301 295,000 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for HP Campus Oaks CFD 1 3019 4780 80301 123,000 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Creekview CFD 1 Capital fund
3020 4780 80301 98,268 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Baseline at Sierra Vista CFD 1 Capital fund
3021 4780 80301 28,892 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Torrente at Sierra Vista CFD 1 Capital fund
7440 4780 80301 (24,892) Zeroing out budget in wrong fund/center; Fund 7440-4780- 80301 moving to 3021-4780-80301
3022 4780 80301 1,696,234 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 Capital fund
3023 4780 80301 155,920 Increase to pay as you go budgeted for Creekview CFD 1 -IA 2 REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 2,842,423

NET ADJUSTMENT 2,842,423

AVAILABLE RESOURCES Page 5
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 7425 3601 00000 000000 (75,001) Decrease in available resources for fund 7425 7431 3601 00000 000000 (395,000) Decrease in available resources for fund 7431 7432 3601 00000 000000 (295,000) Decrease in available resources for fund 7432 7434 3601 00000 000000 (123,000) Decrease in available resources for fund 7434 7439 3601 00000 000000 (98,268) Decrease in available resources for fund 7439 7440 3601 00000 000000 (4,000) Decrease in available resources for fund 7440 7441 3601 00000 000000 (1,696,234) Decrease in available resources for fund 7441 7443 3601 00000 000000 (155,920) Decrease in available resources for fund 7443 FUND BALANCE TOTAL (2,842,423)

Attachment to Budget Adjustment

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT

Page 6 ends

ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 7417 5558 80701 (647) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7418 5558 80701 (226) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7419 5558 80701 (127) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7423 5558 80701 (205) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7424 5558 80701 (1,582) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7424 6620 82001 3,435 Increase for consultant fees for delinquency management 7425 6620 82001 6,519 Increase for consultant fees for delinquency management 7426 5558 80701 (64) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7427 5558 80701 (92) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7428 5558 80701 (426) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7429 5558 80701 (648) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7433 5558 80701 (4,018) Decrease expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7435 5558 80701 684 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7436 6620 82001 1,884 Increase consultant fee
7438 5558 80701 1,598 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7441 5558 80701 17,477 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7441 6620 82001 8,550 Increase expenditures for County fees based on final tax levy 7441 6610 80701 2,656,176 Increase to Debt reserve fund for The Ranch at Sierra Vista CFD 1 7441 6630 80701 495,000 Increase for COI for Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 bond issuance 7441 5569 80701

28,380,482 Passthrough bond proceeds into Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 improvement fund
3022 6505 80301

28,380,482 Developer reimbursement with bond proceeds from Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 improvement fund

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL 59,944,252

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 7417 4050 80701 (64,645) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7418 4050 80701 (22,670) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7419 4050 80701 (12,669) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7423 4050 80701 (20,522) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7424 4050 80701 (158,223) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7426 4050 80701 (6,392) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7427 4050 80701 (9,197) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7428 4050 80701 (42,556) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7429 4050 80701 (64,861) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7433 4050 80701 (401,833) Decrease revenue budget based on final tax levy 7435 4050 80701 68,370 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 7438 4050 80701 159,777 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 7441 4050 80701 1,747,260 Increase revenue budget based on final tax levy 7441 4710 80701 31,531,658 Bond issuance for Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 3022 4780 80301 28,380,482 Deposit into improvement fund from Amoruso Ranch CFD 1 Bond issuance
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 61,083,979

NET ADJUSTMENT (1,139,727)

AVAILABLE RESOURCES Page 7
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 7417 3601 00000 000000 (63,998) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7417 7418 3601 00000 000000 (22,444) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7418 7419 3601 00000 000000 (12,542) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7419 7423 3601 00000 000000 (20,317) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7423 7424 3601 00000 000000 (160,076) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7424 7425 3601 00000 000000 (6,519) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7425 7426 3601 00000 000000 (6,328) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7426 7427 3601 00000 000000 (9,105) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7427 7428 3601 00000 000000 (42,130) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7428 7429 3601 00000 000000 (64,213) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7429 7433 3601 00000 000000 (397,815) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7433 7435 3601 00000 000000 67,686 Increase in available resources for Fund 7435 7436 3601 00000 000000 (1,884) Decrease in available resources for Fund 7436 7438 3601 00000 000000 158,179 Increase in available resources for Fund 7438 7441 3601 00000 000000 1,721,233 Increase in available resources for Fund 7441 FUND BALANCE TOTAL 1,139,727

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3771
File #:
0709
Title:

Home Investment Partnerships Program - Budget Adjustment Contact:

Kristine Faelz 916-774-5451 [email protected]
Claudia Carreno 916-774-5486
[email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 6.16.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff requests that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving a budget adjustment to increase expenditures in the amount of $250,000 to fund additional owner-occupied housing rehabilitation projects and program administrative costs for FY2024-25 from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fund.

BACKGROUND
The Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) is a federally funded program administered through the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

HOME funds have historically provided downpayment assistance for the First Time Homebuyer Program (FTHB) and financial assistance to low-income residents who take part in the Owner- Occupied Rehabilitation Program (OOR). The OOR program provides funds to income eligible owner-occupants to assist with the repair and rehabilitation of their homes. The goal of this program is to prevent the displacement of low-income households who might not otherwise be able to afford the necessary repairs to maintain a safe and healthy living environment.

The City of Roseville’s available HOME funds are generated by existing FTHB and OOR loan payoffs. These repayment funds are identified as program income. In order to ensure there is sufficient funding to assist the City’s low-income residents with health and safety-related rehabilitation projects, it is recommended that the budget for this fund be increased by $225,000 and that an additional $25,000 be made available for additional HOME administrative costs. It is projected that these funds may be able to assist an additional three to five homeowners. These expenditures are being funded by available resources in the fund balance and program income received in the HOME fund.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment increases expenditure authority for the HOME Fund in the amount of $250,000 for OOR housing projects and additional HOME administrative costs.

Funding for additional OOR projects will help preserve housing occupied by low-income families, improve and repair health and safety issues, and help revitalize neighborhoods. The administrative increase will support staff and any necessary consultant costs to complete the rehabilitation projects. The recommended budget adjustment for the HOME fund has no impact to the General Fund.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Kristine Faelz, Housing Analyst
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6914
ORDINANCE NO. 6914

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 11/22/2024

Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.

REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: FISCAL YEAR:

PREPARER NAME & TITLE: ORDINANCE:

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2210 5573 54101

225,000 Increase Grant Deferred Loans for Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation projects
2210 5301 54101

25,000 Increase Professional Services for HOME Program
Administrative costs

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 250,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL -

NET ADJUSTMENT 250,000

FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 2210 3601 00000 000000 (250,000) Decrease HOME Inv Partnership Program Fund Balance
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL (250,000)

Justification for Budget Adjustment:

This budget adjustment is recommended to increase the expenditure budget in the HOME Inv Partnership Program Fund by $250,000 to fund owner occupied housing rehabilitation projects and additional HOME administrative costs for FY2024-25. These expenditures are being funded by available resources in the fund and program income received in the HOME Fund. The requested changes will result in an overall expenditure increase to the FY2024-25 HOME Fund budget of $250,000 from $1,758,061 to $2,008,061.

2024-25 Claudia Carreno, Management Analyst
Claudia Carreno, Management Analyst
Economic Development/Housing

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3778
File #:
0900-04
Title:

Martha Riley Library Cooling Tower Replacement Project - New Capital Iimprovement Project Approval and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Andre Baranov 916-774-5342 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 6.17.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:

Approve the establishment of a new capital improvement project, the Martha Riley Library Cooling Tower Replacement project; and
2)

Adopt an ordinance to approve a $150,000 budget adjustment to fund the project.

BACKGROUND
The Martha Riley Library building was constructed in 2006 to house the Library, Community Meeting Rooms, and Utility Exploration Center functions of the City. The building is also a designated Emergency Operation Center for the City, making this repair a priority item.

Facilities Services staff are recommending the replacement of the cooling tower serving the main air handler unit at the Martha Riley Library building. Over two years ago one of the components in the cooling tower developed a refrigerant leak which resulted in a decrease in the cooling capacity of the air handler to 75%. To compensate for the decreased mechanical cooling efficiency, the system turns on earlier in the morning to dehumidify and pre-cool the space. This has resulted in higher-than-normal energy usage.

We estimate the replacement cost at $150,000. Because this component of the unit operates the cooling cycle, it is imperative that the unit be taken offline during the winter or spring months and should not wait for the new fiscal year. The project will replace the cooling tower serving the main air handler unit at the Martha Riley Library using an existing on-call agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project budget adjustment of $150,000 will come from: $131,100 from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund; $3,150 each from the Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services Operations Funds; and $9,450 from the Electric Fund. The intent of the project is to return the facility to normal energy usage for the cooling tower and not increase operating costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project qualifies for a Class 2 Exemption as described in Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines which states:

“Class 2 consists of…replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities… where the new structure will have substantially the same purpose and capacity of the structure replaced....including but not limited to replacement of existing utility systems…”

The project is confined to within the existing Martha Riley Library and would not result in expansion of use. No environmentally sensitive resources are located within or adjacent to the property; therefore, the Class 2 exemption is applicable to the proposed project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Andre Baranov, Design & Construction Project Manager
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6915
CEQA Exemption
ORDINANCE NO. 6915

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Martha Riley Library Cooling Tower Replacement project.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 11/22/2024

Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.

REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: FISCAL YEAR:

PREPARER NAME & TITLE: ORDINANCE:

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 4065 5433 84001 500548 131,100 Establish budget for project 500548 6101 5433 84001 500548 3,150 Establish budget for project 500548 6201 5433 84001 500548 3,150 Establish budget for project 500548 6301 5433 84001 500548 3,150 Establish budget for project 500548 6001 5433 84701 500548 9,450 Establish budget for project 500548

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 150,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL -

NET ADJUSTMENT 150,000

FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($) DESCRIPTION Fund Account Center Project Adjustment 4065 3601 00000 000000 (131,100) Decrease Facility Rehabilitation Fund Balance 6101 3601 00000 000000 (3,150) Decrease Water Operations Fund Balance 6201 3601 00000 000000 (3,150) Decrease Wastewater Operations Fund Balance 6301 3601 00000 000000 (3,150) Decrease Solid Waste Operations Fund Balance 6001 3601 00000 000000 (9,450) Decrease Electric Fund Balance 3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL (150,000)

Justification for Budget Adjustment:

Staff recommends that Council authorize the establishment of a new Capital Improvement Project – Martha Riley Library Cooling Tower Replacement (the "project") and adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment appropriating $150,000 to the project. Since this building is occupied by the library and the Utility Exploration Center, the funding will be split as follows: $131,100 from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund; $3,150 each from the Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services Operations Funds; and $9,450 from the Electric Fund. Over two years ago, the cooling tower component of the main air handler unit at the Marth Riley Library developed a refrigerant leak in one of four refrigeration circuits, resulting in decreased capacity of the air handler to 75%. Currently, the mechanical cooling turns on earlier in the morning to dehumidify and precool the space resulting in increased operational cost. Since the Martha Riley Library is a designated Emergency Operation Center for the City of Roseville, this repair is a high priority. In the event of a large-scale catastrophic event, the ability to maintain an acceptable space temperature is crucial and will require this air handler to be functioning at 100% capacity.

2024-25 Andre Baranov, Project Supervisor
Andre Baranov, Project Supervisor
Public Works/Facilities

Notice of Exemption

To: Placer County Clerk From: City of Roseville
Recorder’s Office Development Services Dept.
2954 Richardson Drive 311 Vernon Street
Auburn, CA 95603 Roseville, CA 95678

Project Title: Martha Riley Library Cooling Tower Replacement

Project Location(s): 1501 Pleasant Grove Boulevard Roseville, California 95747

Project Description: This project would replace the Cooling Tower serving the main air handler unit at the Martha Riley Library using an existing on-call agreement. Over two years ago one of the components in the cooling tower developed a refrigerant leak which resulted in decreasing the cooling capacity of the air handler to 75%. To compensate for the decreased mechanical cooling efficiency, the system turns on earlier in the morning to dehumidify and precool the space. This has resulted in higher -than-normal energy usage. Facilities Services Staff are recommending that the replacement occur during the winter or spring to ensure a properly functioning cooling system is in place by summer. The new Cooling Tower will not result in any expansion of use.

Public Agency Approving Project: Roseville City Council

Agency/Individual Carrying Out Project: City of Roseville Public Works Department

Reason why this Project is Exempt: This project qualifies for a Class 2 Exemption as described in Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines which states:

The project is confined to within the existing Martha Riley Library and would not result in expansion of use. No environmentally sensitive resources are located within or adjacent to the property; therefore the Class 2 exemption is applicable to the proposed project.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Andre Baranov, Finance Department - Facilities, 2005 Hilltop Circle, Roseville, CA 95747. (916) 746-5342.

Signature: Date: 2/11/2025
Jessica Lynch, Environmental Coordinator, City of
Roseville

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3780
File #:
0114
Title:
2025 Legislative and Regulatory Platform for State and Federal Advocacy Contact:

Rob Baquera 916-774-5179 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 6.18.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Adopt the attached Legislative and Regulatory Platform for State and Federal Advocacy, which includes a set of priorities, legislative principles and platforms to guide the City's state and federal legislative and judicial advocacy programs through 2025.

BACKGROUND
An assortment of internal and external resources is used to effectively administer the City’s legislative platform, they include:
• The City Council Law and Regulation Committee is a standing, advisory committee of the City Council with review and recommendation authority. The Committee provides a forum to introduce, discuss and more thoroughly analyze selected proposed state and federal legislation, policies and regulations that have the potential to impact City departments, the community, and the region. • Staff works collaboratively with the City’s federal and state lobbyists to understand and develop strategies for influencing legislation. The City’s federal lobbyist also works closely with staff to help identify funding resources for departmental projects and will review grant applications before they are submitted.
• In addition to the City’s lobbyists, staff interacts and participates with organizations such as the League of California Cities, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, North State Water Alliance, Northern California Power Agency, California Municipal Utilities Association, and the Roseville Chamber of Commerce to advocate on issues that are important to the City. • Internally, government relations staff works with staff from each department on legislation, regulations, and project funding opportunities that are important to their departments. • During the legislative year staff monitors introduced legislation, develops priority lists of legislation for each department and makes recommendations on letters of support/opposition as the bills progress through the legislative process.
• Government relations staff works closely with the staff of the City’s state and federal representatives to ensure the City’s position on legislation is clearly understood by Roseville’s representatives. The development of this relationship and exchange of information with the City’s representatives is an effort that continues throughout the entire year.

Working collaboratively with the City Council’s Law and Regulation Committee and the City’s internal and external partners ensures that the City’s advocacy strategy has the greatest ability to influence legislation and policies that are crucial to the City. The City has successfully demonstrated the ability to work with this process and to develop coalitions that take positions on legislation in a manner that is beneficial and supportive of the adopted platform.

Platform Modifications
Modifications were made throughout the 2025 platform to ensure the City is well-positioned to effectively advocate for or against legislation, policies and regulations introduced during the 2025 legislative and congressional sessions. These modifications were reviewed and discussed with the City Council during the Council’s Legislative Platform workshop. In addition, the following edits were made based on comments provided by Councilmember Houdesheldt. • Page 6– Home Insurance - Support all Executive, Administrative, regulatory, and/or legislative actions to provide relief to residents affected by wildfires and other extreme weather events and to ensure that California’s insurance market remains accessible and affordable to all residents without tax increases and/or inadequate coverages.

