Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, May 6, 2026 (part 11 of 13)

"Tandem parking" means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
"Within the existing space" includes areas within an existing primary dwelling unit or within an existing attached or detached accessory structure such as a garage, storage area, a carriage house, a pool house, studio, and similar enclosed structures. The addition of square footage, including, but not limited to, the addition of another floor, is not considered to be "within the existing space," unless the expansion is for the purposes of ingress and egress and does not exceed 150 square feet. Additions of square footage which are not "within the existing space" are considered new construction.
§ 19.60.040. Permit requirements.

A building permit shall be required prior to construction or creation of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, which shall be processed in accordance with the requirements of Government Code 66314 et seq, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. § 19.60.050. Designated areas.

A. Mixed Use and Residential Zones. Accessory dwelling units are principally permitted in the commercial mixed use (CMU), single-family residential (R1), small lot residential (RS), twofamily residential (R2), multi-family housing (R3), and residential mixed use (RMU) zoning districts, provided the lot contains an existing or proposed single-family, two-family or multifamily dwelling unit as defined in Section 19.08.080(F) (Residential Use Types) and the accessory dwelling unit complies with the standards identified in this chapter.

B. Commercial Zones. Accessory dwelling units are also principally permitted in the neighborhood commercial (NC), community commercial (CC), general commercial (GC), and highway commercial (HC) zoning districts, provided the lot contains an existing or proposed single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling unit which has an approved conditional use permit as defined in Section 19.08.080(F) (Residential use types) and the accessory dwelling unit complies with the standards identified in this chapter. If a commercially zoned lot contains an existing single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling unit which does not have an approved conditional use permit, then the accessory dwelling unit shall be required to obtain an Administrative Permit pursuant to Chapter 19.74 (Permit and Variance Requirements).

Accessory dwelling units are not permitted in industrial zone districts (MP, M1, M2, or MMU) or other zone districts where residential is not a permitted use. § 19.60.060. Development standards for accessory dwelling units proposed within existing structures or existing living areas.

Accessory dwelling units are permitted to be developed within the existing space of existing structures or within the existing space ofliving area of an existing primary dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areasconsistent with this section shall be allowed only in compliance with the following standards:

A. Setbacks. No setback shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit, including porches, decks, balconies, stairs, and patios which are attached to and for the use of the accessory dwelling unit, built within the footprint and dimensions of an existing living area or existing

Page 1408 of 1681 ends

structure. Garages are subject to the setbacks of Section

19.22.030 (Accessory structures).

B. Floor Area. Expansion of the floor area beyond the physical dimensions of the existing primary dwelling unit or accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress and shall not exceed 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing primary dwelling unit or accessory structure. The total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit developed within an existing primary dwelling unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling nor exceed the standards of subsection C (Unit Sizes). the floor area of the existing primary dwelling unit, except that an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing primary dwelling unit is permitted for accommodating ingress and egress. The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit developed within an existing detached accessory structure shall not exceed the floor area of the existing detached accessory structure, except that an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing detached accessory structure is permitted for accommodating ingress and egress. Expansions beyond 150 square feet must comply with the standards set forth in Section 19.60.070 (Development standards for accessory dwellingunits proposed as new construction).

C. Unit Sizes.

1. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than the minimum size for an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended.

2. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be more than 850 square feet of livable space for a studio or one-bedroom or more than 1,000 square feet of livable space for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66323.

D. Minimum Facilities. Accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas shall include permanent provisions for independent living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation within the unit and must include a separate exterior entrance from the primary dwelling unit if the primary dwelling is a single- family dwelling.

E. Appearance. The accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed with the same architectural style, exterior materials and colors as the primary dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit shall be subordinate to the primary dwelling unit. Manufactured homes shall meet the architectural standards set forth in Section 19.10.030(E) (Residential zone general development standards).

F. Parking Requirements. Accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas shall not be required to provide parking. A garage, carport, or covered parking structure shall be subject to the development regulations of Section 19.22.030 (Accessory structures), if the owner chooses to provide parking as part of the accessory dwelling unit.

In addition, when a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the required off street parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit, if eliminated, do not need to be replaced. If the property owner chooses to replace the parking spaces, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including within the front

Page 1409 of 1681 ends

yard or street side setback, and may be covered spaces subject to conformance with the applicable requirements set forth in Section 19.22.030(C)(2) (Permitted accessory structures to dwelling use type (single-family and two-family)) or Section 19.22.030(D)(3) (Permitted accessory structures to dwelling use type (multi-family)), uncovered spaces or tandem spaces. All replacement parking shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 11.20.110 (Parking on private property prohibited), Section 19.10.030(F) (Residential zone general development standards), and Section 19.26.040(A) (Design and improvement of parking).

G. Passageways. No passageways shall be required in conjunction with accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas.

H. Building and Fire Codes. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas shall comply with all local building and fire codes. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit must be reviewed with the application of the accessory dwelling unit and issued at the same time.

I. Fire Sprinklers. Accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling unit. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

J. Utilities. Accessory dwelling units developed within existing structures or living areas shall not be required to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the public utility infrastructure, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling unit. However, if necessary utility infrastructure does not exist with capacity available to serve both the primary dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit, the property owner shall be responsible for all costs related to installation of necessary infrastructure or upsizing existing infrastructure. Property owners may install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the public utility infrastructure at the property owner's option and expense.

J.K. Public Improvements. No public physical improvements shall be required for the creation or conversion of an accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, sidewalk, street, or access improvements. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, per Government Code Sections 66314 through 66315, as may be amended from time to time.

K.L. Height. An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in Section

19.10.030 (Residential zone general development standards) for the zone in which the accessory dwelling unit will be located, or if not within a residential zone, the height shall not exceed the standards established in Section 19.10.030 for the single-family residential (R1) zone.

L.M. Number Permitted. Except as otherwise permitted by subsection M, only one accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot.

M. Exceptions to Development Standards.

1. One accessory dwelling unit either attached to or located within the existing primary

Page 1410 of 1681 ends

dwelling subject to the development standards of Section 19.60.060(A – L)(see Section N, Waivers) or an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 19.60.070(O)(1).