FISCAL IMPACT
The costs to implement the legislative advocacy program are included in the City’s approved budget. The Legislative Platform has no direct fiscal impact to the City’s budget; the platform provides policy direction only.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Rob Baquera, Government Relations Manager
Megan Scheid, Deputy City Manager

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
2025 Legistlative Platform

1 City of Roseville
2025 Legislative and Regulatory Platform
for State and Federal Advocacy
Roseville City Council
From left to right: Vice Mayor Karen Alvord, Councilmember Bruce Houdesheldt, Mayor Krista Bernasconi, Councilmember Tracy Mendonsa, Councilmember Pauline Roccucci Roseville City Council Goals 2020-2025
Goal A - Ensure a safe and healthy community
Goal B - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal C - Enhance economic vitality
Goal D - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Goal E - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal F - Deliver exceptional City services
Contents
Purpose and authority ��1 Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation ��2 Funding Opportunities ��3 City of Roseville Priorities for 2024 ��5 Administrative Services Goal��7 Community Development Goal ��9 Public Safety Goal ��13 Economic Development Goal ��15 Electric and Environmental Utilities Goals ��17 Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session ��23 Purpose and authority
1 Purpose and authority
The positions defined within this Legislative and Regulatory Platform reflect the City Council’s goals and priorities as well as its position on issues that are currently, or are anticipated to be, the focus of future legislation and regulation at the state and federal levels� Council’s adoption of this platform authorizes the City’s active participation to influence state and federal decision-making on legislative, administrative, regulatory and funding issues and to support judicial advocacy consistent with the City’s priorities�
Using this document as a guide, the City will consider and adopt appropriate positions on specific legislation, regulations and budget proposals, and respond to requests for amicus curiae support when the outcome of a pending lawsuit is likely to significantly affect a City priority� The Mayor, or in the event the Mayor is unavailable the Vice Mayor, will sign letters of support or opposition based on the City’s identified interests, the Mayor and other Council Members will advance City interests through individual and regional advocacy efforts, and the Mayor, or in the event the Mayor is unavailable the Vice Mayor, will act on requests from the City Attorney to join in friend-of-the- court briefs�
Staff recommends that the Legislative and Regulatory Platform be updated annually to be responsive to changes to the state and federal legislative and regulatory environments and to reflect the interests unique to Roseville and Placer County and interests that may also be common to cities throughout the state�
Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
2 Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
• Legislative and regulatory matters and trends are brought before the City Council’s Law and Regulation Committee on a regular basis throughout the year for information, awareness, and discussion� Each year, the Council holds a Legislative Platform workshop to review and provide input to this document that guides the City’s advocacy efforts for the year ahead� All regular Council meetings are televised and available for public viewing on the City’s website and government channels�
• City staff works collaboratively with our federal and state lobbyists to understand and develop strategies to respond to pending legislation and regulations and, to help identify funding for infrastructure projects so the City can pursue directed funding� The federal lobbyists also review grant applications before they are submitted, securing support for any submittals� Staff ensures that matching funds, environmental review, or any other grant requirements have a reasonable correlation to the value of the funding and the benefit being derived from the grant� • City staff participates in stakeholder organizations such as The League of California Cities, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Placer County Transportation and Planning Agency, Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Northern California Power Agency, California Municipal Utilities Association, Municipal Information Systems Association of California, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Solid Waste Association of North America - California, Association of California Water Agencies and the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce to advocate on issues that are important to the City� This allows the City to have a stronger voice and a greater potential to influence key policy, regulatory, and legislative matters� • Government relations staff works with each department to develop awareness and understanding of legislation, regulations, and project funding opportunities� During the legislative year, staff monitors legislation, develops priority lists of legislation for each department, and makes recommendations on letters of support or opposition as bills progress through the legislative process�
• Government relations staff strategizes and coordinates with other jurisdictions, special districts and organizations on key issues of common interest to ensure a stronger voice on legislation, regulatory and policy matters�
• Government relations staff work closely throughout the year with state and federal elected officials, legislative staff, and regulatory agency staff to ensure Roseville’s policy positions and needs are clearly understood�
• Proposed City advocacy positions on bills that would result in the issuance of or a vote for a new state bond will be brought to the full Council for direction� County wide ballot measures are also brought to the full City Council for direction as well� Working collaboratively with the Council’s Law and Regulation Committee and the City’s internal and external partners ensures that the City has the greatest ability to influence legislation and policies that are important to the City� The City has successfully used this process of proactive advocacy and coalition development to take positions on legislation to effectively advance the legislative platform and secure federal and state assistance that benefits the residents of Roseville� Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
3 Funding Opportunities
City staff seeks to identify outside state and federal funding opportunities for Roseville projects and programs�
We take the following approach to accomplish this:
1� Developing relationships that will leverage funding opportunities by actively promoting Roseville projects that provide a mutual benefit for our funding partners� 2� Advocating with local and regional partners for projects and programs worthy of state and federal funding that deliver value to the Roseville community� State and Federal Funding Requests
Projects (not in order of priority):
1� Cybersecurity technology and Information and Operational Technology (IT and OT) infrastructure improvements needed to assist in compliance with state and federal mandates� 2� Regional road and highway improvements including I-80/Hwy-65 Interchange, Hwy-65 Widening, Baseline Road Widening, Blue Oaks Widening, Andora Widening and Placer Parkway� 3� Fleet electrification including vehicles, charging facilities, tools, and training� 4� Emerging energy- and water-use efficiency technologies and conservation programs� 5� Water-supply reliability improvements such as increased conjunctive use capacity, diversification of water supplies as it pertains to implementation of the Roseville Groundwater Strategic Plan and recommended in other long-range resource planning documents� 6� Technologies and projects that modernize and improve water treatment and expand conveyance capacity and create water access redundancy to create resiliency to climate impacts and other natural disaster events including power supply disruptions, decrease in operational performance at Folsom Reservoir and other threats� 7� Expansion of wastewater digestion capacity to provide organics recycling and biogas clean energy generation and support compliance with organics diversion� 8� Pursue federal infrastructure funding under the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act�
9� Projects that fund water and wastewater infrastructure improvements to Roseville’s older core neighborhoods�
10� Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin to mitigate City and regional, stormwater runoff and prevent downstream impacts�
11� Continue to pursue funding to complete the City’s bike and pedestrian network� Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
4 Initiatives: Promoting economic stimulus and infrastructure investment 1� Projects that stimulate job creations especially in the areas of energy, water, transportation, public safety, and community development�
2� Economic development assistance to support business attraction, expansion, retention, and formation�
3� New and diverse sources of revenue to continue the services and quality of life currently experienced by the Roseville community�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
5 City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
Citywide Legislative Principles
1� The City of Roseville believes in local control and the ability of the City Council to make decisions that address the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses within its jurisdiction� In general, the City of Roseville will oppose legislation that erodes local control and will support legislation that increases local control�
2� The City of Roseville also believes in fiscal responsibility and requires financial flexibility to carry out its mission and objectives for the community� The City will oppose legislation that hinders financial flexibility while supporting legislation that encourages financial flexibility� 3� Oppose unfunded mandates from legislation and regulations that require the City to provide a service or benefit without appropriate and full funding� 4� Where applicable, the City will advocate for the use of existing programs and structures to streamline the creation of new state programs�
5� Oppose legislation that would negatively impact City revenues including but not limited to sales tax, property tax, other General Fund and enterprise fund revenues� Support legislation that protects and maintains City sales tax revenue�
6� Advocacy on sales tax, state bond legislation or state ballot measures beyond these guidelines will be brought to the full Council for consideration and direction� Regarding state ballot measures, once direction is provided staff may prepare and respond to inquiries in ways that provide a fair presentation of the facts about a measure and the City’s view of the merits of the ballot measure�
7� Support sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation that meets the objectives of the City’s legislative principles and platform�
8� Support legislation and provide leadership in crafting a regional vision and agenda that leverages regional assets in delivering a better economic and social environment and reinforces the value and versatility of regionalism to address complex regional issues including transportation, economic development, education, land use policy, water supply reliability, environmental concerns, and intraregional inequities in housing and education� 9� Support legislation, policies, and regulations that require economic analysis and/or scientific validation of changes to state policies or regulations before modifications can be enacted� 10� Support legislation that would purge laws and regulations that are redundant and/or no longer applicable or necessary�
11� Support all Executive, Administrative, regulatory, and/or legislative actions to provide relief to residents affected by wildfires and other extreme weather events and to ensure that California’s insurance market remains accessible and affordable to all residents without tax increases and/or inadequate coverages�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
6 City’s Federal and State Legislative Platform
1� Oppose state and federal actions that would lead to incompatible consequences and/or have an adverse impact on the City’s ability to comply with state and federal regulations and/or legislation�
2� Support legislation that would further the stated missions of the City’s departments and oppose legislation that would impede the ability of each department to effectively meet its operational objectives�
3� Support legislation and regulations that protect City investments in infrastructure and other projects and enhances financial sustainability of City assets� 4� Support legislation and policies that protect our residents and businesses from inconsistent, unnecessary and costly regulations and guidance, mitigation requirements, and permitting mandates�
5� Oppose legislation and regulations that would adversely affect or divert City revenues to the state or any other entity�
6� Support legislation that would require the state or federal governments to pay for unfunded mandates�
7� Oppose legislation that would impose significant compliance costs to the City and where a public benefit has not been identified to justify the costs� 8� Oppose legislation that would eliminate or curtail local control over City owned property, physical assets and infrastructure including cybersecurity mandates� 9� Oppose new legislation or regulations that would restrict or eliminate local control over cannabis and cannabis related products�
10� Support legislation that would purge laws and regulations that are redundant and/or no longer applicable or necessary�
11� Support all Executive, Administrative, Regulatory, and/or legislative actions to provide relief to residents affected by wildfires and other extreme weather events and to ensure that California’s insurance market remains accessible and affordable to all residents without tax increases and/or inadequate coverages�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
7 Administrative Services Goal
To protect the ability of the City to make decisions unencumbered by onerous policies and regulations that are costly and/or restrictive in how they must be implemented regarding areas of finance, human resources, city clerk, information technology and purchasing; to ensure the City’s positions regarding pension reform are clearly articulated by providing input and expertise in response to future legislative efforts�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:

Administrative Services Platform
1� Support legislation and measures that provide and promote consistency and the promotion of harmonious labor relations, while maintaining management rights and local deference� 2� Support legislation, policies and regulations that simplify the administration of public records, election code and Brown Act provisions�
3� Oppose legislation that diminishes enacted workers’ compensation reforms and cost controls� 4� Support efforts that engage and include local government in future pension reform discussions and legislation�
5� Oppose legislation and regulations that place new environmental requirements on local agencies that would inhibit the City’s ability to fulfill its mission and are not accompanied by funding necessary for implementation�
6� Support legislation, policies and regulations that simplify public procurement and contracting� 7� Oppose legislation that restricts or diminishes the City’s ability to procure goods and services efficiently and effectively�
8� Oppose legislation that alters the tax treatment of municipal bonds such as proposals that would cap or eliminate the current tax-exempt status�
9� Support reasonable and common-sense legislation and regulations that clarify conflict-of- interest rules�
10� Support legislation and policies that encourage streamlining of business processes for responding to open records requests and that provide funding for these activities� 11� Support legislation that includes operational expenses as an acceptable use of public, educational, governmental access (PEG) funds collected from franchise holders for video services under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA)� 12� Support legislation that restores the federal tax exemption for advance refunding bonds as a critical cost-saving tool for local governments�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
8 Information Technology Platform
1� Support legislation that promotes and provides funding for increased ability to manage technology, assistance in adhering to regulatory compliance requirements and reducing the risk of cyber-attacks�
2� Oppose legislation that would require public agencies to share information in public settings that could be used by groups or individuals with malicious intent to compromise the systems, services or private information of public employees or residents� 3� Support legislation and regulations that ensure emergency communication capabilities and interoperability for information technology and public safety departments and agencies� 4� Support legislation that would clearly maintain local authority as it applies to platforms like cable, telecommunications, broadband, video, cellular, and Net Neutrality for all current and future development and deployment�
5� Support legislation that promotes artificial intelligence that is human-centric and socially beneficial, fair, explainable and transparent, secure and safe, and accountable� 6� Support legislation for the adoption of innovative and cost-effective environmental technology initiatives that would modernize Roseville infrastructure� 7� Oppose legislation that would restrict procurement practices or impact vendor interaction� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
9 Community Development Goal
To act on legislation that would affect our ability to amend and implement our General Plan policies and/or restrict local control over development or impose new regulations that will increase development costs and place greater demands on the City’s General Fund� The intent of our General Plan policies is to create an attractive, vibrant, well-planned city, demonstrated by balanced land uses with desirable neighborhoods, prosperous businesses, excellent schools, convenient public services and open space and recreation amenities all linked by superior transportation systems that include well-maintained streets, sidewalks, bike paths and transit in a cost- effective and financially sustainable manner�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:

Public Works Platform
1� Support continued reauthorization of the nation’s highway and transit funding bills� 2� Oppose legislation that reduces, restricts, or eliminates transportation revenues for transportation purposes or creates new unfunded state and federal mandates on transportation projects�
3� Support legislation and other efforts to distribute Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) funding proportionally within the SACOG region�
4� Support legislation that provides additional funding for local roadway maintenance, transportation and infrastructure�
5� Support the reallocation of a portion of existing transportation funding sources to “State of Good Repair” maintenance programs�
6� Oppose legislation that would increase traffic congestion and/or reduce roadway vehicle capacity as a means of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and/or greenhouse gases (GHG)� 7� Support legislation that allows local governments to determine local roadway Level of Service (LOS) policy�
8� Oppose legislation that places new restrictive burdens or oversights on local transit� 9� Oppose legislation that reduces the ability to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes by transit, paratransit and other high-occupancy use vehicles� 10� Support legislation, policies and regulations that allow the use of Medi-Cal funds for transportation purposes and support Medi-Cal policies that promote the use of transit/ paratransit as Medicaid providers�
11� Support legislation that provides tax incentives for people who use public transit and other alternatives to driving a single-occupant personal vehicle� 12� Support legislation and advocate for reasonable Advanced Clean Fleet rules, targets, and exemptions�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
10 13� Support legislation that provides funding for cities to comply with state and federal mandates regarding flood-protection levels�
14� Support legislation and other efforts that define equity based on local data and not state or national data�
Development Services Platform
1� Support legislation that strengthens local control in the areas of transportation and land-use policies and assists local governments in integrating new growth� 2� Support legislation, policies and regulations that ensure local governments maintain local land-use control and maintain the ability to address local constituents’ concerns� 3� Support legislation that provides funding and other financial support for the production of affordable housing�
4� Support legislation that requires transparency, consistency, and accountability at the state level�
5� Support legislation that ensures local control and flexibility in determining reduction measures for greenhouse gas requirements�
6� Support legislation and regulations that streamline state and federal permitting processes and require agencies to consider the economic impacts and equities of mitigation measures regarding permits for water supply, flood control, air quality, water quality and sustainability� (This list is representative and not intended to be exhaustive�) 7� Oppose legislation for new wetlands regulations that duplicates similar requirements at the federal level�
8� Support legislation for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform that streamlines the environmental review process and reduces opportunities for ”green mail” lawsuits� 9� Advocate for appropriate federal resource agency staffing levels to ensure Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations are completed within statutory timeframes (in particular, for the National Marine Fisheries Service)�
10� Support legislation that ensures the rules governing representation of a city on a Board, Committee, or Commission with regional authority allow for meaningful and continual participation by the most populous cities on that Board, Committee, or Commission� 11� Support legislation that more narrowly defines the California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction under California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600 (Streambed Alteration Agreement)�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
11 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Platform
1� Support legislation and measures that fund recreation, fitness, and wellness, and prevention programs that also include mental health and diversity, equality and inclusion plans for youth and adults�
2� Support legislation that protects funding for the State Library Fund� 3� Support legislation and new measures for park, recreation, and library programs, services, and special events�
4� Support new initiatives that provide funding for the development of parks and public facilities� 5� Support full funding of state parks grant programs, and recreation, bike trails, open space, and library grants�
6� Support a change in the definition of “underserved” for grants with requirements to serve underserved areas, to allow for funding for areas that are underserved as compared to other areas within the municipality (e�g�, 35% below the city’s median income level), rather than as compared statewide�
7� Support legislation and budgets that fund park, open space, library, and recreation facility improvements and rehabilitation�
8� Support legislation that funds recreation and library programming, including fitness, wellness, enrichment, maintenance, and books/technology for youth and adults� 9� Support legislation that would further fair and appropriate access to park and library resources for all persons; including, but not limited to, those that are homeless� 10� Support legislation that defines appropriate penalties for incidents of vandalism and property theft�
11� Support legislation that assists local agencies including parks departments with funding and/ or resources for addressing clean-up and hauling of items from encampments� 12� Support legislation that provides increased funding for arts and culture� 13� Support state and federal legislation and funding opportunities that would provide funding for the mandated transition to electric vehicles as well as the construction of electric vehicle infrastructure and charging stations� In addition, that would accommodate a period to implement the initial installation of chargers by allowing parks & recreation facilities to open as long as there is a transition plan�
14� Support state and federal legislation to address supply chain issues that disrupt park development requiring the department to purchase different, and potentially more expensive products and infrastructure materials (e�g� picnic tables, benches, electric chargers, and other amenities), which delays the ability to complete and open the parks within a reasonable timeframe�
15� Support legislation to reinstate state funding for the Building Forward Library Facilities Improvement Program and California Library Services Act Program� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
12 16� Support legislation that funds increased access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to parks and facilities�
17� Support legislation that funds therapeutic and adaptive recreation and library programs, increasing access to people with disabilities�
Building Inspection Platform
1� Promote public health and safety in building construction through responsible legislation that adopts building codes through the regulatory process and allows for local control of enforcement�
2� Support legislation that enhances code enforcement through a uniform approach at the state level with input from the local authority by going through the regulatory process� 3� Oppose legislation that mandates specific enforcement requirements through the legislative process�
4� Protect the ability to adopt local amendments to fire and building codes� 5� Oppose legislation that places additional burdens of enforcement on local officials but is not directly related to issues of health and safety�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
13 Public Safety Goal
To act on legislation that hinders our ability to protect and enhance the safety and quality of life for our residents, businesses, customers, and partners by providing effective responses to all service requests; to promote programs that minimize risk and maximize the safety for our entire community; and to deliver community risk-reduction programs and exceptional solutions as a cohesive team and in a collaborative manner�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
1� Oppose legislation and regulatory policies that negatively affect the funding and operations of the police or fire departments�
2� Oppose legislation that would decrease state and federal funding for programs and services including Homeland Security�
3� Oppose reductions to the levels of state and federal funding opportunities for public safety programs and/or services�
4� Support legislation that ensures flexibility for and local control of all grant resources and funding for public safety technology and mandatory reporting systems� 5� Protect the ability to adopt local amendments to fire and building codes� 6� Oppose legislation that would reduce or eliminate funding for disaster mitigation� 7� Oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates local law enforcement flexibility or otherwise enacts broad sentencing reforms that reduce sentences for non-violent crimes in a general fashion�
8� Support legislation that provides municipalities with local control to provide para-transport, community para-medicine services and illness-prevention practices and programs� 9� Support legislation that provides adequate funding to cities for realignment services and oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates funding for those services� 10� Support legislation that results in regionalization of public safety functions and local control of regionalization of fire services�
11� Support legislation that requires the state to pay for unfunded mandates related to new public safety training requirements�
12� Support legislation that provides new and/or increased funding for mental health programs, services, and substance abuse treatment�
13� Support legislation that provides funding for first responder programs that improve response to mental health crisis calls for service�
14� Support legislation that provides funding for Police social services programs and outreach� 15� Support legislation that provides funding for public safety infrastructure projects including construction of various types of training facilities�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
14 16� Support legislation that provides funding for programs that help build first responders’ mental health and emotional resiliency�
17� Support legislation that strengthens criminal penalties for repeat offenders� 18� Support legislation that invests in first responder health and wellness programs, with a focus on advancing cancer prevention, research, and early detection initiatives� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
15 Economic Development Goal
To act on legislation that affects the City of Roseville’s ability to create a vibrant business and community environment that enhances the quality of life for our residents, promotes employment opportunities, and provides outstanding potential for our businesses and partners to flourish� To provide exceptional facilities, programs, services, affordable housing and economic opportunities in a safe environment by supporting, activating, and maintaining neighborhoods and commercial districts� To create a vibrant economic development environment by forming effective partnerships for the purposes of acting on legislation that encourages and assists with the development of jobs, businesses and industry sectors and maximizes social and economic opportunities� We take the following approaches to accomplish this:

Housing and Community Investment Platform
1� Support legislation and appropriations that fully fund assistance for affordable housing, prevention and solutions to homelessness, and community investment funding, including the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs�
2� Advocate for and support legislation that provides funding aimed toward increasing program resources, accountability of dollars spent to address the primary causes of homelessness, needs of the homeless population, and provides evidence-based solutions and interventions for mental illness, drug treatment, housing, and services� 3� Support legislation and advocacy efforts to protect existing and expand options for housing and community investment funding that will support goals for the City’s core areas and provide support for community assets�
4� Support legislation that expands the local construction workforce through economic development training programs in an effort to reduce the cost of housing and promote economic opportunity for low-income households�
5� Support legislation that increases flexibility and local control in the state housing element/ Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and streamlines environmental statutes� 6� Support legislation and measures that create new state incentives for affordable housing development�
7� Support streamlining of the requirements for the types of projects that can be funded with state and federal funding�
8� Oppose legislation that revamps the current RHNA process by reducing local control and/ or giving greater authority to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee and enforce regional housing goals and in determining a methodology for allocating housing needs to regions and local jurisdictions; and, that links housing element certification to non-housing grant sources�
9� Oppose legislation that imposes penalties on cities for not having a compliant housing element or for violations of state housing laws when the cities are acting in good faith� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
16 Economic Development Platform
1� Oppose legislation and measures that create competitive disadvantages for businesses at local and state levels�
2� Support legislation and measures that allow the City to grow the current economic base by providing the tools and resources needed for businesses to expand and flourish� 3� Support legislation, funding and policies that promote Regional Occupation Programs, trade and skills training, innovation and entrepreneurship, investment in research and development technology, and tax incentives for key industry sectors including manufacturing� 4� Oppose legislation that negatively impacts the City as it relates to the dissolution and wind- down of the Redevelopment Agency�
5� Support legislation that promotes, enhances and provides incentives for business retention and expansion, while ensuring California’s business environment remains an economically viable and competitive destination with national and international markets� 6� Support legislation that supports the development and expansion of higher education institutions including new private institutions and satellite campuses of national universities as an important segment of growth, workforce and economic development throughout the state� 7� Support legislation that creates a new tax increment program that will assist cities and counties with revitalizing their communities through the elimination of physical and economic blight and by providing assistance to building owners, tenants and businesses in their efforts to be successful�
8� Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to dispose of real property or retain control over how the property is used�
9� Support legislation, funding, and policies that promote and retain job growth in the City, increase talent pipelines, expand employment opportunities at all levels and support employment opportunities that provide broad public benefits within the City� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
17 Electric and Environmental Utilities Goals
To protect local control over how utilities provide services to our customers; to protect our customers from state and federal legislation, policies, and regulations that have no clear benefit relative to cost; and to oppose legislation, policies, and regulations that create unfunded mandates and compliance requirements that negatively impact the utilities’ ability to provide their services and products in the most safe, reliable and cost-effective manner�
Electric Utility Platform
Roseville Electric Utility’s mission is to improve the quality of life in our community and to provide customers with safe, reliable electricity at competitive prices and with exceptional service� As technological advancements in the electric utility industry evolve and new legislative and regulatory mandates emerge, the electric utility will continue to transform its business model to best serve its customers in the most efficient, reliable and cost-effective way� We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
1� Support legislative efforts that retain local decision-making authority over programs, services, resources and rates�
2� Support legislation that maintains flexibility to comply with regulations in the way that best reflects community priorities�
3� Support legislation that enables meeting the state’s energy and environmental policies in a cost-effective and reliable manner�
4� Support measures that promote affordability for our customers� 5� Support legislation that preserves public tax-exempt financing and advanced refunding� 6� Support future transmission system improvements and requirements which ensure that cost allocation is born by the parties that impact and/or stand to benefit from those improvements� 7� Support legislation that provides greater flexibility to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program; and oppose legislation that would reduce flexibility in complying with the RPS program�
8� Support legislation and regulations that streamline permitting for new and existing generating facilities�
9� Support legislation that fosters the utility’s role in local and regional economic development efforts including business retention and expansion�
10� Support technology advancements and efficiencies that benefit our customers in a cost- effective and reliable manner�
11� Oppose measures that would decrease our ability to make financial decisions that protect the financial health of the utility�
12� Oppose legislation that creates new jurisdictional review over Publicly Owned Utilities (POU)� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
18 13� Oppose legislation that mandates power purchases from specific projects and/or specific resources that do not fit the needs of our community or do not serve our customers in a reliable, affordable manner�
14� Oppose legislation that would reduce funding for existing energy programs and mandates� 15� Oppose legislation that will increase utility operating costs without commensurate funding� 16� Collaborate with neighboring utilities, the public power industry, and other stakeholders on legislative issues that impact the electric sector�
17� Pursue leadership roles locally, regionally, and nationally to inform, educate and advocate for the interest of our community�
As part of the legislative and regulatory platform, Roseville Electric Utility also takes advocacy positions to promote the City’s position before the applicable regulatory agencies� Environmental Utilities Platform
Roseville’s Environmental Utilities (EU) Department operates three utilities: Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services� EU strives to deliver critical public health and sanitation services efficiently and economically� EU’s services include management of groundwater, recycled water, and stormwater programs for the dual benefit of Roseville’s residential and business customers and the environment� There are many external factors that influence how EU operates, what it charges for utility services, and the kinds and quality of services provided to its customers� We take the following approaches to accomplish this:

Addressing the impacts of Green House Gas (GHG) for a sustainable Resilient Future:
1� Support efforts that allow local governments to manage and develop practical solutions to reduce GHG emissions to and ensure ratepayer benefits are commensurate with costs� 2� Support only those statewide and federal GHG emission estimating, monitoring, and reporting mandates that provide demonstrated benefits to the environment and rate payers� 3� Advocate for policies that provide assistance to address utility resiliency needs, including planning, deployment of new technologies, provide system and resource redundancy, and improve the environment and other actions�
4� Advocate for policies and funding that will help Roseville and the Sacramento Region address anticipated impacts from climate change focusing on drought and atmospheric rivers as projected in region-specific modeling in the American River Basin Study by the U�S� Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA, and U�S� Army Corps of Engineers�
Advocating for Effective Product Stewardship that Minimizes Impacts on Ratepayers:
1� Advocate for the development of the recycling market by the state and federal governmental entities for recyclables, green waste, food waste, biosolids, plastics, and other organics� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
19 2� Oppose mandated material-disposal bans or restrictions when there is insufficient capacity or available technology within the private recycling market to handle these materials in a more beneficial way besides landfilling�
3� Support efforts to reuse waste in a beneficial way if cost-effective� 4� Support efforts to enact a comprehensive statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law or a product-by-product EPR law that allocates end-of-life disposal costs with the producer of the product and incentivizes manufacturers to design their products in a way that has less of an environmental impact, consistent with Council direction as outlined in Council Resolution 10-278�
5� Oppose efforts to increase recycling diversion rates if determined not to be cost-effective relative to the benefits that could be achieved�
6� Oppose efforts to increase statewide tipping fees where there is no clear benefit to Environmental Utilities ratepayers�
7� Support efforts that encourage the development of clear state regulations and guidelines on EPR implementation to facilitate consistent compliance for local agencies and industry� Advocating for Sustainable Water Supply Management and Ensuring Reliability:
1� Advocate in support of CERCLA liability protections related to PFAS� Support streamlined permitting to implement regional conjunctive use programs more effectively in order to build a more drought resilient water supply for the Sacramento region� 2� Continue to safeguard Roseville’s water supply contracts – both the City of Roseville’s non-CVP water service contracts with neighboring agencies, as well as the City of Roseville’s Repayment Water Service Contract executed by the Bureau of Reclamation on February 28, 2020� 3� Support and advocate at the local, regional, state and federal levels to fund the city and region’s water supply portfolio to achieve a regional water supply that is sustainable and reliable for generations to come�
4� Support efforts that allocate the costs for Delta and statewide water infrastructure improvements to the parties that either impact the Delta and/or stand to benefit from those improvements, known as the “Beneficiary Pays Principle”� 5� Support proactive and participatory approaches to developing Delta and statewide solutions that are based upon sound science and up to date data�
6� Oppose efforts that impose arbitrary flow requirements on the American River that are inconsistent and incompatible with responsible water-supply management and undermine the locally developed Modified Flow Management Standards flow-management principles under the Water Forum Agreement�
7� Support efforts to implement a locally developed Modified Flow Management Standard on the lower American River that supports the Water Forum effort and its successor effort and provides for appropriate carryover storage at Folsom Reservoir� 8� Protect primacy of Roseville’s (and the region’s) ability to manage its groundwater resources� City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
20 9� Protect the City’s land-use authority and its right to make land-use decisions with respect to water supply�
10� Oppose efforts to standardize water-supply contingency actions� 11� Oppose efforts to upend the water rights system in California� 12� Support efforts to address illegal water diversions without upending California’s water rights system�
Drought and Water Use EfficiencyAdvocating for the Efficient Use of Water Resources versus Arbitrary Water Reduction Mandates:
1� Support efforts that maintain local control over drought-related decisions that are consistent with the City of Roseville’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan, and Water Shortage Contingency Plan and federal Water Management Plan�
2� Support efforts that help local governments maintain water-efficiency programs that meet state objectives, are cost-effective, and make sense for the local conditions� 3� Support state and federal efforts to increase water-efficiency ratings for common consumer products that use water, including tax credits similar to those provided to energy efficient use technologies�
4� Support efforts for third parties like the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) or Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) to review the implementation of the Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation for the impacts on rates, daily lives of Californians and the environment�
5� Oppose additional legislative or regulatory efforts mandating stricter restrictions than what is already under the new Making Conservation a California Way of Life� proposed water use efficiency standards or water loss standards that do not recognize previous water- supply reliability and water efficiency investments and achievements by the region and local community�
6� Support water efficiency policies that enhance key City investments such as undeveloped and developed park lands, the City’s urban forest, and oppose policies that would diminish or impair investments�
7� Support efforts that allow local agencies to develop and implement practical and locally controlled water-use efficiency programs and solutions� 8� Support funding assistance for the adoption of innovative technologies� Advancing Stormwater Management and Green Infrastructure:
1� Oppose efforts to impose additional state-mandated stormwater program requirements without commensurate funding for those programs�
2� Identify and pursue funding opportunities to support stormwater infrastructure (including green infrastructure) investments that protect Roseville’s public health and safety, water quality, and economic development�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
21 3� Support policies that reduce the cost of compliance for stormwater dischargers� 4� Support legislative efforts to reduce the potential of third-party lawsuits pertaining to stormwater quality issues�
5� Support legislation that revises the state Constitution to allow for stormwater programs to establish a funding mechanism that is similar to that of other water utilities under the Proposition 218 reforms�
6� Support efforts to require pesticide manufacturers to produce products that are less harmful to the environment�
7� Actively track, comment and advocate on proposed changes in National Discharge and Elimination System Permits and Waste Discharge requirements from the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Boards�
Advancing Biosolids, Recycled Water and Energy for a Sustainable Future:
1� Support continued availability and expansion of biosolids beneficial use and disposal options� 2� Support peer reviewed, science-based risk assessment models to govern biosolids treatment mandates�
3� Support state and federal funding programs for any potential City waste-to- energy projects� As an example, allow developers of biogas and electricity to benefit from federal and state funding like e-RINs (Electric Renewable Identification Numbers) so we can use our microturbines to power e-trucks and receive the e-RINs credits� 4� Support policies that deliver tax credits and/or cash subsidies for the construction of bioenergy projects, including biogas�
5� Support legislative and regulatory efforts that increase development and use of available recycled water supplies and create a policy environment that supports the development of emerging advanced treatment technologies�
Advocating for Worker Safety, Recruitment and Training for a Thriving Workforce:
1� Support efforts that protect solid waste, water, wastewater and recycled water worker safety� 2� Support efforts and workforce development programs that promote utility workers as great careers�
3� Support efforts that provide funding for the creation of local technical training, internships, apprenticeships and journey persons in key water, wastewater, and waste services positions – both formal college and trades education training pathways� 4� Support efforts that require manufacturers to provide training on the servicing of their products� Example: as the state transitions to the electrification of our fleets we would like to see requirements on the manufacturers of those vehicles to provide training to our technicians so they can provide routine maintenance�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2025
22 Advocating for Cost-Effective Utility Service Delivery:
1� Support legislative reform efforts that require a cost/benefit analysis for new regulations and flexibility on permit terms to recognize technology and construction factors� 2� Support legislative efforts to reduce the potential of third-party lawsuits pertaining to water quality issues�
3� Oppose efforts to impose a tax or fees where revenue is collected from local ratepayers or agencies and are allocated for statewide projects that have no direct benefit to Roseville’s ratepayers�
4� Advocate on efforts to provide explicit authority to local water and wastewater agencies to address affordability concerns unique to their customer base rather than a one-size-fits-all statewide approach�
5� Support statutory protections from CERCLA liability related to biosolids and drinking water residuals of biosolids from Superfund liability�
6� Advocate for policies and regulations that support and allow for expansion of the Environmental Utilities circular economy�
7� Oppose efforts to increase whole effluent toxicity testing for recycled water, stormwater and wastewater when it is not cost-effective, has no clear benefit and/or is not based on sound science�
8� Ensure efforts to add testing or regulation for contaminants of emerging concern are cost-effective, have a demonstrated health benefit and/or is based on peer reviewed, sound science�
9� Support legislative and regulatory policies that target source control and place clean-up responsibility and costs related to natural resources damages on the manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances or manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS�
10� Support policies or regulations that streamline environmental compliance while remain protective of public health�
11� Monitor and advocate for laboratory standards that are reasonable, cost-effective, and ensure data quality for the City’s water quality laboratory which supports the core mission of protecting human health, the environment and safety�
12� Support modernization of permitting processes, including extended permit terms of up to ten years to address the lifecycle of technologies and construction schedules� 13� Support efforts to streamline and expedite permitting, construction, and funding of facilities that allow the City to transform waste into energy or useful products that benefit City customers and the environment�
14� Support policies that reduce the cost of compliance for wastewater dischargers� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 23 Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session • Tax or Fees – The City has concerns regarding the Legislature’s desires and threats to establish effective constraints on the ability of local agencies to impose fees and charges to mitigate housing impacts� We will advocate for local control and the ability to impose fees and charges to mitigate the impact of new development on current residents and businesses� • Accessible, Affordable, and Safe Drinking Water – While the customers of the City of Roseville enjoy access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water, there are many in California that do not� Roseville is supportive of innovative statewide policies to help bridge that gap, so long as the financial burden is not carried by our customers� Further, Roseville supports efforts to provide urban retail water agencies with express authority to create low-income assistance programs that meet the unique needs of their communities are compliant with Constitutional provisions such as Proposition 218 and Proposition 26�
• Additional Water Efficiency Requirements – The City of Roseville is actively implementing the Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulations� During droughts, there is a tendency for new legislative concepts to be introduced as a reactive response to drought conditions� Often such actions do not add value, place a local financial burden and get in the way of implementing water efficiency laws already in place� It is the City of Roseville’s belief that the State Legislature should allow for the implementation of water efficiency laws and regulations, and evaluate their effectiveness and costs borne by ratepayers prior to introducing any new conservation mandates�
• Ensuring Appropriate Offramps are Part of Regulations – As part of the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) adopted in 2021 by USEPA agencies were required to inventory all customer owned service lines and report them to the state and make the inventory publicly available on their agency website� The LCRR allowed for agencies to do a statistical sample to determine if there are any customer owned lead service lines� With the adoption of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements in October 2024, water agencies that found through their investigation and statistical analysis that they have no customer owned lead service lines are now required to prove through a second investigation and statistical analysis that our original analysis is valid� This comes at significant costs to ratepayers with no-direct benefit� Roseville would like to see an offramp developed for agencies that have found no lead service lines within in their system, and through compliance of the LCR testing have non-detect for lead in their water, and based on the age of their system and other pertinent factors are provided an appropriate offramp from unnecessary costly investigations� • Cost-Effective Utilities – The ability to provide reliable and cost-effective utilities to the residents and businesses of Roseville continues to be a central concern as new state and federal mandates are proposed that would increase the utilities operational costs� We will continue to advocate to maintain local control of utility rate setting and oppose any state or federal efforts to reduce local control�
• Federal and State Funding for Water, Transportation and other Infrastructure Projects – Maintaining or increasing funding for these types of projects and improvements is critical for the City’s ability to maintain a robust economy, providing high paying jobs, upgrading and maintaining roadways, and meeting future infrastructure and transportation demands� Federal assistance in the form of grants, highly subsidized loans including WIFIA, Build America Bonds, Inflation Reduction Act credits and Advanced Refunding are examples of federal assistance that should be part of any federal assistance program�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 24 • Municipal Water Systems Performance in Wildfires – Concerns have been raised about Southern California municipal water system’s ability to support firefighting efforts during intense and prolonged wildfires, a Los Angeles Daily News statement has highlighted a critical issue:
municipal water systems aren’t designed to fight such intense and prolonged wildfires� This has been underscored by reports that firefighters have encountered fire hydrants that are dry or are barely working� In response, Governor Newsom has called for an independent investigation to understand the causes of lost water supply and water pressure during these fire events in Southern California� While this investigation will provide insights into what occurred in these events, it could lead to statewide changes� Staff is aware of legislative language circulating to address possible regulatory changes for fire hydrants and other aspects of water supply designed for firefighting�
• Cybersecurity – Future state and federal laws regarding cybersecurity will continue to affect the City and the community� Implementing new cybersecurity requirements will impose significant operations and maintenance costs to the City’s information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) systems program� Support legislation and state and federal budget requests that would provide funding assistance for upgrades to these IT and OT systems that are needed to meet new mandates and requirements�
• Changes to Tax-Exempt Status of Municipal Bonds – Any proposals that would cap or eliminate the tax exemption on municipal bonds would significantly reduce the City’s ability to finance major projects� This would negatively and severely impact the City’s budget, increase rates for utility customers, and have a damaging effect on the community at large� • Modifications to Government-Operated Mortgage Programs – The City will remain active in understanding the changes being considered at the federal level to modify government- operated mortgage programs, tax deductions, and to write new banking regulations regarding mortgage-related lending programs�
• Challenges with State and Federal Permitting Processes – The City remains interested in pursuing ways to facilitate more effective federal and state regulatory agency permitting processes� A specific concern is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that has become a “one size fits all” approach to identifying and mitigating vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, which does not reflect or serve the diverse conditions and needs of communities throughout California�
• Changing Economy – The City is interested in discussions regarding local tax systems including the fundamental shift from purchasing taxable commodities to purchasing non-taxable services and ultimately how these changes affect the City’s ability to fund basic services� • Sales Tax – The City is concerned with the uncertainty over potential changes to the sales tax allocation structure that could result in a loss of revenue to the City� The City will actively monitor the ever-changing discussions and will remain engaged to ensure the City’s best interests are represented regarding any future changes to the sales tax structure� • Housing and Homelessness – The City will remain active in addressing the needs of the City’s homeless population with a primary focus on prevention and reducing the population of chronically homeless individuals by supporting solutions that address the fundamental causes of homelessness and provide permanent housing options paired with necessary supportive services�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 25 • CalPERS Investment Policy – The City has concerns with actions taken or proposed by the CalPERS Board and the State Legislature to divest from certain companies or industries to be “socially responsible”� These policy decisions come at the price of reduced market rates of return on pension plan investments� The pension funding requirement not covered by investment returns will be borne by the state and local governments, and ultimately California taxpayers� • CalPERS Rates – The City has concerns with respect to how CalPERS sets health care plan rates, including combining regions to subsidize the Bay Area at the detriment to our distinguishable geographic region and market�
• Federal and State Funding for Parks and Library Projects – The City is interested in efforts to maintain or increase funding for these types of projects and improvements� The funding is critical for the City’s ability to upgrade and ensure access to the City’s parks, recreation, and library facilities including those that have been underserved� The City will advocate for changes to funding formulas to include per-capita opportunities for local governments� • Substance and Opioid Abuse Funding – The City supports legislation that increases funding levels for substance and opioid abuse programs and services that will help those who are addicted or abusing substances with overcoming their addiction� The addiction/abuse cycle has negative implications for our community and use of public safety resources� • Procurement Mandates – The City is concerned with any efforts that would create new procurement mandates for resources that do not fit the needs of our community or do not serve our customers in a reliable and affordable manner�
• Affordability – As more state policies are adopted and included as a component of electric rates, the City is concerned that it will become increasingly challenging to keep electric rates low� The City will continue to advocate for local control when approaching new policies that may result in rate increases�
• RPS Cost Containment – Roseville will seek the ability to implement cost containment controls for renewable procurement under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program� Cost containment is an existing mechanism within the RPS program that allows utilities to control costs related to eligible renewable energy procurement requirements as reported to the California Energy Commission� The current RPS market is seeing bottlenecks in the ability for new renewable resources to come online because of ongoing supply chain issues and long- lead times in the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) interconnection queue� Roseville expects to use the RPS cost containment mechanism for the next compliance period as longer-lead time resources come online� The RPS cost containment mechanism is a short-term strategy and is not intended to be a long-term solution for compliance under the state’s RPS procurement program�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 26 • Flexibility in Meeting State Mandates – Roseville supports maintaining flexibility in the resource mix that the utility can use to meet our energy needs� The state is proposing to electrify other sectors of the economy while simultaneously reducing emissions from the electric sector and increasing renewable resources needed to serve electric load� Utilities need as much flexibility as possible to meet the state’s clean energy goals, especially as the targets ramp up and become more difficult to reach� Unnecessarily limiting the resources that are eligible to meet the goals may create challenges for reliability and will result in increased costs� Roseville supports policies that make achieving the existing RPS and Greenhous Gas (GHG) emission reduction goals more manageable, including the potential to rethink the application of existing requirements� Roseville supports resource flexibility and diversity in maintaining a reliable, affordable electric grid�
• Support for Light Up Navajo Initiative – In 2023 and 2024 Roseville participated in the Light up Navajo (LUN) initiative, which is a joint effort between the American Public Power Association and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) to bring electricity to the 13,000 Navajo households that have no power� LUN is an ongoing annual effort that draws voluntary participation from public power utilities across the country� Roseville is committed to this humanitarian project, which also provides valuable training for our apprentices in all-weather conditions that we are not regularly exposed to in Roseville� The Light up Navajo project changes the lives of everyone involved including those providing power and receiving it for the first time� As part of our advocacy for 2025, Roseville is working to bring more visibility to the LUN efforts by addressing our involvement and support for the initiative in our advocacy documents that we will share during our state legislative and congressional visits� Roseville’s call to action is to urge others to join this life changing effort to Light Up Navajo� • Ongoing Collaboration and Advocacy with State Agencies – Roseville was successful in working with the California Energy Commission and the California Department of Water Resources to obtain a Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) grant in early 2024, which resulted in subsequent ownership of the RPEAK units in Roseville on November 1, 2024� This effort was an example of successful collaboration with the state’s energy agencies to bring new generation online to meet the state’s growing energy needs while simultaneously benefiting our community� Roseville will continue to seek new opportunities to engage and partner with state agencies in the future�
• Engagement and Outreach for the Roseville Utility Exploration Center – Roseville’s innovative Utility Exploration Center (UEC) cultivates principles of conservation, efficiency, and environmental stewardship in a way that shapes lifestyles and motivates positive behaviors� The UEC demonstrates ways to save energy and water, reduce waste, protect the watershed and live sewer smart through school programs, facility tours, workshops and community events� Electric staff has been focused on bringing legislators and regulators out to our facility to see the unique value that our UEC provides� Electric and Environmental Utilities staff plan to conduct studies in the coming year that will help quantify the energy efficiency savings, water conservation, and best practices for the proper disposal of garbage that are the result of the UEC’s programs and offerings� The Electric Utility is seeking regulatory benefit for the value provided in the future and the Environmental Utilities are seeking data to best advocate for the educational aspect that the UEC brings to our community�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 27 • Regional Energy Market Legislation – In 2025 there will be legislation to address the participation of California utilities in a Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) and an Electricity Day Ahead Market (EDAM) that is overseen by a West-wide board, not the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)� Roseville is a participant in the WEIM and is assessing participation in the EDAM� The implications of this legislation will have an impact on regional energy markets broadly and is a small incremental step in considering the future for a regional transmission organization (RTO)� The publicly owned utility community is seeking a significant role in this legislative effort� Accordingly, Roseville will be closely monitoring the development of this legislation and will report on the benefits that a regional energy market, not governed by the CAISO, could provide in cooperation with our balancing authority area� • Electric Vehicles – The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a rule requiring 100% of all new cars sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035� The regulation institutes interim targets of 35% ZEV sales by 2026, 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035� This policy will create new, increased demand for electric vehicles in the foreseeable future and will call for electric utilities to be instrumental in electrifying the transportation sector� The CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets Rule also requires purchasing requirements for zero-emission medium- and heavy- duty� The City will continue to evaluate the electric system infrastructure, increased costs to City departments, and capacity needs to accommodate these targets on an ongoing basis while coordinating efforts related to transportation electrification among City departments� The City supports electric vehicle deployment as a means to foster safe and healthy communities and economic growth, while keeping costs and feasibility in mind when changing out our fleets� • Funding/Grant Opportunities – The Electric Department is seeking opportunities to receive grant funding at both the state and federal level� Grant funding opportunities may include bringing new technology online in Roseville; adding new or upgrading our existing distribution and/or generating resources; improving grid resiliency; hardening Information and Operation Technology (IT and OT) systems; improving operations of City services; and facilitating the electrification of the building and transportation sectors� Funding to facilitate infrastructure upgrades are particularly valuable especially as more ZEVs interconnect to our electric system� The City will continue to monitor and engage in these opportunities as they become available� • Jurisdictional Concerns – Following recent wildfires, heatwaves and power supply shortages, the City is concerned that a statewide effort to address these events could lead to new oversight over publicly owned utilities (POUs) and additional limits to local control� The City will oppose legislation that creates new jurisdictional review over POUs or imposes new limits on our ability to make decisions at the local level�
• Supply Chain Disruptions – The Electric Department will continue to raise awareness of supply chain delays and disruptions that affect the industry in our state and federal advocacy efforts� We will support our trade association’s support for funding for critical domestic grid component manufacturing and the inclusion of $600 million to promote domestic transformer manufacturing in the Fiscal Year 2025 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill� The Electric Department will remain steadfast in keeping policy makers apprised of any issues obtaining necessary electric equipment as delays or disruptions arise� • Transportation Development Act – The City will continue to monitor Transportation Development Act legislation to ensure local control and funding use is not restricted further and oppose any proposed changes that would implement these types of restrictions� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 28 • Challenges with Legislation Mandating How Housing is Developed – The City has significant concerns with the continuing onslaught of legislation that is mandating how housing is developed in the state� This includes the elimination of control local governments have over land use, zoning, and permitting approvals� The sheer volume and breadth of legislation has required significant staff time and expense to track and implement� Moreover, while legislation continues to focus the responsibility for solving the state’s housing crisis on local governments, it neglects to provide the necessary tools to do so� Since the loss of redevelopment in California, local governments have been challenged to assist housing development in our communities� It is imperative that the state provide municipalities with new tools they can employ to meet the countless new housing requirements being imposed on them by the state, and for the state to hold itself to the same standards of timeliness, public engagement, and transparency expected of local governments�
• Information Technology – Engagement in the Regulatory Process - The City will support the inclusion of language in legislation that ensures the participation of local governments in the process of developing new regulations and/or the process for implementing new state and federal requirements�
• Federal Funding for Transit – Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants require approval from the United States Department of Labor (USDOL)� USDOL determined that California’s Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) restricts agencies from bargaining in good faith with transit employees� As a result, FTA would withhold grant funds from Roseville Transit and other California transit agencies� This could impact over $15,000,000 in FTA funding programmed for Roseville Transit� There is currently a court-ordered stay in place preventing the withholding of any federal funds� However, if this stay is lifted, the City’s funding would be in jeopardy� The City of Roseville supports efforts to overturn the USDOL and FTA decisions while maintaining PEPRA as an important tool to control local agency pension costs� • Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Streets – The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans recently demanded changes to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (RSTBGP) funding processes� Per regional funding agreements, CMAQ and RSTBGP were passed through to Placer County Transportation Planning Agency and distributed to local agencies by formula based upon population and (for RSTBGP only) maintained road miles� CMAQ funds averaged $1,300,000 annually and were used for qualifying bicycle, pedestrian and other projects that reduce emissions such as roundabouts� RSTBGP averaged $1,500,000 annually and is one of the most flexible federal transportation funding programs as nearly all types of transportation projects are eligible, and in Roseville has been used for arterial road resurfacing� The City of Roseville did not support the demand because we lost local control and are now required to participate in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) competitive funding program� Staff will continue efforts to collaborate with SACOG regarding parameters currently being developed pertaining to the competitive distribution of that funding, including advocating for use of RSTBGP specifically for “State of Good Repair” Projects, for which it is eligible and has historically been used in Roseville� This will ensure that the benefits of these types of projects will continue to be realized in our community�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 29 • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) updates and Community Rating System (CRS) program changes – The NFIP is insolvent, and Congress continues to struggle with funding for FEMA’s NFIP and CRS programs� “The [NFIP] owes $20�5 billion to the federal government and ‘has no realistic prospect of repaying the debt as currently structured, ’ according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) congressional report�” (Aug� ’23)� Severe hurricanes like Helene and Milton create excess cost burdens on the program� This creates a need to borrow from the Treasury that will drive the NFIP further into insolvency� In recent years, insurance companies outside the NFIP have been offering flood insurance at competitive rates� In late 2021, FEMA released the “Risk Rating 2�0 - Equity in Action” flood insurance program in hopes of bringing greater solvency and stability� However, there are concerns that its complexity and rapidly rising premiums are frustrating policyholders� This, along with the integration of certain costly social equity and environmental justice measures into the NFIP at a time when it is losing policies to the open market further destabilizes the program� The City has concerns that ongoing NFIP instability may lead to Congress terminating the NFIP and its subordinate CRS program, both of which have great value to Roseville residents, with the Risk Rating 2�0 program applying Roseville’s 45% CRS insurance premium discount all flood zones, as opposed to the previous discount only applying to high hazard zones�
• Pole Attachments/Communications Equipment – The City opposes any legislation that would further diminish local control over attachments on publicly-owned infrastructure and that would go beyond the current requirements or that would create alternative requirements that would conflict with exemptions granted to public providers under the Communications Act or would have negative implications on revenue recovery, aesthetics and most importantly, safety� • Ballot Initiatives – There is an ever-increasing number of initiatives that qualify for the ballot during regular election cycles, which would have implications for local governments� Due to this trend, coupled with the increased involvement of special interest groups in the initiative process, the importance of educating the community and the Legislature on the implications an initiative may have on the operations, finances, and/or policies of a local government is critical� • Fentanyl – The ongoing fentanyl crisis continues to impact communities across California, the consequences of which are devastating� The City will prioritize support for legislation that increases accountability of those responsible for the sale and distribution of fentanyl, public awareness of the crisis, resources for law enforcement to address the impacts, and treatment and services for those addicted to this deadly substance�
• Labor Relations – Recent legislative efforts of one-size fits all bills arising out of specific or isolated situations is deleterious to consistent harmonious labor relations, and we oppose disruptive and overly expansive efforts like, attempting to legislate that sympathy strikes are a “fundamental human right”� The City will support legislation that galvanizes appropriate protections for our workforce, but respects the local bargaining dynamic�

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3775
File #:
0709-01
Title:

HOUSING AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL – Quarterly Status Update 4th Qtr 2024 Contact:

Danielle O’Connell 916-774-5277 [email protected] Suzi Cook-Turner 916-774-5414 [email protected] Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 7.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The City Council, acting as the Roseville Housing Authority Board, is not required to take any action on this item. This quarterly report is for informational purposes only.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the bylaws of the Roseville Housing Authority (RHA), the City Council, acting as the governing board for the Housing Authority, holds its quarterly meetings the first Wednesdays of March, June, September, and December, or as soon as possible thereafter. Staff has prepared the following status report regarding lease-up activity for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The HCV Program provides income-qualified households in Roseville and Rocklin with rental assistance using funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This assistance is utilized at rental units that meet program specific housing standards, are owned by a willing property owner, and are within Roseville or Rocklin city limits. This rental assistance ensures that the household can afford to live in safe and decent housing.