1.2. One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, which may be combined with a detached accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 19.60.070(O)(2), if all of the following apply:
a. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling unit or existing space of a single-family dwelling unit or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
b. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling unit.
c. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. d. The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 66313, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended.

2.3. Within the portions of existing multifamily buildings (inclusive of detached structures) that are not used as livable space (including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages), at least one accessory dwelling unit is permitted or up to 25% of the existing multi-family dwelling units may be converted to accessory dwelling units, whichever is greater, provided each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. An existing multifamily dwelling having a rear or side setback of less than four (4) feet shall not require modification as a condition of approving the accessory dwelling unit(s).

Multiple accessory dwelling units within portions of existing multi-family dwelling units are permitted in areas not used as livable spaces, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if all of the following apply:
a. Each unit complies with state building codes for dwellings. b. At least one accessory dwelling unit is permitted within an existing multi-family dwelling or up to 25% of the existing multi-family dwelling units may be converted to accessory dwelling units, whichever is greater.

3. Two detached accessory dwelling units are permitted per lot that has an existing multi-family dwelling unit, subject to four-foot rear and side setbacks and the following height standards:
a. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit. b. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an

Page 1411 of 1681 ends

existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, as may be amended from time to time. An additional two feet in height is also permitted when the height is to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. c. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling. d. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in this Code that appliesto the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This clause shall not require City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories.

4. No public physical improvements shall be required for the creation or conversion of an accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, sidewalk, street, or access improvements. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, per Government Code Sections 66314 through 66315, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended.

N. Waivers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this titleTitle, limits on height, setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and lot sizes size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size are hereby waived if they do not permit at least an 800-square-foot one accessory dwelling unit of at least 800 square feet of interior livable space which provides four-foot rear and side setbacks and meets the following height standards:

1. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit.

2. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, as may be amended from time to time. An additional two feet in height is also permitted when the height is to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

3. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling.

4. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in this Code that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling.

This clause shall not require City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories. § 19.60.070. Development standards for accessory dwelling units proposed as new construction.

Newly constructed accessory dwelling units are permitted to be attached to a proposed or existing primary dwelling unit or detached from a proposed or existing primary dwelling unit as long as the

Page 1412 of 1681 ends

newly constructed accessory dwelling unit is located on the same lot as a proposed or existing primary dwelling unit. Newly constructed accessory dwelling units shall be allowed only in compliance with the following standards:

A. Minimum Lot Area. There is no minimum lot area.

B. Maximum Lot Coverage. There is no maximum lot coverage.

C. Setbacks. No setback shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in the same location (i.e., footprint) and to the same dimensions as an existing accessory structure. A setback of four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is otherwise newly constructed, including porches, decks, balconies, stairs, and patios which are attached to andfor the use of the accessory dwelling unit.

D. Floor Area. For an attached accessory dwelling unit, Tthe total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than 150 square feet, shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling to which it is attached, and shall not nor exceed the standards of subsection E (Unit Sizes). For a detached accessory dwelling unit, Tthe total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than 150 square feet nor exceed the standards of subsection E (Unit Sizes).

E. Unit Sizes.

1. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than the minimum size for an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time.

2. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be more than 850 square feet of livable space for a studio or one-bedroom or more than 1,000 square feet of livable area for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66323.

F. Minimum Facilities. The accessory dwelling unit shall include permanent provisions for independent living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation within the unit and must include a separate exterior entrance from the primary dwelling unit if the primary dwelling is a single-family dwelling.

G. Appearance. The accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed with the same architectural style, exterior materials and colors as the primary dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit shall be subordinate to the primary dwelling unit. Manufactured homes shall meet the architectural standards set forth in Section 19.10.030(E) (Residential zone general development standards).

H. Parking Requirements. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the parking required by this section is in addition to that required for the primary dwelling unit located on the lot by Chapter 19.26 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). Garages, carports, and covered parking structures attached to the accessory dwelling unit and built to satisfy the required parking standards for the accessory dwelling unit are subject to the same setbacks and other development regulations as the accessory dwelling unit.

Page 1413 of 1681 ends

1. Accessory dwelling units with one or more bedrooms shall provide at least one offstreet parking space. Studios shall not be required to provide any parking spaces. The parking requirement for accessory dwelling units with bedrooms can be met by providing the required parking space within the front yard setback and may be located in tandem with other on-site parking as long as it complies with the requirements set forth in Section 11.20.110 (Parking on private property prohibited), Section

19.10.030(F) (Residential zone general development standards), and Section

19.26.040(A) (Design and improvement of parking).

2. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the required off-street parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit, if eliminated, do not need to be replaced. If the property owner chooses to replace these parking spaces, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including within the front yard or street side setback, and may be covered spaces subject to conformance with the applicable requirements set forth in Section 19.22.030(C)(2) (Permitted accessory structures to dwelling use type (single- family and two-family)) or Section 19.22.030(D)(3) (Permitted accessory structures to dwelling use type (multi-family)), uncovered spaces or tandem spaces. All replacement parking shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 11.20.110 (Parking on private property prohibited), Section 19.10.030(F) (Residential zone general development standards), and Section 19.26.040(A) (Design and improvement of parking).

3. Notwithstanding the above, accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide parking in any of the following circumstances:
a. When the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
b. When the accessory dwelling unit islocated within the OldTown Historic District (DT4) or the Central Business District (DT-6). c. When the accessory dwelling unit is part of an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit or an existing accessory structure.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
e. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
f. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling.

I. Passageways. No passageways shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

J. Building and Fire Codes. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, newly constructed accessory dwelling units shall comply with all local building and fire codes.

Page 1414 of 1681 ends

K. Fire Sprinklers. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling unit. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

L. Utilities. New or separate utility connections directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the public utility infrastructure shall only be required if directed by the environmental utilities department or the electric department. In such cases, if necessary utility infrastructure does not exist with capacity available to serve both the primary dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit, the property ownershall be responsible for all costs related to installation of necessary infrastructure or upsizing existing infrastructure.

L.M. Public Improvements. No public physical improvements shall be required for the creation or conversion of an accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, sidewalk, street, or access improvements. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, per Government Code Sections 66314 through 66315, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended.

M.N.Height. An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in Section

N.O. Number Permitted. Except as otherwise permitted by subsection O, only one accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot.

O. Exceptions to Development Standards.

1. One newly constructed attached or detached accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot subject to the development standards of Section 19.60.070(A – N)(see Waivers) or one accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 19.60.060(M)(1).

1.2. One newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed fourfoot rear and side setbacks, which may be combined with accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units proposed within existing structures pursuant to Section 19.60.060(M)(1)one junior accessory dwelling unit, is permitted per lot if all of the following apply:
a. The total floor area for the newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 800 square feet.
b. The newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the following height standards:
i. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit. ii. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a high- quality transit

Page 1415 of 1681 ends

corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, as may be amended from time to time. An additional two feet in height is also permitted when the height is to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
iii. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling. iv. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in this Code that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This clause shall not require City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories.

2.3. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling unit, Mmultiple constructed detached accessory dwelling units are permitted per lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling unit. The number of accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot and not more than eight detached accessory dwelling units are permitted. This may be combined with accessory dwelling units proposed within existing non-livable spaces of existing multifamily structures pursuant to Section

19.60.060(M)(2). The Aaccessory dwelling units are subject to the following development standards:
a. A four-foot rear and side setback.
b. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit. c. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, as may be amended from time to time.

An additional two feet in height is also permitted when the height is to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
d. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling.
e. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in this Code that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This clause shall not require City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories.

3. No public physical improvements shall be required for the creation or conversion of an accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, sidewalk, street, or access improvements. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, per Government Code Sections 66314 through 66315, as may be amended from time to time.

Page 1416 of 1681 ends

4. On a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, not more than two detached accessory dwelling units are permitted.

P. Waivers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this title, limits on height, setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and lot sizes size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size are hereby waived if they do not permit at least an 800 square foot an accessory dwelling unit of at least 800 square feet of interior livable space which provides four-foot rear and side setbacks and meets the following height standards:

1. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit.

3. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling.

4. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in this Code that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This clause shall not require City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories.
§ 19.60.080. Use restrictions.

A. Sales Prohibited, Exceptions. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold independently of the primary dwelling unit on the lot unless all of the criteria of Government Code Section 66341, as may be amended from time to time, are met, including that the accessory dwelling unit or the primary dwelling unit was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and there are affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the accessory dwelling unit or primary residence that ensure the accessory dwelling unit and primary dwelling will be preserved for low income housing for 45 years for owneroccupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.

B. Rentals. Accessory dwelling units may be rented as long as the rental term exceeds 30 calendar days. Accordingly, short-term rental permits authorized pursuant to Chapter 4.25 (Short-Term Rentals) will not be issued for accessory dwelling units. § 19.60.090. Nonconforming zoning conditions.

An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit in compliance with the standards set forth in this chapter is still permitted even when the primary dwelling unit has a

Page 1417 of 1681 ends

nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in Section 19.60.030. § 19.60.100. Fees.

All fees and charges will be charged in accordance with the Accessory Dwelling Units Fee Policy adopted by the City Council on April 21, 2021 by Resolution No. 21-146, as amended from time to time.
§ 19.60.110. Administrative permit requirements.

An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit which does not meet the standards set forth in this chapter, shall be required to obtain an Administrative Permit pursuant to Chapter 19.74 (Permit and Variance Requirements).
§ 19.60.120. Junior accessory dwelling units.

A. Junior accessory dwelling units are principally permitted within areas zoned to allow single-family residential use and must be located on a lot that contains an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit as defined in Section 19.08.080(F)(2) (Residential use types).

B. Junior accessory dwelling units are subject to the following conditions:

1. Only one junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot zoned for singlefamily uses, with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.

2. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 square feet of livable space.

3. If the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure ,Tthe property owner shall occupy the single-family dwelling unit in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The property owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the single-family dwelling unit or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the junior accessory dwelling unit has separate sanitation facilities or if the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

4. Following final inspection approval of a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, a deed restriction, in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Placer County Recorder’s office, which shall include the applicable restrictions and limitations of a junior accessory dwelling unit identified in this chapter. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns. A copy of the recorded deed restriction shall be filed with the City stating that:
a. The junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the single-family dwelling unit.
b. The junior accessory dwelling unit is restricted to the development standards, including maximum size, identified in this chapter.
c. If the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing

Page 1418 of 1681 ends

structure Tthe junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered legal only so long as either the single-family dwelling unit, or the junior accessory dwelling unit, is occupied by the owner of record of the property.
d. The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance with this provision may result in legal action against the property owner, including revocation of any right to maintain a junior accessory dwelling unit on the property.

5. The junior accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling unit, including attached garages.

6. The junior accessory dwelling shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or existing single-family dwelling unit, and if the junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall also include an interior entry into the main living area.

7. The permitted junior accessory dwelling unit must include an efficiency kitchen, as defined in Section 19.08.080, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. which shall include at a minimum all of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.

8. Junior accessory dwelling units shall comply with all local building and fire codes applicable to the existing single-family dwelling unit except that fire sprinklers shall not be required if fire sprinklers were not required for the single-family dwelling unit.

The construction of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

9. Junior accessory dwelling units may be rented as long as the rental term exceeds 30 calendar days. Accordingly, short-term rental permits authorized pursuant to Chapter

4.25 (Short-Term Rentals) will not be issued for junior accessory dwelling units.

10. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide parking nor be required to provide replacement parking if constructed within an attached garage.

11. Junior accessory dwelling units shall comply with all other applicable requirements set forth in this chapter.

C. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide parking.