During the
fourth quarter of 2024 there were 635 vouchers utilized in Roseville, 146 vouchers being utilized in Rocklin, and 13 in other jurisdictions (approved transfers out of the area) for a total of 794 families receiving rental assistance through RHA.

RHA is authorized to provide 845 households with HCV rental assistance. RHA also has several special voucher programs including:
41 Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV) providing rental assistance to individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness; 75 vouchers allocated specifically for families on the waiting list with a head-of-household or partner that are non-elderly and disabled (NED vouchers); 43 Mainstream vouchers that assist households who have a non-elderly head of household or partner with a disability and are transitioning out of institutional or other segregated settings, are currently homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless; and 100 VASH Vouchers for veteran households that come via referral from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and assist them with paperwork, searching for housing and staying housed.
20 Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) vouchers that assist former foster youth, ages 18 to 24, as they transition from foster care to adulthood and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

During the fourth quarter of 2024, Roseville Housing Authority celebrated its 50 th
anniversary. T
he
Roseville Housing Authority was established October 4, 1974 and began providing rental assistance in August of 1980 with 83 vouchers. Since 1980, the Roseville Housing Authority has utilized federal funds in the amount of $132 million in rental assistance to house low-income households along with additional federal funds used to administer the programs.

Fiddyment Workforce Partners, a developer of affordable housing, constructed two new complexes, Prospera Workforce and Prospera Affordable which contain 152 new affordable units in West Roseville. The properties began leasing the units in September 2024. RHA committed 16 Project-Based vouchers (PBVs) to the projects which enhanced their feasibility and assisted in creating the new housing opportunity. The 16 PBV units were fully leased as of December 20, 2024.

RHA staff recently implemented changes to enhance Housing Authority processes. The background check process was overhauled, and staff now captures fingerprints in office which significantly reduces time and the cost of traditional ink fingerprints. Staff also received updated information on HUD’s Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA regulations and VAWA
housing safeguards apply to survivors of domestic abuse, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, as well as VAWA regulations for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). It also addressed VAWA's relationship to gender-based violence and homelessness. RHA staff consistently updates policies to ensure obligations are integrated into our operations and increase effectiveness.

Each housing authority is required to be at least 95% leased-up for its voucher allocation or utilizing at least 95% of its annual budget authority to remain in compliance with HUD’s requirements. The lease-up rate for a calendar year cannot exceed 100% of its allocation of vouchers (per voucher type), and/or 100% expenditure of its annual budget allocation for the program. Agencies leasing up or expending 98% or more of its allocated vouchers and/or budget can reach high-performing status. RHA continues to meet HUD program requirements for high- performing status through 100% expenditure of its annual budget allocation. The attached table provides a monthly summary of RHA’s voucher programs for the fourth quarter of 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
This Housing Authority Quarterly Status Report does not create any additional cost to the City’s General Fund.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality

Respectfully Submitted,
Danielle O’Connell, Housing Analyst
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
RHA 4th Qtr Vouchers

Actual
Lease-up
of FYI
22-HUD
FYI (20)
Actual Lease-up
of Mains tream
12-HUD
Mainstream
(43)
Jan-24 574 570 75 75 57 85 38 43 43 43
Feb-24 575 570 75 75 58 85 40 43 44 44
Mar-24 573 570 75 75 56 85 41 43 41 41
Apr-24 570 570 75 75 56 100 41 43 42 42
May-24 561 570 75 75 56 100 41 43 41 41
Jun-24 559 570 75 75 57 100 41 43 39 39
Jul-24 553 570 75 75 55 100 42 43 39 39
Aug-24 565 570 75 75 52 100 0 20 42 43 39 39
Sep-24 568 570 75 75 53 100 0 20 42 43 39 39
Oct-24 572 570 75 75 53 100 0 20 42 43 39 39
Nov-24 584 570 75 75 52 100 0 20 41 43 39 39
Dec-24 576 570 75 75 52 100 0 20 41 43 37 37
YTD Total 6830 6840 900 900 657 1155 0 100 492 516 482 482 YED % Leased
Actual
Lease-up
of VASH
11-HUD
VASH
(100)
Actual Lease-up
of EHV
21-HUD
Emergency
Housing
Vouchers
(EHVs)

99.9% 100.0% 56.9% 100.0%95.3%0.0%
2024
Actual
Lease-up
of
Regular
10-HUD
Regular
(570)
Actual
Lease-up
of Non-
Elderly
Disabled
5-HUD Non-
Elderly
Disabled
(75)

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
3782
File #:
0400-04-17 & 0400-08
Title:

Appeal of Infill Parcels 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit
Contact:

Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/5/2025
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Consistent with the January 9, 2025 Planning Commission action, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Sunrise Office Center Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit and take the following actions:

1. Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the January 9, 2025 approval by the Planning Commission; adopting the Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopting four (4) findings of fact and approving the Design Review Permit subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; adopting the two (2) findings of fact and approving the Flood Encroachment Permit subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and adopting the two (2) findings of facts and approving the Tree Permit subject to six (6) conditions of approval.

2. Deny the request to refund the appeal fee.

BACKGROUND
The 2.63-acre project site is located at 701 and 705 Sunrise Av., on the east side of Sunrise Av., approximately 170 feet south of the intersection of Sunrise Av. and Coloma Way (Attachment 1).

The parcel is in the PD52 (Planned Development) and FW (Floodway) zoning districts and has BP (Business Professional) and OS/FP (Open Space/Floodplain) General Plan designations.

The site is partially developed with a parking lot and an office building, and a portion of Cirby Creek traverses the northern portion of the property. To the north of the site are additional office buildings, a senior living residential and community care facility to the east (known as the Terraces of Roseville); Sunrise Av. and condominiums to the west; and a Dutch Bros drive-thru coffee kiosk to the south.

The project site is located in a Planned Development zone (PD52), which was adopted by the city Council in April of 1978. On September 21, 1995, the City of Roseville Design Review Commission approved a Design Review Permit (DRP) to construct a 5,240 square foot IHOP restaurant, as well as a Tree Permit to allow encroachment into the protected zones of four (4) native oak trees. An Initial Study and Environmental Checklist was prepared to evaluate the project, and a Negative Declaration was adopted prior to action on the project (International House of Pancakes Negative Declaration (UP 94-38; TP 95-11), adopted September 21, 1995). A Building Permit to construct the project was issued in August 1997. The former IHOP was converted from a restaurant to medical office use in 2011 (BD-142933).

Project Description/History
On May 28, 2024, an application for the Sunrise Office Center project was submitted to the Planning Division for entitlement review. The project included a request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 square foot medical office building and associated site improvements such as additional parking area, lighting, and a trash enclosure. The proposed medical office will support an approximately 4,300 square foot dental office and approximately 3,000 square feet of future medical tenants.

The project also requested a Flood Encroachment
Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. A Tree Permit was requested for the removal of three (3) protected Valley oak trees totaling 94 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). As proposed, a total of six (6) trees will be removed as a part of the project.

A detailed description and evaluation of the project is included in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 2).

In November 2024, staff corresponded with one interested party, Jennifer Chapman, resident of the adjoining Terraces of Roseville community care facility (707 Sunrise Av.), answering questions about the proposed project and providing plans via email. This correspondence concluded when Ms. Chapman acknowledged receipt of the plans. No other inquiries or public comments were received during the entitlement review process.

On December 5, 2025, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published through the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review period, consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The MND notice was posted on the City website and the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations site, mailed to interested parties and property owners within a 300-foot radius, and posted in library locations throughout the city. The closing date for comments was January 6, 2025. During that time, one advisory comment letter from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was received by staff.

On January 3, 2025, staff received a phone call from Jennifer Chapman regarding the status of the project and inquiring about whether staff could come and speak to the Terraces residents about the application. Ms. Chapman was informed by staff of the scheduled January 9, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. Notice of the hearing was mailed out on December 17, 2025 to residents and property owners within a 300-foot radius, published in the Press Tribune, and posted on the RCONA website. She expressed concern that she did not receive a notice regarding the hearing; however, staff confirmed that notice was provided to the ownership of the Terraces facility in conformance with Zoning Ordinance and state law requirements. Individual unit addresses and tenant information for community care facilities are not available to the City, so individual notices were not provided.

On January 6th, Ms. Chapman hosted a community forum within the Terraces facility to share the project plans, previously provided to her by staff in November 2024. According to Ms. Chapman, 34 residents attended the discussion. Planning staff had a follow up conference call with Ms.

Chapman and additional residents on January 7th, addressing questions related to the use of the building (a dentist office and unknown medical tenants), traffic and access of emergency vehicles to the Terraces, and the floor plan of the building. Ms. Chapman also submitted a letter regarding the MND on January 6th. On January 8th, Ms. Chapman forwarded staff a letter from the Terraces Resident Council Board requesting an extension of the public comment period an additional 15 days to January 21, 2025. By this time, the MND comment period had already concluded and the project had been publicly noticed and placed on the published Planning Commission agenda for January 9, 2025.

Issues Raised at Planning Commission Hearing
At the Planning Commission hearing on January 9, 2025, four (4) residents addressed the Commission regarding the proposed project. All speakers opposed the project. Concerns were raised about traffic, dangerous roadway conditions, aesthetics, impacts to biological resources, emergency access and safety, and flood potential. Concerns regarding noticing of both the environmental document and public hearing to the individual residents of the Terraces of Roseville were raised during the hearing. These concerns were reiterated in the Appeal Letter and are further discussed below.

Letters received after the publication of the staff report were published in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission on January 9, 2025, as well as distributed to the Planning Commission members during the hearing. The memorandum included copies of the letters received, as well as a staff evaluation of the concerns identified in the letters. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Subsequent Memorandum are included as Attachment 2.

The Planning Commission concluded the public hearing and by a vote of 4 ayes to 2 noes, approved the requested entitlements.

Appeal Letter
On January 21, 2025, Jennifer Chapman submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Sunrise Office Center project to the City Clerk (see Attachment 3). A brief summary of each objection is provided below, followed by staff’s response. Some sections of the appeal letter are combined for clarity.

Notification and Request for an Extension of Public Review In the appeal letter, Ms. Chapman expresses concern about the noticing process for the MND under the requirements outlined by the CEQA statute. Ms. Chapman quotes Section 21080.3.2. (F), which states that noticing is required to be made to the public and to a person who requests, in writing, notification.

Planning staff did not receive any requests, either verbally or in writing, for notification.

Ms. Chapman also explains that she spoke to Planning staff November 14-15, 2024. She asked staff general questions about the project, and was informed that the project would eventually be heard before Planning Commission. Ms. Chapman requested a copy of the project plans, which were provided to her via email. This correspondence concluded when Ms. Chapman confirmed receipt of the plans. No further questions were asked of staff, nor were any verbal or written requests made for further notification on the project. At the time of this correspondence, the environmental document was not yet complete, and the public hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The MND was published on December 5th to the State Clearinghouse for a review period of 30 days, as well as posted on the City website and the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations website, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius, and posted in library locations throughout the city. The closing date for comments was January 6th, 2025. During that time, one advisory comment letter was received by Planning staff from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ms. Chapman provided a comment letter on January 6th, falling within the comment period. No other comments, inquiries, or calls were received by staff during this comment period. Any correspondence postmarked or emailed within this period would have been accepted as a part of the public comment period.

Notice was provided to the ownership of the Terraces facility. Individual unit addresses for community care facilities are not available to the City, so individual notices to residents were not provided. It is at the discretion of the property ownership to disseminate information received in the mail to their residents. The City of Roseville complied with legal noticing requirements, and the review period was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Request for Extension of the Comment Period
In the appeal, Ms. Chapman explains that she requested a 15-day extension of the public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The first request was received on January 6, 2025 at 4:39 pm, 20 minutes prior to the closure of the comment period. She also submitted an extension request on January 8
th
; however, by this time the public comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration had concluded.

According to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration shall not be less than 30 days for a project which requires submission to the State Clearinghouse. The public review period and the state agency review period may, but are not required to be, begin and end at the same time. A 30 day comment period was completed for this project, and as previously discussed, the required noticing was completed consistent with the requirements. Staff informed Ms. Chapman that because the request for additional time was submitted on the last day of the public review period and after the project had been publicly noticed and placed on a published Planning Commission agenda, it would not be appropriate for staff to grant an extension. Staff informed Ms. Chapman that prior to the project being heard by the Planning Commission they (staff) would inform the Commission of the request to extend the comment period and allow the Planning Commission to determine if a new public comment period was appropriate. It is also noted that there is no section of CEQA which compels a public agency to extend a public comment period upon request.

Prior to consideration of the item by Planning Commission on January 9 th
, staff presented Ms.

Chapman’s request for an extended comment period. As the comment period had already concluded, staff noted that the Commission could direct staff to recirculate the document for a new comment period. The Planning Commission elected to consider the item before them without requiring a new comment period.

Vulnerable Population, Protected Class, Description of the Community The appeal also expresses concern about the demographic at the Terraces, stating that they are a vulnerable population with limited access to computers, and might lack familiarity with city processes. It states that the seniors in the facility are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, and many among the residents have disabilities protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as additional rights under California law. The appeal does not elaborate on what violations Ms. Chapman believes have occurred under these laws; therefore, staff acknowledges this section of the appeal but does not have enough information to respond. As previously stated, noticing for the project was completed consistent with state law, Zoning Ordinance requirements, and standard City practices.

Insufficient Staff Report and Planning Division Guidance to Commissioners The appeal states that the staff report prepared for Planning Commission was deficient in several areas:
·

The staff report did not include descriptions of the Terraces, background on the Dutch Bros coffee kiosk, or historic flood events.

The staff report identifies the senior living facility and a coffee kiosk as adjacent uses. A detailed description of these uses is not relevant to the proposed project. The staff report identifies the site as within the Floodway and includes an analysis and conditions of approval for the proposed Flood Encroachment Permit, and clearly states that the project has been evaluated by the Public Works – Floodplain Management Division. The proposed project will be designed to meet current standards for flood-resistant construction.

Removal of the trees means that the project did not meet the findings for the Design Review Permit or the Tree Permit.

The project avoids the most resource-rich areas of the property, primarily the riparian area along Cirby Creek. The proposed building is located as far from the creek, riparian area with dense tree cover, and floodway as the parcel can accommodate. Furthermore, while the project does include the removal of trees, mitigation will be provided consistent with the requirements in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Planning Commission found that the required findings for the entitlements could be made.

The staff report did not address the easements on the property, and whether or not they would have to be revised or amended for the project.

Utilities were evaluated by staff during the entitlement review process. The footprint of the proposed medical office was purposefully located in order to avoid existing underground utilities and to maintain all existing easements. As the project does not affect the existing utilities or easements for the adjacent development, this discussion is not relevant to the proposal.

The staff report did not discuss informal discussions about future development on the Dutch Bros or Terraces parcels.

There are currently no applications for projects on either the Terraces or the Dutch Bros properties. Without a formal application and a defined project description, there is not enough information available to evaluate future development, nor is it appropriate to do so absent a reasonably-foreseeable project. Any future project(s) would be evaluated on their own merit in the context of surrounding development.

Staff told the Planning Commission that only a 30-day review period could be required, not a 15 day period, which may have influenced the Commission’s decision.

At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, the comment period had concluded and could not be extended. Planning Commission had the option to direct staff to recirculate the document for a new public comment period, which would require resubmission to the State Clearinghouse and an additional 30-day review period, as stipulated by the California Public Resources Code.

The MND Declaration is Insufficient and Lacks Cumulative Analysis The appeal states that the conclusions in the MND are inadequate. Ms. Chapman says that cumulative impacts have not been considered; there will be many effects on the residents of the Terraces with regard to traffic, safety, and aesthetics; and that traffic has not been studied.

The MND explains that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, any project which is consistent with the development densities established by zoning, a Community Plan, or a General Plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (General Plan EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, waste disposal, and other issue areas. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designations examined in the 2035 General Plan EIR, and thus the Initial Study focuses on effects particular to the specific project site, impacts which were not analyzed within the EIR, and impacts which may require revisiting due to substantial new information. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation; therefore, the cumulative impacts analysis in the certified General Plan EIR encapsulates any cumulatively considerable impacts of the project. Additionally, the MND does include a project-level evaluation of traffic, public services, and aesthetics, and found that these issue areas have less than significant impacts. The appeal fails to identify how the impact conclusions are inadequate, and it does not elaborate on how the appellant believes the project will exceed the City’s adopted thresholds of significance.

The Transportation Section of the MND is Inadequate, and a Site Specific Study is Needed
The appeal identifies subsections c) and d) of the Transportation section of the MND, disagreeing with the conclusion that impacts would be less than significant. Ms. Chapman states that there is a dangerous intersection at Sunrise, and that the project increases complexity of the traffic pattern with the various uses. She also believes that there is the potential to impact emergency access and states that City codes and standards were not considered or incorporated into the project.

The comment provided on the impact conclusions are noted; however, only anecdotal statements are provided, and without context to any adopted thresholds of significance. As stated in the Planning Commission report, the proposed project has been reviewed by the Development Services – Engineering Division as well as the Fire Department to ensure that the proposed project complies with City standards. Each project is individually evaluated during the entitlement review process, and the site was found to be consistent with the existing land use and no special circumstances warranting a site-specific traffic study were identified. To further explain how traffic and safety impacts are analyzed, a summary of the City’s evaluation process is provided below.

Traffic Demand
The City relies on software program called a Travel Demand Model (TDM) to study traffic levels and travel patterns throughout the city, as well as within specific geographic areas called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). Model results are then evaluated using the standards established in the City of Roseville General Plan, including information on the relevant land uses, Level of Service (LOS) policy, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policy, and other TDM inputs and outputs. These policies can be found in the General Plan Land Use and Circulation elements, as well as in Appendix A – Implementation Measures, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and associated appendices.

The TDM program utilizes a vast set of input data, including existing and future land use conditions, roadway networks, intersection configurations, traffic signal phasing and timing, and other key data to model traffic flow and behavior. Current traffic count data and other existing land use data are used to calibrate the model outputs, and future development forecasts are then input for the software to develop the future traffic model. As part of the modeling process, the TDM software performs a series of calculations to determine the number of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by each trip. Model outputs include projections of traffic volumes on major roads, peak hour turning movements volumes at key intersections, and citywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics needed for emissions forecasts and environmental impact analysis.

Traffic impacts predicted by the modeling software are then used to identify roadway capacity improvements and congestion reduction plans necessary to maintain the City’s roadway Level of Service (LOS) policy.

Projects which are consistent with the General Plan land use designation are first reviewed at the TAZ level to determine whether additional study is warranted. There are over 500 TAZs in the city’s traffic model. The proposed project at 705 Sunrise Avenue is located in TAZ 92, which extends north to include the Centerpoint Community Church on Coloma Street, south to Linda Creek, including the office complex north of the creek, and is bound by Sunrise Ave on the west and stops short of the residential development to the east.

To review projects for consistency with the TDM, staff reviews the number of units allocated to each model TAZ (the model capacity) against the number of existing units already developed in the TAZ. This is to ensure there is adequate capacity in the TAZ for any new development. The model uses generalized land use categories and average trip rates established during model calibration.

For TAZ 92, the TDM includes the following land use assumptions:
·

200 multi-family dwelling units (typical apartments)
·

6,000 SF of Retail
·

76,000 SF of Office
·

60,000 SF of Church.

The existing development in TAZ 92 includes:
·

200 Age Restricted/Convalescent units
·

2,069 SF of Retail
·

52,020 SF of Office
·

67,788 SF of Church
Variances between projected units and developed units are normal, and the Projected and Existing data above demonstrates that there is remaining capacity in TAZ 92 to accommodate the proposed 7,300 SF office building project.

Safety Evaluation
The appeal letter and comments presented at the Planning Commission hearing indicate that residents of the Terraces are concerned with perceived safety issues at the Sunrise Av. driveway, stating that there have been several accidents in this location. An Engineering Traffic Study (TR202310), completed in July 2023, reviewed the accident history on Sunrise Avenue between Coloma Way and Cirby Way, which includes the subject driveway. That traffic study concluded that the three (3) year historical accident rate was comparable to the expected rate for similar roadways. The study found that “no significant safety issues were identified that would require Engineering modifications” and no further action was recommended. Subsequently, an Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary (speed zone survey) completed on October 17, 2024 analyzed the same segment of Sunrise Avenue. The Summary noted “Vehicles entering and exiting numerous commercial driveways and residential side streets…” while also documenting the 3-year historical accident rate at that time was lower than expected for similar roadways.

The appeal and public comments also included concerns that the proposed project would impede emergency access. Engineering staff recently coordinated with Roseville Fire staff to determine if there were any public safety access concerns at this location and Fire staff reported there were none. City records indicate there were 336 calls for service in 2024, which is just less than one (1) emergency vehicle trip per day. Even if emergency access were requested during peak hour traffic, the drive-isle at this location is 30 feet wide (similar to a typical residential roadway) which is enough for motorists to pull to the side of the roadway and allow sufficient clearance for emergency vehicles to pass in the center.

Per the TDM, this segment of Sunrise Avenue currently carries 37,000 vehicles per day (Average Daily Traffic (ADT). This equates to approximately 3,700 vehicles in the PM peak hour, which is typically the busiest traffic hour of the day. The proposed project (at full occupancy and based on ITE dental office trip rates) is anticipated to add less than 30 vehicles to this existing traffic volume during the PM peak hour. Since both the ingress and egress movements of a vehicle constitute a trip, this equates to approximately 15 vehicles entering and leaving the site during the PM peak hour. For perspective, this equates to approximately one (1) additional vehicle every two (2) minutes either entering or leaving the project site.

In conclusion, staff evaluated traffic impacts for the proposed Sunrise Office project within the overall TAZ, as well as at site access level. As previously stated in the Planning Commission staff report and as shown in the evaluation above, the proposed project is clearly within the anticipated land use and intensity level for the site. This means the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Additionally, the evaluation confirms that that the surrounding roadway infrastructure and signalized intersections are adequate to handle the additional traffic load. From a site access standpoint, recent traffic studies show that the accidents rates along the frontage of the project and project driveway are consistent with anticipated rates for the volume of cars utilizing the roadway. The existing driveway width can accommodate three (3) vehicles for ingress/egress, allowing emergency response to force vehicles to the side if necessary. Engineering staff confirmed with Roseville Fire that they have not had any issues to date accessing or egressing from this site, further validating engineering’s analysis of the proposed project. Given the approximately 37,000 vehicles a day traveling on Sunrise Ave, the trips already utilizing the site driveway, the accident history for the area, and the Fire Department’s assessment of adequate site access for emergency response, staff determined that an additional 15 vehicles entering and leaving the site during the peak hour would not significantly impact the project site or the surrounding area.

Parking Study Should be Required and a Parking Variance Considered The appeal includes a request to consider a parking variance, stating that the project could be redesigned to require less parking to preserve the trees. It also states that there is a surplus of parking for the existing Carbon Health building on the subject parcel, and that a survey of “desired services” for the Terraces facility could reduce parking issues by reducing the need for parking.

The proposed 7,300 square foot building will support an approximately 4,300 square foot dental office and approximately 3,000 square feet of future medical tenants.. The Zoning Ordinance parking regulations for general medical services require a parking ratio of one (1) parking space per 150 square feet of building space. A family dental office is a higher turnover medical service, and staff would not support a parking reduction for this type of use. Without any information regarding the future 3,000 square feet of future medical tenants, staff must assume that these too will be high turnover medical services and will need to provide the parking ratio required in the Zoning Ordinance. In order to support a parking reduction entitlement, staff requires a detailed business operation plan and data to show that a particular development site will not result in off-site parking impacts.

In reviewing the proposed project, it is known that parking is not available along Sunrise Av., nor is it available along the entry road providing access to both the Sunrise Office Center and the Terraces of Roseville. It was also noted during the Planning Commission hearing by residents and a Planning Commissioner, that limited parking is available within the Terraces facility. The design of the project site is further constrained by the location of the Floodway, the need to provide parking for both the new medical office and the existing 4,300 square foot medical office building, and to maintain the 11 existing parking spaces on the site reserved for the Terraces of Roseville.

All of these factors make it unadvisable, and outside of the typical process, to support a parking reduction.

The parking surplus observed by the appellant, is a result of the fact that the Carbon Health building was originally constructed as a restaurant (IHOP), which have a more intensive parking requirement (one (1) space per 100 square feet of building area). The proposed 7,300 square foot medical office and the existing 4,700 square foot medical office will have a total parking requirement of 80 parking spaces, which are being provided with the proposed project. While the Tree Preservation Ordinance encourages retention of protected trees wherever possible, it was found to be infeasible for the three (3) identified trees as is evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report. The constraints mentioned above influenced the design of the proposed project, limiting the design of the parking area while maintaining city standards for parking spaces, vehicle, and emergency access. Adequate mitigation for the removal of the trees is provided and further detailed in the staff report.

Access Path for Sewer Along Creek Needs Improvement
The appeal requests that the sewer access path on the northern portion of the subject property be improved to meet ADA accessibility requirements for use by seniors at the Terraces. While there is a public utility easement for access to the sewer pipe in this location, the access road is on private property and is not designated as a public path for pedestrian use. It should be noted that a designated sidewalk and ADA pathway currently exist along the primary access road to Sunrise Av. There is no nexus to require such improvements or to allow access to the sewer maintenance road to offsite users.

Conclusion
The proposed Sunrise Office Center project has been evaluated with the City of Roseville General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Community Design Guidelines, and has been found to be consistent with the standards applicable to the project. Staff has evaluated and addressed the concerns presented by neighbors, as well as the appellants of the proposed project, as discussed in the Planning Commission Memorandum and this Council Communication. Based on the evaluation included herein, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit for the Sunrise Office Center project.

Correspondence Subsequent to Appeal

This Council Communication includes correspondence received subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The majority of the information contained in this correspondence is discussed above, but is included for the Council's review and to ensure a compete record is provided to the public.

Attachment 4 is a letter from the Applicant responding to the appeal and providing additional clarity regarding the project. Attachment 5 included various emails between the appellant (Jennifer Chapman) and City staff on a variety of matters. Attachment 6 includes a chain of emails between the appellant (Jennifer Chapman) and City staff regarding various issues associated with traffic and how the City studies the transportation system.

Request to Refund Appeal Fee
The applicant has requested that the City Council direct staff to refund the appeal fee. The basis for this request is that the request for an extension (of the environmental document public comment period) was reasonable and timely.

As described above, the request to extend the comment period for the environmental document was made 20 minutes before the deadline and after the project had been publicly noticed and placed on a published agenda for the Planning Commission. Staff made the Planning Commission aware of the request to extend the environmental document public comment period and the Commission determined not to extend the public comment period.

Staff is unaware of a previous instance where the City council waived or refunded an appeal fee.

The appeal fee is based on a time and motion study and is currently set to cover a portion of the City Clerk’s Office administrative costs regarding noticing and agenda preparation. The appeal process and appeal fee are important components of providing due process for the applicant and appellant.

The City’s appeal fee is among the lowest in South Placer County. For comparison, the appeal fees in neighboring jurisdictions are; City of Roseville at $1,735.55 ($1,685 plus the 3% technology fee ($50.55), City of Rocklin at $4,682, City of Lincoln at $3,000 and Placer County, which requires a $688 initial deposit followed by billing for time and materials.

For all these reasons, staff recommends the City Council reject the request to refund the appeal fee.

FISCAL IMPACT
The development of the site with a 7,300-square-foot medical office building and associated site improvements will not result in negative impacts to the City's General Fund. Costs associated with site development are borne by the applicant.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the environmental effects of the project. The document was released for a 30-day public comment period, which began on December 6, 2024 and ended on January 6, 2024.

The document
analyzed the potential for environmental impacts due to project implementation and determined that potentially significant impacts related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.

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

Respectfully Submitted,
Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 25-060
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2.1 - Planning Commission Report, Attachments, and Memorandum Attachment 2.2 - Planning Commission Report, Attachments, and Memorandum Attachment 3 - Appeal Letter
Attachment 4 - Applicant Response to Appeal Letter
Attachment 5 - Chapman Correspondence
Attachment 6 - Chapman Correspondence Regarding Traffic Correspondence Received After Staff Report Completion
RESOLUTION NO. 25-060
DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE JANUARY 9, 2025 APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, ADOPTING THE SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER INITIAL
STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2024120281) AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING THE FOUR

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND APPROVING THE

DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, ADOPTING THE TWO FINDINGS OF FACT AND

APPROVING THE FLOOD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND ADOPTING THE TWO

FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING THE TREE PERMIT
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Sunrise Office Center project located at 705 Sunrise Ave. within the Infill area of the City; and WHEREAS, the Sunrise Office Center project is a 7,300-square-foot medical office building which will be constructed with associated parking, lighting, and other site improvements; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4 Yes – 2 No – 1 Absent to approve a Design Review Permit to allow construction of the Sunrise Office Center project after finding that the project was consistent with the following four (4) Findings of Fact:

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

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

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

4. The design of the public services, as approved, including but not limited to, trash enclosures and service equipment, are located so as not to detract from the appearance of the site, and are screened appropriately and effectively using construction materials, colors, and landscaping that are harmonious with the site and the building designs; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4 Yes – 2 No – 1 Absent to approve a Flood Encroachment Permit for the Sunrise Office Center project after finding that the project was consistent with the following two (2) Findings of Fact:

1. The flood encroachment will be constructed and will be operated in compliance with all standards and regulations set forth in Chapter 19.18 of this title; and

2. The flood encroachment will not result in increased exposure of life and property to flood related hazards; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4 Yes – 2 No – 1 Absent to approve a Tree Permit for Sunrise Office Center project after finding that the project was consistent with the following two (2) Findings of Fact:

1. Approval of the Tree Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and approval of the Tree Permit is consistent with the provisions of Chapter

19.66. 2. Measures have been incorporated into the project or permit to mitigate impacts to remaining trees or to provide replacements for trees removed; and WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission’s approval, Jennifer Chapman, on behalf of the residents of the Terraces of Roseville and Roseville Senior Community Association, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval based on concerns related to noticing requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); significant impacts related to traffic, provision of emergency services, and tree removals; and incomplete analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission staff report; and WHEREAS, a review of the proposed site layout and building design has found that the Sunrise Office Center project complies with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Sunrise Office Center project is also a principally permitted use in the Planned Development (PD52) zone and the property owner has the right to develop the site with approval of the requested Design Review Permit; and
WHEREAS, development activity proposed within the Floodway (FW) zone was found to be consistent with the standards and regulations outlined in Chapter 19.18 of the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the requested Flood Encroachment Permit; and WHEREAS, preservation of the protected trees proposed for removal was found to be infeasible due to development constraints on the project site, and the trees were adequately mitigated with the approval of the Tree Permit; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the project to evaluate potential environmental impacts, and determined that potentially significant impacts related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation; and
WHEREAS, after holding a hearing on March 5, 2025, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Sunrise Office Center project because it is a principally permitted use, because the Finding of Facts for the requested entitlements can be made, and because the project complies with CEQA; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the four (4) Findings of Fact for the Design Review Permit and approve the Design Review Permit subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Flood Encroachment Permit and approve the Flood Encroachment Permit subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Tree Permit and approve the Tree Permit subject to six (6) conditions of approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Roseville hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 9, 2025 approval of the Sunrise Office Center project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the four (4) Findings of Fact for the Design Review Permit are hereby adopted and the Design Review Permit is hereby approved, subject to sixty- five (65) conditions of approval; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Flood Encroachment Permit are hereby adopted and the Flood Encroachment Permit is hereby approved, subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Tree Permit are hereby adopted and the Tree Permit is hereby approved, subject to six (6) conditions of approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this 5th day of March, 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

_______________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

______________________________________
City Clerk
CC ATTACHMENT 1
705 Sunrise Ave – Vicinity Map

Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2025
Prepared by: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1: Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812

REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 sf general medical office building and a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. The project also includes a Tree Permit to remove three (3) protected Valley oak trees.

Applicant-Robert Wood, Millenium Planning and Engineering Owner – Kurdi Management, LLC

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

1. Adopt the Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact and approve the Design Review Permit subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and

3. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Flood Encroachment Permit subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and

4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Tree Permit subject to six (6) conditions of approval.

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

BACKGROUND
The 2.63-acre project site is located at 701 Sunrise Av., on the east side of Sunrise Av., approximately 170 feet south of the intersection of Sunrise Av. and Coloma Wy. The parcel is in the PD52 (Planned Development) and FW (Floodway) zoning districts and has BP (Business Professional) and OS/FP (Open Space/Floodplain) General Plan designations. The site is partially developed with a parking lot and an office building, and a portion of Cirby Creek traverses the northern portion of the property. To the nort h of the site are additional office buildings, a senior living residential complex to the east; Sunrise Av. and condominiums to the west; and a drive-thru coffee kiosk to the south.

The project site is located in a Planned Development zone (PD52), which was adopted by the city Council in April of 1978. On September 21, 1995, the City of Roseville Design Review Commission approved a Design Review Permit (DRP) to construct a 5,240 square foot IHOP restaurant, as well as a Tree Permit to allow encroachment into the protected zones of four (4) native oak trees. An Initial Study and Environmental Checklist was prepared to evaluate the project, and a Negative Declaration was adopted prior to action on the project (International House of Pancakes Negative Declaration (UP 94- 38; TP 95- 11), Adopted September 21, 1995). A Building Permit to construct the project was issued in August 1997.

The proposed project includes a request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 square foot medical office building and associated site improvements such as additional parking area, lighting, and a trash enclosure. The project also requests a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. A Tree Permit is requested for the removal of

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 2 of 21

three (3) protected Valley oak trees totaling 94 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). A total of six (6) trees will be removed as a part of the project.