Page 1419 of 1681 ends

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 5/6/2026
Item #: VIII.38
File #: 1001
Item ID: 2026-298
Title: General Vacation – Portion of Campo Street Right of Way Contact: Sean Morales 916-774-5282 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends consideration of the addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, make a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan, and adopt a resolution to abandon a portion of the Campo Street right of way in the City of Roseville. The proposed project includes a General Vacation to abandon a 23,272 square-foot (.53 acres) portion of the Campo Street right of way. The abandonment is part of the Roseville High School Improvement Project to update and construct a range of facilities. The project includes upgrades to a portion of the Campo Street right of way, including pavement texture and color connection.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Consider the Addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2. Adopt the Resolution to vacate a portion of the Campo Street right of way, including applicable findings contained therein, like General Plan consistency, as being in the City’s best interest; reserving back City easements for public utilities and emergency vehicle access; authorize the City Manager to execute a Quitclaim Deed for the portion of right of way to the Roseville Joint Union High School District, without additional financial consideration, and any other documents required to effectuate the conveyance of the abandoned interests in the portion of right of way; and authorize the City Clerk or their designee to record the Quitclaim Deed, the Resolution, and anything else necessary to effectuate the intent of these actions, at the Recorder's Office of Placer County.

BACKGROUND
General Vacation of Right of Way
The applicant requests approval of a General Vacation to abandon a 23,272 square-foot (.53 acres) portion of the Campo Street right of way. The right of way abandonment is part of the Roseville High School Improvement Project to update and construct a range of facilities. The project includes upgrades to a portion of the Campo Street right of way, including pavement texture and color connection. This section of Campo Street is and has historically been closed to vehicle traffic during school operating hours. In 1970, the street was closed off from 7:30 am to 4:00 pm by resolution of the City Council. In 2013, those hours were expanded to 6:30 am to 4:00 pm. The Roseville Joint Union High School District has requested that the City undergo the process to permanently abandon the portion of Campo Street right of way within the school campus, in part, in order to improve the safety and security of students. A detailed request from the school is provided as Attachment 6. A conceptual rendering of the campus after completion of the Roseville High School Improvement Project, including upgrades to Campo Street, is included as Attachment 7.

Page 1420 of 1681 ends

The California Streets and Highways Code (Sections 8320 through 8325) states that the legislative body of a local agency may initiate a General Vacation upon a petition or request of an interested person, at the discretion of the legislative body, where the clerk of the legislative body shall administratively set a hearing by fixing the date, hour, and place of the hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 8300, et seq., of the Streets and Highways Code, proof of publication and posting of the City’s Notice of Intention to Vacate, and notice for a public hearing considering the ordering of such vacation, have occurred and on April 1, 2026, the Council set the hearing date for May 6, 2026. Section 8324 states if the legislative body finds, from all the evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, the legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating such.

Staff recommend finding that the portion of the right of way described and depicted in the attachments hereto is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, but as vacated to the Roseville Joint Union High School District the right of way area serves the community’s best interests in order to accommodate the Roseville High School Improvement Project and to ensure a safe and secure school site.

As part of this general vacation process the City would reserve and exempt from its vacation and conveyance of interests, easements for public utility purposes and emergency vehicle access purposes, as further described and depicted in the attachments hereto, and has determined that no other utilities or facilities have been identified or will be impacted by the actions contemplated herein.

Additionally, this portion of right of way is determined to not be subject to the procedures or requirements under the California Surplus Land Act (Section 54200 et seq. of the California Government Code) pursuant to information from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as this abandonment and quitclaim of interests is not a “disposition” under the California Surplus Land Act and HCD Guidelines, Section 102(i), and as such, this right of way area may be conveyed to the Roseville Joint Union High School District pursuant to Section 4.12.110 of the Roseville Municipal Code, as real property needed by another public entity in the best interests of the City—as it provides beneficial use, creates a safe and secure school campus site, and is otherwise not needed by the City—and without monetary consideration exchanged.

Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, Section 8324, this abandonment shall only be effective on the condition that: a) the Roseville Joint Union High School District, or any related entity with lawful ownership of the neighboring property at 1 Tiger Way, is the adjoining landowner taking lawful possession and interest in the right of way area; and b) the City’s easement interests, reserved and exempted and described in the attachments hereto, are lawfully recognized hereby and in full force and effect.

Based on the facts and findings described herein, staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution to abandon a portion of the Campo Street right of way.

General Plan Consistency
The .53-acre segment of Campo Street proposed for abandonment includes two General Plan land use designations. Approximately .26 acres in the center of the segment has a Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) land use designation. Approximately .27 acres of the segment to the north and south of the P/QP land use area has a Low-Density Residential (LDR) land use designation. The City of Roseville 2035 General Plan

Page 1421 of 1681 ends

establishes the P/QP land use as area for education and other public facilities. The City of Roseville 2035 General Plan establishes public and private schools as a secondary use in the LDR land use area.

Planning staff and the Planning Manager reviewed and found that this vacation and contemplated actions are consistent with the City of Roseville 2035 General plan. Therefore, Planning staff recommends the Council as the legislative body of the local planning agency—the City of Roseville—find the project to be consistent with the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan.

Traffic Evaluation
A traffic study was completed for the project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Attachment 8). The purpose of the study was to determine if permanent abandonment of the proposed portion of Campo Street would have an adverse effect on surrounding roadways. The study looked at the broad effects of the proposed abandonment as well as targeted concerns brought up by neighbors, including representatives of the Historic Sierra Vista Neighborhood Association. Some of the concerns include the effects the permanent closure of Campo Street will have on increased traffic volumes and traffic speeds on surrounding streets as well as the effects it will have on school drop-off and pick-up. Traffic was monitored on a school day in March and the study concluded that peak traffic times on surrounding roadways is currently 8:10 am to 8:25 am in the morning and 3:15 pm to 3:35 pm in the afternoon. Campo Street has been closed from the hours of 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, which includes the morning and afternoon peak periods, since approximately 1970. Therefore, the permanent closure and vacation of the subject portion of Campo Street will not affect the peak traffic periods during the school day.

The study also evaluated the effects of the Campo Street closure on large-event traffic patterns. These events, such as high school football games, take place in the evening, when Campo Street is currently open to vehicles. The study anticipated that all surrounding roadways would continue to operate at Level of Service A or B. A segment of Sierra Boulevard would be anticipated to fall from A to B, while the other segments maintain current levels of service. Levels A and B would not impact the City’s General Plan policy of 70% percent of the City’s signalized intersections operating at level of service C or better during peak demand. The study included Traffic Management Plan suggestions for events. Some of these, such as opening up additional parking areas and providing communication to residents and visitors, are already being implemented by the school and others were given to the school for consideration.