Figure 1: Project Site

EVALUATION – DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
The DRP evaluation of the project is based on the applicable development standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the design standards of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Section

19.78.60(B) of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires that four findings be made to approve or conditionally approve a DRP. The four findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.

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

The project site is approximately 2.63 acres in size, and partially developed with a 4,700 square foot medical office building (formerly an IHOP restaurant) and an existing parking area. The undeveloped areas within the Project area are primarily comprised of non -native annual grassland, including non- native grasses and herbaceous species. Interior live oak ( Quercus wislizenii) and Valley oak (Quercus lobata) are mixed in with the non-native grassland areas.

Project Site
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 3 of 21

Cirby Creek traverses the northern portion of the subject parcel. The creek has a perennial flow in a southeast to northwestern direction before merging with Linda Creek, and eventually discharging into Dry Creek just east of Riverside Dr. The upland areas along the top of both banks include clusters of small to medium Interior Live oak and Valley oak trees. Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat are separated from the project area of disturbance by a tubular steel fence and a walking path. While six (6) trees are proposed for removal more interior to the site due to conflicts with proposed improvements, the riparian area will remain undisturbed.

Figure 2: Site Plan

In order to make beneficial use of the site for development, the site will be graded to create a level pad for the building, a drainage pattern which directs stormwater to the existing system, and finish boundary

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 4 of 21

grades which can be appropriately tied to the adjacent development. The preliminary grading plan has been evaluated by the Development Services Department, and the conditions of approval are recommended to ensure compliance with City of Roseville Improvement Standards.

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

Commercial development guidelines are included in the CDG. The guidelines include recommendations for site planning, circulation, architecture, and other aspects of site development. The following discussion provides an evaluation with respect to the applicable design guidelines in the CDG.

Site Planning and Building Siting: The project consists of a 7,300-square-foot medical office building. As currently proposed, the project can accommodate three (3) tenant suites, with 4,289 square feet allocated to a dentist’s office. While the other potential tenants are currently unknown, the project was evaluate d with the assumption that these could be other medical uses. The proposed building is two levels, with the upper level accommodating the tenant space and the lower level containing unoccupied crawl space engineered for flood resistance. The building will be placed on a slope, with a height of 30 feet facing towards the west (Sunrise Av.), gradually reducing in height to 20 feet to the east (the Terraces of Roseville). The average height of the building is approximately 25 feet.

The proposed building is located as far from the Cirby Creek riparian area and the FW zone as the parcel can accommodate, and is in line with the existing office building on the site. The building is approximately 200 feet from the western property boundary; 30 feet from the eastern property boundary; 30 feet from the southern property boundary (located outside of the 30’ access easement and 10’ public utility easement), and approximately 143 feet from the tubular steel fence that separates the project area from Cirby Creek. The parking area is approximately 35 feet from the fence.

Access and Circulation: The proposed project will utilize the existing access road and driveway off Sunrise Av., which currently serves the medical office building at 701 Sunrise and the Terraces of Roseville (a senior living facility) at 707 Sunrise. This access road allows both right and left turns onto Sunrise Av. The project will extend the existing parking area to provide additional spaces for the new use, which will extend the on-site circulation. The project also includes pedestrian connectivity from the newly proposed building to the existing sidewalk along the access road and Sunrise Av. The proposed access and parking area have been reviewed by the Development Services and Fire Department s and were found to be consistent with standards.

Parking: The overall site will include 80 parking spaces, which will serve both the existing 4,700-square- foot medical office building and the new 7,300- square-foot medical office building. Per the Zoning Ordinance, medical offices require one (1) parking space per 150 square feet of office. With a total of 12,000 square feet, this results in a minimum parking requirement of 80 spaces. Therefore, the proposed number of parking spaces is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirement.

It is noted that there are 11 parking spaces located to the east of the proposed building which are reserved for use by the Terraces of Roseville, although they are located on the subject parcel. These parking spaces are not included in the minimum parking calculation and remain marked as “reserved”.

Landscaping and Lighting: The CDG recommends using landscaping throughout the site, placing trees to provide shading for sidewalks and public spaces, using native or drought -tolerant plants where INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 5 of 21

possible, and providing a minimum of 50-percent shading (based on 15-year maturity) over the parking spaces. The proposed landscaping plan is included as Exhibit F. The project includes landscape planters along the perimeter and within the parking area. Several trees are included within the landscaping areas to provide shade on sidewalks and pathways. Selected species include Valley oak, Interior Live oak, Chinese Pistache, and Crape Myrtle trees. The proposed landscaping plans show 51.5-percent parking lot shade coverage, exceeding the minimum requirement. The understory plants include a variety of shrubs and groundcover to provide a visually engaging streetscape and seasonal interest.

The project includes lighting standards for the parking areas, and the conditions of approval ensure that a minimum of one foot -candle of lighting in the parking areas and 0.5 foot -candles of lighting in the pedestrian walkways are provided. Light standards will be shielded to ensure there is no off-site glare.

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

The proposed building is approximately 30 feet tall at its highest point, with a lower, unoccupied level and the upper level for the tenant spaces. The building design utilizes varying height flat roof forms for visual interest, with a covered walkway t hat extends around the building. The materials include stucco in contrasting shades of gray -brown, stone veneer, and metal accents. The western elevation also prominently features metal grates along the lower level, which will allow water to pass through in a flood event. The color palate is harmonious with the adjacent medical office building, as well as the senior living facility to the east. Architectural features and details are applied to all elevations. As proposed, the elevations are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the CDG for commercial and office buildings.

Figure 3: Elevations

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 6 of 21

Figure 4: Rendering of Existing and Proposed Office Buildings

All trash containers will be screened within trash enclosures. The enclosures will surround the three non- accessible sides of the trash container, and will be surrounded by landscaping. All other service equipment will be screened from public view, consistent with the conditions of approval.

EVALUATION – FLOOD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
The City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires a Flood Encroachment Permit (FEP) for any permitted uses which may involve fill or storage of materials or equipment in the Floodway Zone District (Section

19.18.040.G) subject to the Floodway Standards set forth in Section 17.18.040.I. Two findings must be made to approve a FEP (Section 19.78.060.E). The two required findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the findings.

1. The flood encroachment will be constructed and will be operated in compliance with all standards and regulations set forth in Chapter 19.18 of this title; and

2. The flood encroachment will not result in increased exposure of life and property to flood related hazards.

The intent of the Floodway (FW) and Floodway Fringe (FF) standards are to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, as well as to minimize losses from flooding. The northern portion of the property is located within the FW zone district due to the presence of Cirby Creek. According to the FW district, any fill or permitted uses or structures which do not allow for human habitation are permitted subject to the issuance of a FEP. A portion of the new parking area will be located within the FW zone, necessitating the FEP request.

FW and FF Standards: According to Section 19.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, there are General Standards, Standards for Structures, requirements for storage of material or equipment, and other applicable requirements outlined for development in the FW and FF zone districts. A llowable uses shall be based on the reasonable assumption that the use will be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and provide adequate drainage to reduce flood hazards.

There are several standards outlined for structures in the FW and FF zones. No structures that are designed for human residence, for example, are permitted in the FW zone. Additionally, structures shall

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 7 of 21

have low flood damage potential; shall be constructed (wherever possible) parallel to the direction of flood flow; and shall be firmly anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement during a flood event. Service and utility facilities, such as heating and electrical equipment, shall be constructed at least one foot above base flood elevation and/or shall be floodproofed. All construction shall be with materials resistant to flood damage.

Criteria for Development Approval: According to Section 19.18.040.J, the Approving Authority shall consider all relevant factors in the FW and FF zone district, including:
• The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments.
• The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. • The proposed water supply and sanitation systems, and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions.
• The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage, and the effect of such damage on the individual owner.
• The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. • The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. • The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. • The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
• The compatibility of the proposed use to the general plan and floodplain management program for the area.
• The safety and availability of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
• The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site.
• The compatibility of the proposed use with preservation of valuable fish and wildlife habitat. • Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this section.

The proposed project includes grading and the construction of a portion of the parking area within the FW zone, including utilities. No new structures which would inhibit flood flows are proposed in the FW zone. However, the entire site is located within a City floodplain, including both the existing and proposed medical office buildings.

Public Works – Floodplain Management reviewed the proposed project, and included several conditions (FEP Conditions 1-12) to ensure that the development would be appropriately constructed to minimize potential impacts. This includes locating the lowest floor elevation at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation (BFE) of 142 feet (NAVD 88 datum), as well as all of the building’s supporting mechanical equipment. Cross sections of the building, as well as the lower floor plan, show that the building w ill be designed so that all the occupied space will be above the BFE of 142 feet, and that grates will allow water to pass through the lower level of the building in a flood event. Materials used shall be resistant to flood damage, and the building will be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement.

The improvement plans for the project will be required to demonstrate that the development does not result in any off -site increase in water surface elevation, and a hydraulic study will be required to determine the effect of any floodplain encroachment. Additionally, appropriate permits with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) or adequate documentation demonstrating that these permits are not required will be provided by the project, and a deed restriction will be required to limit use of any parts of the structure which are below the BFE.

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 8 of 21

With the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the intent of the FF and FW zone districts and approval standards. This evaluation considered the 13 criteria outlined in Section

19.18.040.J and no conflicts with any of the relevant factors were identified.

EVALUATION – TREE PERMIT
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.66.030, a Tree Permit is required for any removal of native oak trees or for more than 20- percent encroachment into the dripline of a native oak tree. The required findings to approve a Tree Permit are in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation.

1. Approval of the Tree Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and approval of the Tree Permit is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 19.66.

2. Measures have been incorporated into the project or permit to mitigate impacts to remaining trees or to provide replacements for trees removed.

Greg Matuzak , California Department of Fish and Wildlife certified biologist of Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC, prepared an arborist report and tree inventory for the project in March of 2024 (Exhibit G). The report includes a tree inventory summary that identifies t hree (3) protected oak trees, with 94 aggregate diameter inches, located in the project area. The protected trees are located within the proposed parking area for the project. An additional two (2) Valley oaks will be removed, but they are under the size threshold of six (6) inches DBH to be protected by the City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance. One non-native tree is proposed for removal. All trees were determined to be in good health by the arborist report. The project is subject to the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and mitigation for these trees will be completed consistent with the Ordinance.

The Zoning Ordinance provides criteria for evaluating a Tree Permit request, including identification of unique topography or other property features, overall health and age of the trees, whether or not any alternative locations for the work are available, and the soil stability/erosion potential of the work area.

The parcel has several features which influenced project design and necessitated the removal of the trees. As previously described in this report, portions of the northern end of the site are located within the Floodway (FW) zone, which reduces the buildable area of the parcel. Parking areas, however, are an acceptable accessory use within the FW zone. Additionally, the site already has a constructed parking area for the medical office building, and the proposed design will create a functional connection to the existing circulation pattern of the site. For these reasons, combined with a need to meet the minimum parking standard to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, preservation of the trees through site design was found to be infeasible.

According to the Oak Tree Planting and Replacement Program outlined in Section 19.66.070 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Approving Authority may condition a Tree Permit that includes removal to replace trees in kind. Per the program requirements, a 15-gallon tree will replace one inch DBH of the removed tree, a 24-inch box tree may replace two inches, and a 36-inch box tree will replace three inches. Of the replacement trees, 50-percent may be non-native species. A total of 94 inches of tree require replacement due to the removal of the three (3) protected Valley oak trees. The landscaping plan propose s the replanting of six (6) Valley oaks and one (1) interior live oak, all in 24- inch boxes, allowing for the mitigation of 14 inches. An additional 18 non -native, 24 -inch box trees will be planted, allowing an additional 36 inches of mitigation. The remaining 44 inches can be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee.

The Tree Permit includes all of the standard conditions of approval, which includes a requirement to follow all recommendations in the Arborist Report. With the required conditions of approval and the INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 9 of 21

proposed replacement planting, the requested removal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Measures have been incorporated into the project plans to mitigate impacts.

Figure 5: Tree Removal Exhibit

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of 36” Oak
18” Oak
40” Oak
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 10 of 21

Neighborhood Associations. During project review, staff received one phone call from a neighbor, inquiring about the project and asking for a copy of the plans. No additional comments were received. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on December 27, 2024, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no comments have been received.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analyses, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested entitlements.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the environmental effects of the project. The document was released for a 30-day public comment period, which began on December 6, 2024 and ended on January 6, 2024. The document analyzed the potential for environmental impacts due to project implementation and determined that potentially significant impacts related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included as Exhibit A.

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

1. Adopt the Sunrise Office Center Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Design Review Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812 subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and

3. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Flood Encroachment Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812 subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and

4. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Tree Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812 subject to six (6 ) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FILE # PL24-0812

1. This Design Review Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from January 9, 2025 and if not effectuated shall expire on January 9, 2027. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond January 9, 2028. (Planning)

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

3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 11 of 21

The project shall be addressed as 705 Sunrise Av. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s) to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for building/suite addressing. (Business Services) Engineering

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

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

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

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

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

8. Parking lot design shall conform to the City’s design standards, including the following minimum standards for parking stalls:
a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6 -inch raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
b. Standard – 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact – 9 feet x 16 feet; Accessible – 14 feet x 18 feet (a 9-foot- wide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be Accessible van accessible – 17 feet x 18 feet (9- foot-wide parking area plus an 8- foot-wide loading area). (Planning)
c. An 'exterior routes of travel' site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross -slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signage, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B -208.2 of the CBC.
ii. Accessible Parking spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Chapter 11 of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Sections 11B-206 and 11B-208. (Building)
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 12 of 21

iv. Recent updates to CBC Sec. 705.1.2.2.2.1 require curb ramps to have an overall surface width of 6’6”. The language reads as follows:
“Where the turning space has one entrance/exit point other than the sloped ramp segments, detectable warnings shall be 36 inches (914 mm) deep, as measured perpendicular to the curb, and the turning space shall provide minimum 36 inches (914 mm) wide porti on without detectable warnings to allow pedestrian travel in the direction of the sidewalk without travelling over the detectable warnings."
v. Planning of EVCS at accessible EVCS is crucial for a successful accessible site. Choice of EVCS model and location may greatly affect site layout. Please give special consideration to the following requirements of CBC Sec.’s 11B-812.5;

1. Accessible EVCS that serve a particular building or facility shall be located on an accessible route to an accessible entrance.

2. Vehicle spaces and access aisles shall be designed so that persons using them are not required to travel behind vehicle spaces or parking spaces other than the vehicle space in which their vehicle has been left to charge.

3. EVCS shall be designed so accessible routes are not obstructed by cables or other elements.

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

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

11. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:
a. The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines; backflow preventers; fire department connections; and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
b. The tree plantings in the parking lot shall be designed to provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage after 15 years. (Planning)
c. At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning) d. The landscape plan shall comply with the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)
e. Landscaping adjacent to the Cirby Creek riparian area shall consist of California native, drought- tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. (Open Space, Planning) f. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the Electric Department's Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments "Specification for Commercial Construction." (Electric) INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 13 of 21

g. Slopes within landscape planters shall be no more than 3:1. A two-foot flat bench located at back- of-walk shall be included in the landscape area to slow or allow absorption of nuisance run- off from the planters. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)
h. All landscaping shall conform to the standards of crime prevention through environmental design with the intent to create natural surveillance, controlling access, and territorial reinforcement to property boundaries. (Police)

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

The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering) INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 14 of 21

20. Bike parking and electric vehicle parking spaces shall be provided per the California Green Building Standards. Carpool spaces shall also be provided per the City of Roseville’s Transportation System Management (TSM) Ordinance, R.M.C Chapter 11.33. Bike rack/locker design and designated parking space markings and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation. (Alternative Transportation, Building).

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

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

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

24. Improvement plans shall show the Cirby Creek riparian area boundary and label it as a protected area. The Pre-Construction meeting shall address the presence of the protected area , the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the area. During grading and construction the protected area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the protected area from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the protected area, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering), Development Services Department, Planning)

25. Prior to construction within any phase of the project, high visibility temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the parcel adjacent to the Cirby Creek riparian area. Fencing shall be maintained daily until project completion. ( Engineering), Development Services Department, Planning)

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

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

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

28. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profile- INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 15 of 21

view where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility. Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

29. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

30. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards and shall include:
a. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. b. Water and sewer shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions of approval.
c. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather, 10-ton vehicle access unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Environmental Utilities)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. Lighting within the parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot -candle, INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 16 of 21

and 0.5 foot-candle of light, respectively. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant. (Planning, Police)

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

The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning, Police)

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

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

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

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

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

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

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 17 of 21

c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

44. All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Engineering))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. There will be two points of connection for the transformer providing power to the project:
a. The new transformer for the site will need to connect to the existing transformer located near the southeast corner of the existing building at 701 Sunrise. b. The new transformer for the site will need to connect to the existing junction box located 200 feet south of the new site in the existing parking area.