Public Outreach
A neighborhood meeting was held for the project on November 3, 2025, with City Development Services staff and Roseville Joint Union High School District staff in attendance. Approximately twenty nearby residents and property owners were in attendance. Roseville High School Principal, Ashley Serin, made a presentation about the project including the increase in safety the street closure would bring to students, a plan to open up additional parking areas around the school for large events, an increase in wayfinding from those parking areas to event areas, and the range of communications from the high school to local residents and visitors for large events. She then opened the meeting up for questions. There was no direct opposition to the right of way abandonment proposal, but a number of concerns were brought up related to vehicle travel in the area.

Some of the neighbor concerns related to the project were discussed in the traffic evaluation section above. Other concerns brought up at the neighborhood meeting that are not directly related to the project include students illegally parking along Tiger Way adjacent to the Union Pacific railroad tracks and concerns about emergency evacuations in the event of a railroad accident. Staff brought the parking

Page 1422 of 1681 ends

concern to the attention of Union Pacific and emergency vehicle access easements will remain over the closed portion of Campo Street. While Campo Street will be closed, the existing gates will remain in place and emergency access will be available. Residents asked for permanent wayfinding signage to be placed within the school for visitors crossing through the school from auxiliary parking areas near Berry Street.

School staff explained that they currently use and will continue to use movable A-frame signage, which is easier to adjust to changing conditions and signage needs. Residents asked for additional stop signs and crosswalks on surrounding streets such as Coronado Avenue, Sierra Boulevard, and Mariposa Street.

Development Services staff relayed the request to Public Works staff. Public Works has studied the area in recent years and are available for neighbors to discuss any concerns. As discussed in the traffic evaluation section, these concerns are not meaningfully affected by the Campo Street abandonment project.

Neighbors brought up concerns about pick-up and drop-off activities. School representatives explained the procedures for pick-up and drop-off that are sent to parents and enforced by the school. The proposed Campo Street abandonment does not affect pick-up and drop-off procedures, as the street is already closed off at that time during school hours.

Disposition Under the Municipal Code Section 4.12.110(B) Any interest in real property may be sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to a finding by the City Council that such disposition is in the City’s best interest, including real property needed by another public entity, public utility, or a nonprofit public benefit corporation. Based on the foregoing, this vacation and conveyance is in the City’s best interest because it provides beneficial use of the portion of right of way that otherwise is not needed by the City, is largely already closed for the majority of the working day, and helps ensure a safer and more secure local school campus. Therefore, it is in the City’s best interests, based on the foregoing and in accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.12.110(B), to quitclaim the subject portion of right of way without compensation or financial consideration to the adjoining public entity school district.

Conclusion
The section of Campo Street proposed to be abandoned is already closed during peak traffic hours.

Permanent abandonment of the portion of roadway would increase safety and security for the Roseville High School campus without meaningfully altering the levels of service provided by surrounding roadways, and would be in the City's best interest. Therefore, staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution to permanently abandon the portion of right of way and do all other things necessary to convey its interests, excepting therefrom and reserving back easements for public utilities and emergency vehicle access, to the Roseville Joint Union High School District.

FISCAL IMPACT
Abandoning the right of way will not have a fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously adopted mitigated negative declaration (MND), an Addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024040651, adopted May 28, 2024 by the Roseville Joint Union High School District as lead agency) has been prepared by the City of Roseville (as the responsible agency for the right of way abandonment) to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project.

Page 1423 of 1681 ends

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

1. Ensure a safe and healthy community

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Sean Morales, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 Addendum

2. Resolution 26-115

3. Attachment 3 Vicinity Map

4. Attachment 4 Abandonment Exhibit

5. Attachment 5 Reserved Easements Exhibit

6. Attachment 6 RJUHSD Abandonment Request

7. Attachment 7 Roseville High School Improvement Project Rendering

8. Attachment 8 Kimley-Horn Roseville Campo Street Abandonment Traffic Evaluation

9. Attachment 9 Quitclaim Deed
REVIEWERS:

Sean Morales, Development Services - Planning Created/Initiated - 4/14/2026 Greg Bitter, Development Services Department Approved - 4/15/2026 Mike Isom, Development Services Department Approved - 4/15/2026 Kelly Aye, City Attorney Department Approved - 4/20/2026 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 4/20/2026 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 4/21/2026 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 4/21/2026 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 4/23/2026 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 4/23/2026 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 4/23/2026

Page 1424 of 1681 ends

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
1st ADDENDUM TO THE ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH# 2024040651, ADOPTED MAY 28, 2024)
Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment, PL24-1055 Project Location: 1 Tiger Wy., Roseville, Placer County, CA Project Description: The applicant requests a General Vacation of a 23,272 square-foot (.53 acre) portion of the Campo Street right of way easement. The easement abandonment is part of a larger improvement project for Roseville High School to update and construct a range of facilities.

Project Applicant: Marty Gee, Warren Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Property Owner: Scott Davis, Roseville Union High School Lead Agency Contact: Sean Morales, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 774-5282 An Addendum to a previously adopted mitigated negative declaration (MND) may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted negative declaration adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the negative declaration for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

Page 1425 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 2 of 8 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project site is located at 1 Tiger Way on Parcel 355 within the Infill area (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location (parcels bordered in red)

BACKGROUND
The Roseville High School Improvement Project is an approved expansion project that includes a new 14,000- square-foot multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, and parking lot, and demolition of the 12,000-square-foot old auxiliary gymnasium, 3,000-square-foot pool, and 180- square-foot pool building at Roseville High School. The project also includes upgrades to a portion of the Campo Street right of way, including pavement texture and color connection, in order to create an aesthetic link from the main part of the campus to the buildings on the other side of Campo Street. This section of Campo Street is already closed to vehicle traffic during school operating hours. In 1970, the street was closed off from 7:30 am to 4:00 pm by resolution of City Council. In 2013, those hours were expanded to 6:30 am to 4:00 pm. The Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration did not evaluate the potential of permanently closing Campo Street to vehicle traffic because the school district is not in control of the right of way and the project was designed and evaluated for the possibility of the right of way remaining open outside of school hours. The Roseville Joint Union High School District (RJUHSD), is the lead agency for the improvement project and adopted the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) On May 28, 2024. The Roseville Joint Union High School District has requested that the City undergo the process to permanently abandon the portion of Campo Street right of way within the school campus in order to improve the safety and security of students. The abandonment area encompasses approximately 23,272 square feet (.53 acres).

Roseville High School
Campo Street
Alta Vista Av.

Abandonment Area

Page 1426 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 3 of 8 ends

Approval of the public right of way abandonment by the Roseville City Council is a discretionary action that requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the City, as responsible agency for the right of way abandonment, prepared this Addendum to the MND.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request by the Roseville Joint Union High School District to abandon a portion of the Campo Street public right of way (Attachment 1). The proposed right of way abandonment will facilitate the Roseville High School Improvement project, which includes physical and aesthetic upgrades to the street, by permanently closing the street that is currently closed during school operating hours. No direct or indirect physical changes to the environment, beyond what was evaluated in the previously certified MND, are proposed concurrent with the right of way abandonment.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

INTRODUCTION
The project applicant, the Roseville Joint Union High School District, requests a General Vacation of a 23,272 square-foot (.53 acre) portion of the Campo Street right of way easement. The easement abandonment is part of a larger improvement project for Roseville High School to update and construct a range of facilities. The environmental effects of the construction and use of the abandonment area are examined in the previously adopted Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024040651, adopted May 28, 2024) (Attachment 2) and in this Addendum. In preparing this Addendum, all of the potential impacts identified on the CEQA "Environmental Checklist Form" were considered. For all impact areas, a preliminary review indicated that the right of way abandonment would have no impact not already identified in the EIR.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared by the responsible agency if minor technical changes or modifications to the proposed project occur (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). An addendum is appropriate only if these minor technical changes or modifications do not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines § 15164[c]); however, an addendum is to be considered along with the negative declaration by the decision-making body prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164[d]).

The lead agency for the negative declaration was the Roseville Joint Union High School District. The responsible agency for the right of way abandonment is the City of Roseville.

This Addendum to the MND demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration remain substantively unchanged by the situation described herein, and supports the finding that the proposed project does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the level of impacts identified in the previous MND.

APPLICABLE REPORTS IN CIRCULATION
This Addendum is written as an addition to the previously adopted Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024040651). Copies of the adopted MND are available for review at the Roseville Development Services Department, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville CA 95678.

EVALUATION

Page 1427 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 4 of 8 ends

PROJECT ELEMENTS ANALYZED IN THE ORIGINAL MND
The environmental impacts of constructing the Roseville High School Improvement project, including any improvements to Campo Street, were evaluated in the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (California Code of Regulations – CCR – Section 15382). The MND found that implementation of the proposed project with mitigation incorporated would not result in significant impacts to environmental resources, which were analyzed in Section 3 of the document and summarized in Section 2.

CCR Section 15126.4 requires that an MND describe feasible mitigation measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

In the course of drafting the MND, impacts were identified that could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of proposed mitigation measures. These impacts can be found in sections 3.1, “Aesthetics”;

3.3, “Air Quality”; 3.4, “Cultural Resources”; 3.7, “Geology and Soils”; 3.13, “Noise”; and 3.18 “Tribal Cultural Resources.” (Roseville Joint Union High School District, Roseville High School Improvement Project MND, 26).

MODIFIED PROJECT AS PROPOSED UNDER RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT The proposed right of way abandonment would not modify the physical elements of the Roseville High School Improvement Project. Rather, the modification will affect the hours that the right of way is closed. The permanent closure of the right of way will divert vehicles onto other streets that may have used the Campo Street right of way outside of school hours or when school is not in session. The most closely related environmental effect under CEQA with a potential for impact by the right of way abandonment would be “Transportation”. The Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed potential impacts to transportation. Additional analysis is provided below related to the minor changes associated with the right of way abandonment including evaluation of the impact category and questions contained in the checklist.

TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
As analyzed in the MND, the project would not adversely affect traffic conditions in the area. To further analyze the project with the permanent closure of Campo Street, Kimley-Horn completed a traffic evaluation (Attachment 3). The evaluation concluded the project, which would have the effect of diverting extracurricular events (i.e.

Roseville High School football game) traffic from Campo Street to the adjacent neighborhood network, is not anticipated to significantly alter the adjacent roadways’ typical existing daily operations. The MND determined that there would be no impact associated with conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and the supplemental traffic evaluation affirms that the proposed changes to the project would not either.

The proposed changes to the project would result in no impact. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? As analyzed in the MND, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), as there would be no increase in traffic volumes and as the proposed project is well below the CEQA VMT threshold of 110 trips per day, the proposed project can be screened from any further CEQA VMT analysis and would not result in a significant impact relative to VMT. With the permanent abandonment of the

Page 1428 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 5 of 8 ends

proposed portion of Campo Street, the daily trips will not increase and therefore the project can still be screened out from further VMT analysis. The proposed changes to the project would still result in no impact. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As analyzed in the MND, the proposed project would not substantially modify the on- or off-site access or circulation system for Roseville High School. As evaluated in the Kimley-Horn report, the abandonment of Campo Street is not anticipated to significantly alter the adjacent roadways’ typical existing daily operations. The evaluation did not recognize any significant circulation hazards that would occur as the result of the proposed abandonment. The proposed changes to the project would still result in no impact. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As analyzed in the MND, the existing access and circulation features at the site, including the driveways, on-site circulation roads, parking lots, and fire lanes, would continue to accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. With permanent closure of Campo Street, an emergency vehicle access easement will remain over the property to ensure adequate emergency access. This ensures that the proposed changes would continue to result in no impact.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration assessed impacts of construction and operation of the high school improvements. The proposed right of way abandonment does not affect the anticipated construction impacts and does not significantly amend the operational impacts, therefore there are no new anticipated environmental impacts.