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 18 of 21

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

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

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

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

58. The required width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and vertical clearances established by the Fire Code shall be maintained at all times during construction. Closure of accesses for fire apparatus by gates, barricades and other devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 19 of 21

building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include the following:
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FLOOD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FILE # PL24-0812

1. The approval of this Flood Encroachment Permit shall run with the Design Review Permit and Tree Permit. (Planning)

2. The base flood elevation (BFE) at the project location is 142.0 (NAVD 88 datum). The proposed building shall have the lowest floor elevation and all supporting equipment at least two (2) feet above the BFE.

This requirement includes all of the structure’s support equipment such as, but not limited to, electrical, heating, ventilation ductworks, plumbing and air conditioning equipment, electrical outlets, hot water heater, electrical/gas meters and other service facilities that could be damaged if submerged under water. The structure shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the com ponents during conditions of flooding. (PW – Floodplain)

3. The proposed building shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (PW – Floodplain)

4. All building materials lower than 2 feet above the BFE shall be resistant to flood damage and building materials shall be approved by the City of Roseville prior to the start of construction. (PW – Floodplain)

5. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed with a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above lowest grade.

Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. (PW – Floodplain)

6. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement and support equipment, shall be certified by submittal of the current version of a FEMA Elevation Certificate by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and verified by the Floodplain Administrator. (PW – Floodplain)

7. With the submittal of improvement plans to the City, the applicant shall demonstrate that proposed improvements do not result in any off -site increase in water surface elevation. A hydraulic study is required to determine the effect of any floodplain encroachment. A ‘Compliance Statement’ (a sample is provided within the Roseville Design Standards) must be submitted to the City stating that the proposed improvements shown on the plans are accurately reflected in the approved hydraulic study. (PW – Floodplain)
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 20 of 21

8. With the submittal of improvement plans to the City, if the proposed improvements result in change to the floodplain, the applicant should demonstrate that application has been made and accepted by FEMA for the processing of a Letter of Map Revision ( LOMR) to revise the floodplain maps for the floodplain encroaching onto the site. Note that as of July 2023, FEMA has suspended the processing of all LOMR applications based on fill (LOMR-F) until further notice. (PW – Floodplain)

9. Prior to occupancy, a deed restriction shall be recorded with the property that limits the use of the part of the structure that is below the base flood elevation to parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. (PW – Floodplain)

10. All stored materials or equipment in areas subject to flooding shall be kept anchored or otherwise restrained to prevent them from being carried downstream by floodwaters, and the storage of flammable, toxic, or explosive materials is prohibited. (PW – Floodplain)

11. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to, a Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) Encroachment Permit, or provide documentation to the City indicating CVFPB has reviewed the proposed work and determined that an Encroachment Permit is not needed. (PW – Floodplain)

12. The contractor may be required remove all construction materials and/or other appurtenances that are within the City’s Regulatory Floodplain during the flood season from November 1 through April 15. (PW – Floodplain)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT FILE #PL24-0812

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS OR ANY CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE

1. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report(s) (Exhibit G) are incorporated by reference into these conditions, except as modified herein. (Planning)

2. Trees listed in Exhibit G are approved for removal with this tree permit. All other native oak trees shall remain in place. Trees to be removed shall be clearly marked in the field and inspected by Planning Staff prior to removal. Removal of the trees shall be performed by or under the supervision of a certified arborist. (Planning)

3. The developer shall be responsible for the replacement of the total number of inches proposed for removal prior to any tree removal. The total number of inches for this project is 94 inches. Mitigation must be provided prior to tree removal unless otherwise approved in the tree replacement plan or in these conditions. (Planning)

4. A $10,000 cash deposit or bond (or other means of security provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division) shall be posted to ensure the replacement of trees during construction. The cash deposit or bond shall be posted in a form approved by the City Attorney. Each occurrence of a violation on any condition regarding tree replacement shall result in forfeiture of all or a portion of the cash deposit or bond. (Planning)

5. A violation of any of the conditions of this Tree Permit is a violation of the Roseville Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.74) and the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 19.66). Penalties for violation of any of the conditions of approval may include forfeiture of the bond, suspension or revocation of the permit, payment of restitution, and criminal penalties. (Planning)

INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, 705 Sunrise Av.; PL24-0812 Planning Commission – January 9, 2025 – Page 21 of 21
B:\Development Services\Planning Division\2025\PC\01.09\Sunrise Office Center\PL24-0812, 705 Sunrise, INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center, 01 Staff Report.docx

6. The approval of this Tree Permit shall run with the Design Review Permit and Flood Encroachment Permit. (Planning)

Exhibits
A. Sunrise Office Center ISMND and MMRP
B. Site and Demolition Plan
C. Floor and Roof Plans
D. Grading and Utility Plans
E. Elevations
F. Lighting and Landscaping
G. Arborist Report

Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

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

Project Title/File#: INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center; PL#24-812 Project Location: 705 Sunrise Bl.; APN 470-010-043-000
Project Owner: Kurdi Management, LLC
Project Applicant: Robert E. Wood, Millenium Planning
Project Planner: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Project Description: Request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 sf general medical office building and a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. The project also includes a Tree Permit to remove three (3) protected Valley oak trees.

The project site is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5
Document Review and Availability: The public review and comment period begins on December 5, 2024 and ends on January 6, 2025. The Mitigated Negative Declaration may be reviewed during normal business hours (8:00 am to 4:00 pm) at the Planning Division offices, located at 311 Vernon Street. It may also be viewed online at http://www.roseville.ca.us/gov/development_services/planning/environmental_documents_n_pu blic_notices.asp. Written comments on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be submitted to Name, Planning Division, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678, and must be received no later than 5:00 pm on January 6, 2025.

This project will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City’s Planning Commission. At this hearing, t he Planning Commission will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated project entitlements. The tentative hearing date is January 9, 2024.

Dated: D
ecember 3, 2024
Mike Isom
Development Services Director
Publish: December 5, 2024

PC EXHIBIT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center; PL#24-812 Project Location: 705 Sunrise Bl., Roseville, Placer County; APN 470-010-043-000 Project Applicant: Kurdi Management, LLC (916) 479-3347; 400 Halliford Ct., Roseville, CA 95661
Property Owner: Robert E. Wood, Millenium Planning ; (530) 446-6765; 471 Sutton Way Suite 210, Grass Valley, CA 95945
Lead Agency Contact Person: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner - City of Roseville; (916) 7 46- 1347
Date: December 5, 2024
Project Description:

Request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 sf general medical office building and a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. The project also includes a Tree Permit to remove three (3) protected Valley oak trees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center, File # PL24-0812

Project Location: 701 Sunrise Av., on the east side of Sunrise Av., approximately 170 feet south of the intersection of Sunrise Av. and Coloma Wy.

Project Description: The project request includes a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 sf medical office building and a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. The project also includes a Tree Permit to remove three (3) protected Valley oak trees.

Project Applicant: Robert E. Wood, Millenium Planning & Engineering

Property Owner: Kurdi Management LLC

Lead Agency Contact: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner

This initial study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the above described project application. The document relies on p revious environmental documents (see Attachments) and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project. Where documents were submitted by consultants working for the applicant, City staff reviewed such documents in order to determine whether, based on their own professional judgment and expertise, staff found such documents to be credible and persuasive. Staff has only relied on documents that reflect their independent judgment, and has not accepted at face value representations made by consultants for the applicant.

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

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

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

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 2 of 46 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3

City of Roseville Mitigation Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards ……………………………. 4

Other Environmental Documents Relied Upon …………………………………………………….. 5

Explanation of Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................ 5

Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 6
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 7
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 9
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 11
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 16
VI. Energy ……………………………………………….. 18
VII. Geology and Soils ………………………………….. 19
VIII. Greenhouse Gases ………………………………….. 23
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 23
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 27
XI. Land Use and Planning ……………………………… 30
XII. Mineral Resources …………………………………… 31
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 31
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 33
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 34
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 35
XVII. Transportation ……………………………………… 36
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 37
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 41
XX. Wildfire ……………………………………………………. 43
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 44

Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 46

Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 3 of 46 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The 2.63-acre project site is located at 701 Sunrise Av., on the east side of Sunrise Av., approximately 170 feet south of the intersection of Sunrise Av. and Coloma Wy. The parcel is in the PD52 (Planned Development) and FW (Floodway) zoning districts and has BP (Business Professional) and OS/FP (Open Space/Floodplain) General Plan designations.

Background
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site PD52,
FW BP, OS/FP Office building, parking area, Cirby Creek, vacant area North FW OS/FP, PD52 Cirby Creek, office buildings
South PD52 BP Drive-thru coffee kiosk, vacant
East R3 HDR-39.2 Senior living complex
West R3 HDR-24.8 Sunrise Av., condominiums

The project site is located in a Planned Development zone (PD52), which was adopted by the City Council in April of 1978. On September 21, 1995, the City of Roseville Design Review Commission approved a Design Review Permit (DRP) to construct a 5,240 square foot IHOP restaurant, as well as a tree permit to allow encroachment into the protected zones of four (4) native oak trees. An Initial Study and Environmental Checklist was prepared to evaluate the project, and a Negative Declaration was adopted prior to action on the project (International House of Pancakes Negative Declaration (UP 94-38; TP 95-11), Adopted September 21, 1995). A Building Permit to construct the project was issued in August 1997.

Environmental Setting
The project site is approximately 2.63 acres in size, and partially developed with a 5,240 square foot office building (formerly an IHOP restaurant) and an existing parking area.

The majority of the undeveloped areas within the Project area are comprised of non- native annual grassland, including non- native grasses and herbaceous species. Interior live oak ( Quercus wislizenii) and Valley oak (Quercus lobata) are mixed in with the non-native grassland areas.

Cirby Creek traverses the northern portion of the subject parcel. The creek has a perennial flow in a southeast to northwestern direction before discharging into Dry Creek just east of Riverside Dr. Both sides of the creek have relatively steep banks, and the banks and riparian area include vegetation such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), red willow ( Salix laevigata), dock (Rumex sp.), Iris leaved rush ( Juncus xiphioides), and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata). The upland areas along the top of both banks include clusters of small to medium interior live oak and valley oak trees. Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat are separated from the project area of disturbance by a tubular steel fence and a walking path.

Proposed Project
The proposed project includes a request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 square foot medical office building and associated site improvements such as additional parking area, lighting, and a

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 4 of 46 ends

trash enclosure. The project also requests a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE MITIGATION ORDINANCES, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS For projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, CEQA Guidelines section 15183(f) allows a lead agency to rely on previously adopted development policies or standards as mitigation for the environmental effects, when the standards have been adopted by the City, with findings based on substantial evidence, that the policies or standards will substantially mitigate environmental effects, unless substantial new information shows otherwise (CEQA Guidelines §151 83(f)). The City of Roseville adopted CEQA Implementing Procedures (Implementing Procedures) which are consistent with this CEQA Guidelines section. The current version of the Implementing Procedures were adopted in April 2008 (Resolution 08-172), along with Findings of Fact, and were updated in January 2021 ( Resolution 21- 018). The below regulations and ordinances were found to provide uniform mitigating policies and standards, and are applicable to development projects. The City’s Mitigating Policies and Standards are referenced, where applicable, in the Initial Study Checklist. • Noise Regulation (RMC Ch.9.24)
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80)
• Traffic Mitigation Fee (RMC Ch.4.44)
• Drainage Fees (Dry Creek [RMC Ch.4.49] and Pleasant Grove Creek [RMC Ch.4.48]) • City of Roseville Improvement Standards (Resolution 02-37 and as further amended) • City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (Resolution 01-208 and as further amended) • Tree Preservation Ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66)
• Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation (Tribal Consultation Policy) (Resolution 20-294)
• Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Title 18)
• Community Design Guidelines
• Specific Plan Design Guidelines:
o Development Guidelines Del Webb Specific Plan
o Landscape Design Guidelines for North Central Roseville Specific Plan o North Roseville Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
o Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (Olympus Pointe) Signage Guidelines o North Roseville Area Design Guidelines
o Northeast Roseville Specific Plan Landscape Design Guidelines o Southeast Roseville Specific Plan Landscape Design Guidelines o Stoneridge Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
o Highland Reserve North Specific Plan and Design Guidelines o West Roseville Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
o Sierra Vista Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
o Creekview Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
o Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
• City of Roseville 2035 General Plan

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 5 of 46 ends

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
• 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, certified August 5, 2020 • International House of Pancakes Negative Declaration (UP 94-38; TP 95-11), Adopted September 21, 1995
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, any project which is consistent with the development densities established by zoning, a Community Plan, or a General Plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (General Plan EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions , water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designations examined within the environmental documents listed above, and thus this Initial Study focuses on effects particular to the specific project site, impacts which were not analyzed within the EIR, and impacts which may require revisiting due to substantial new information. When applicable, the topical sections within the Initial Study summarize the findings within the environmental documents listed above. The analysis, supporting technical materials, and findings of the environmental document are incorporated by reference, and are available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.

EXPLANATION OF INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines recommend that lead agencies use an Initial Study Checklist to determine potential impacts of the proposed project on the physical environment. The Initial Study Checklist provides a list of questions concerning a comprehensive array of environmental issue areas potentially affected by this project. This section of the Initial Study incorporates a portion of Appendix G En vironmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Within each topical section (e.g. Air Quality) a description of the setting is provided, followed by the checklist responses, thresholds used, and finally a discussion of each checklist answer.

There are four (4) possible answers to the Environmental Impacts Checklist on the following pages. Each possible answer is explained below:
1) A “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from the information that a fair argument based on substantial evidence can be made to support a conclusion that a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change may occur to any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. When one or more “Potentially significant Impact” entries are made, an EIR is required.
2) A “ Less Than Significant With Mitigation” answer is appropriate when the lead agency incorporates mitigation measures to reduce an impact from “Potentially Significant” to “Less than Significant.” For example, floodwater impacts could be reduced from a potentially significant level to a less-than-significant level by relocating a building to an area outside of the floodway. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less -than-significant level.

Mitigation measures are identified as MM followed by a number. 3) A “Less Than significant Impact” answer is appropriate if there is evidence that one or more environmental impacts may occur, but the impacts are determined to be less than significant, or the application of development policies and standards to the projec t will reduce the impact(s) to a less -than-significant level. For instance, the application of the City’s Improvement Standards reduces potential erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level.

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 6 of 46 ends

4) A “No Impact” answer is appropriate where it can be demonstrated that the impact does not have the potential to adversely affect the environment. For instance, a project in the center of an urbanized area with no agricultural lands on or adjacent to the project area clearly would not have an adverse effect on agricultural resources or operations. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study. Where a “No Impact” answer is adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study, further narrative explanation is not required. A “No Impact” answer is explained when it is based on project - specific factors as well as generous standards.

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - and on-site, indirect, direct, construction, and operation impacts, except as provided for under State CEQA Guidelines.

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
The proposed project site is located on the eastern half of the property located at 701 Sunrise Ave. The project area is bordered by Sunrise Ave and an existing medical office use to the west, a senior living facility to the east, a drive-thru coffee kiosk to the south, and Cirby Creek to the north. The project area is not currently visible from Sunrise Ave., given the existing medical building, mature vegetation within the parking lot, and trees along Cirby Creek.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
X
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of
the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from a
publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the
project is in an urbanized
area, would the project
conflict with applicable
zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
X

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 7 of 46 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare,
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of an environmental impact cannot always be determined through the use of a specific, quantifiable threshold. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) affirms this by the statement “an ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” This is particularly true of aesthetic impacts. As an example, a proposed parking lot in a dense urban center would have markedly different visual effects than a parking lot in an open space area. For the purpose of this study, the significance thresholds are as stated in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as shown in a– d of the checklist below. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (e.g. building height, setbacks, etc), Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Ch. 18), Community Design Guidelines (Resolution 95-347), and applicable Specific Plan Policies and/or Specific Plan Design Guidelines will prevent significant impacts in urban settings as it relates to items a, b, and c, below.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) There are no designated or eligible scenic vistas or scenic highways within or adjacent to the City of Roseville.
c) The project site is in an urban setting, and as a result lacks any prominent or high-quality natural features which could be negatively impacted by development. The City of Roseville has adopted Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for the purpose of creating building and community designs which are a visual asset to the community. The CDG includes guidelines for building design, site design and landscape design, which will result in a project that enhances the existing urban visual environment. The project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Accordingly, the aesthetic impacts of the project are less than significant.
d) The project involves nighttime lighting to provide for the security and safety of project users. However, the project is already located within an urbanized setting with many existing lighting sources. Lighting is conditioned to comply with City standards (i.e. CDG) to limit the height of light standards and to require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. The project will not create a new source of substantial light. None of the project elements are highly reflective, and thus the project will not contribute to an increased source of glare.

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
The State Department of Conservation oversees the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, which was established to document the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands, and the conversion of those lands over time. The primary land use classifications on the maps generated through this program are: Urban and Built-Up Land, Grazing Land, Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Prime Farmland. According to the current California Department of Conservation Placer County Important Farmland Map (2012), the majority of the City of Roseville is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and most of the open space areas of the City are designated as Grazing Land. There are a few areas designated as Farmland of Local Importance and two small areas designated as Unique Farmland located on the western side of the City along Baseline Road. The current Williamson Act Contract map (2013/2014) produced by the

INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.

File # PL24-0812

Page 8 of 46 ends

Roseville City CouncilMarch 5, 2025

Roseville City Council
March 5, 2025