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
In summary, the analysis concludes that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred, and thus an Addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate to satisfy CEQA requirements for the proposed right of way abandonment.

The following findings are provided in accordance with CEQA Section 15164 (e) concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent MND pursuant to Section 15162.
(1) None of the following conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred:
(a) Subsequent changes are proposed in a project which will require major revisions of the previous MND…due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken…which will require important revisions in the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or,
(c) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available and (a) the information was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous MND was adopted as complete…and (b) the new information shows any of the following:
• The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the MND;

Page 1429 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 6 of 8 ends

• Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the MND; • Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or • Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the MND would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the MND under consideration adequate under CEQA; and,
(3) The changes to the MND made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.

This Addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024040651 - adopted May 28, 2024) finds that the proposed public right of way abandonment of a portion of Campo Street will not result in any significant environmental effects or result in the substantial increase of any previously identified impacts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

REFERENCES
Roseville Joint Union High School District, prepared by Placeworks, April, 2024. Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. (SCH #2024040651 - adopted May 28, 2024)

Page 1430 of 1681 ends

ADDENDUM
May 6, 2026
INFILL PCL 355 - Campo Street Abandonment – 1 Tiger Wy.; File #PL24-1055

Page 7 of 8 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or negative declaration and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2024040651 - adopted May 28, 2024, the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous MND.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted as complete. [ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

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

1. Right of Way Abandonment Exhibit

2. Roseville High School Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Kimley-Horn Campo Street Abandonment Traffic Evaluation

Page 1431 of 1681 ends

EXHIBIT A

RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT

CAMPO STREET
AT

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL
A PORTION OF CAMPO STREET AND CORONADO AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF “SIERRA VISTA PARK” FILED IN BOOK C OF MAPS, AT PAGE 36 IN THE OFFICE OF THE PLACER COUNTY RECORDER, BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 6 EAST, M.D.M., IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 115 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF “SIERRA VISTA PARK”, THENCE, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF CAMPO STREET NORTH 01°03’10” EAST 350.92 FEET;
THENCE, LEAVING SAID WEST LINE OF CAMPO STREET, SOUTH 88°56’50” EAST 60.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF

CAMPO STREET
THENCE, ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF CAMPO STREET, SOUTH 01°03’10” WEST 383.54 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID EAST LINE OF CAMPO STREET, NORTH 88°56’50” WEST 60.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 37°06’01” WEST 25.82 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CORONADO AVENUE; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF CORONADO AVENUE, NORTH 53°23’50” EAST 20.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 23,272 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS “ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 3081” FILED IN BOOK 21 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 34 IN THE OFFICE OF THE PLACER COUNTY RECORDER.

SEE PLAT (EXHIBIT “B”) ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.

END OF DESCRIPTION
2-5-2026
Addendum Attachment 1

Page 1432 of 1681 ends

ALTA VISTA AVENUE
SIERRA BLVD.

ALLEY

CORONADO AVENUE
LAS FLORES ST.

CAMPO STREET

RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT

CAMPO STREET & CORONADO AVENUE

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CenterPoint Engineering, Inc.

Civil Engineering & Land Surveying
4230 Rocklin Rd. Suite 200 Rocklin, CA 95677 Phone: 916-773-4006 Fax: 916-773-4498

EXHIBIT B
Addendum Attachment 1

Page 1433 of 1681 ends

April 2024 | Initial Study

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Roseville Joint Union High School District
Prepared for:

Roseville Joint Union High School District
Contact: Scott Davis, Director of Facilities Development 2 Tiger Way, Building #2
Roseville, California 95678
916.782.4707
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Dwayne Mears
3 MacArthur Place, #1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1434 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Table of Contents
April 2024 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION..................................................................................................................................... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN........................................................................................ 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................. 9

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST....................................................................................21 PROJECT INFORMATION.......................................................................................................................... 21 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED......................................................... 24 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)....................................... 24 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.............................................................................. 25

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................33 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................... 33 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES................................................................................. 35 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................................................. 36 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................ 44 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 47 ENERGY............................................................................................................................................................ 51 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................... 54 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 57 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................... 61 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................................................. 65 LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................................................................... 70 MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 71 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................ 71 POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................................................ 80 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................................... 80 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................. 82 TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................................................... 82 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................ 84 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................................... 86 WILDFIRE......................................................................................................................................................... 89 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................................. 91

4. REFERENCES................................................................................................................93

5. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................97 LEAD AGENCY.............................................................................................................................................. 97 PLACEWORKS ................................................................................................................................................ 97

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Data Appendix B Construction HRA Modeling
Appendix C Fundamentals of Noise
Appendix D Historic Resources Evaluation Report
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1435 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Local Vicinity......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Overall Site Plan..................................................................................................................................11 Figure 5 Demolition and Removal of Portables............................................................................................15 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Roseville High School 10-Year Enrollment History....................................................................... 2 Table 2 Maximum Daily Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions..................................38 Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions ...........................................................................39 Table 4 Unmitigated Construction Risk Summary ......................................................................................40 Table 5 Mitigated Construction Risk Summary ...........................................................................................41 Table 6 Project Annual Electricity Consumption........................................................................................52 Table 7 Project-Related Construction GHG Emissions.............................................................................58 Table 8 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions..................................................................................59 Table 9 Construction Best Management Practices......................................................................................66 Table 10 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary ..................................................................................72 Table 11 Project-Related Construction Noise by Activity Phase, dBA Leq ...............................................76 Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1436 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Acronyms and Abbreviations
April 2024 Page iii
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
BMP best management practices
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
cy cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EO Executive Order
EOP emergency operations plan
FHSZ fire hazard severity zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
in/sec inches per second
LCFS low-carbon fuel standard
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
Lmax maximum noise level
LOS level of service
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1437 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Acronyms and Abbreviations
Page iv PlaceWorks
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MER Maximally exposed receptor
MMCF million cubic feet per day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTCO2e metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PCTPA Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 coarse particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
ROG reactive organic gas
RTP/SCS regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SIP State Implementation Plan
SRA State Responsibility Area
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1438 of 1681 ends

April 2024 Page 1

1.Introduction
The Roseville Joint Union High School District (District) intends to construct a new multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, and parking lot on the existing Roseville High School campus at 1 Tiger Way in Roseville, California.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is at 1 Tiger Way in the central portion of Roseville in Placer County, California. Roseville is in the upper Sacramento Valley, about 18 miles northeast of Sacramento, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location.

Roseville is bordered by the City of Citrus Heights to the south and the City of Rocklin to the northeast. The Sierra Nevada is about 30 miles to the east.

As shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the 42.25-acre site is west of Berry Street, north of Tiger Way, and east of Campo Street. The project site comprises two parcels—Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 015-100-013-000 and 011-230-002-000.

Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity). I-80 intersects Roseville from north to south. Local access to the project site is via Alta Vista Avenue, Sierra Boulevard, Campo Street, Tiger Way, and Berry Street (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Land Use
Facilities
The project site currently operates as a 9th through 12th grade school. The campus consists of classroom buildings, a library, performing arts theater, three gymnasiums (old auxiliary gymnasium, new auxiliary gym, and Moeller gymnasium), 19 portables, cafeteria, pool, baseball fields, and track. Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, shows the existing site facilities from an aerial view.

Access and Circulation
Vehicle access to the project site is currently provided via two driveways via Campo Street and Tiger Way. The school’s existing driveways and parking lots are in the southern and western portions of the site. A student drop-off loop with parking is on campus in the southern portion of the site via Tiger Way. Student parking is in the western portion of the site via Campo Street.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1439 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

Operations
Roseville High School is one of eight schools operated by the District and serves students from 9th through 12th grade. School hours on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday are from 8:30 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. and 9:25 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. on Wednesday.

The 2023-2024 school year enrolled 1,733 students. Table 1, Roseville High School 10-Year Enrollment History, shows the 10-year enrollment history for Roseville High School. The highest enrollment of 2,006 students occurred in the 2019-2020 school year. Roseville High School’s current capacity is approximately 2,000 students.

Table 1 Roseville High School 10-Year Enrollment History School Year Enrollment
2023-2024 1,733
2022-2023 1,617
2021-2022 1,733
2020-2021 1,918
2019-2020 2,006
2018-2019 1,968
2017-2018 1,985
2016-2017 1,987
2015-2016 1,961
2014-2015 1,986
10-Year Average Enrollment: 1,889
Source: CDE 2023
Surrounding Land Use
As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the project site is in a residential community with primarily single-family residences. The site is surrounded by the following land uses. ▪ North: Single-family residences and an easement.
▪ East: Roseville Public Cemetery with a mix of industrial and commercial uses. ▪ South: Union Pacific Railroad and a mix of single-family and multifamily residences. ▪ West: Single-family residences and Ferris Spanger Elementary School.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1440 of 1681 ends

Folsom Lake
Fols om Lake
£¤50
¬«193
¬«65
¬«65
¬« ¬«16 99
¬«160
!"#$80
Roseville
Loomis
Rocklin
Lincoln
Auburn
Rancho
Cordova
Folsom
Citrus
Heights
Sacramento
0 3
Scale (Miles) Source: ESRI, 2022
Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.
0 Scale (Miles)
3 School Boundary
65 CALIFORNIA
65 CALIFORNIA
193

CALIFORNIA
160

CALIFORNIA
99 CALIFORNIA
16 CALIFORNIA
50 Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1441 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1442 of 1681 ends

Roseville
Rocklin
0 2,000
Feet
Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
Source: ESRI, 2022
PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.
0 Scale (Feet)
2,000
School Boundary
Project Boundary
80 65

CALIFORNIA
Campo St
Berry St
Alta Vista Ave
Tahoe Ave
Tiger Wy
Atlantic St Manzanita Ave
Galleria Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Douglas Blvd
Main St
Church St
Riverside Ave
King Rd
Sunrise Ave
N Sunrise Ave
Lead Hill Blvd
Gibson DrGibson Dr
Springview
Dr
Diamond Oaks Rd
Reserve DrReserve Dr
Taylor Rd
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1443 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 6 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1444 of 1681 ends

PlaceWorks
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Source: Nearmap 2024.
0 Scale (Feet)
300
School Boundary
Campo St
Manzanita Ave
Berry St
Alta Vista Ave
Atlantic St
Las Flores Ave
Sierra Blvd
Coronado Ave
Tahoe Ave
Sequoia St
Residential
Residential
Residential
Roseville
Cemetery
Lassen Wy
Roseville
High School
Parking Lot
(Berry Lot)
Nugget Ct
Amber Ct
Tiger Wy
Tennis Courts
Remove Portables
Relocated Portable
Competition Pool Complex
Pool Demolition
Multi-story
Classroom Building
Outdoor Dining Patio
and Quad Extension
Pavement Texture/Color
Connection
Auxiliary Gym Demolition
1 2
4 3
1 2
3 4
5 5
6 7
8 9
6 7
8 9
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1445 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 8 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1446 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction
April 2024 Page 9

EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
The prevailing adopted planning and regulatory documents that govern development and use of the project site are the City of Roseville General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 19 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code). The City of Roseville General Plan land use designation of the project site is Public Quasi-Public (P/QP). The project site is zoned Public Quasi-Public (P/QP).1 The development and design standards and regulations in the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance, which implements the City of Roseville General Plan, constitute the zoning regulations that govern development of the project site. As proposed, the Roseville High School Improvement Project is permitted under the P/QP land use designation and P/QP zoning district.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
The proposed Roseville High School Improvement Project would be constructed at 1 Tiger Way, Roseville, California, on the existing Roseville High School campus. The proposed project involves the construction of a new 14,000-square-foot multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, and parking lot, and demolition of the 12,000-square-foot old auxiliary gymnasium, 3,000- square-foot pool, and 180-square-foot pool building. Figure 4, Overall Site Plan, illustrates the project’s site design and location of new facilities.

Facilities
Multistory Classroom Building
The new multistory classroom building would contain, at minimum, 12 standard 960-square-foot classrooms, two large flexible-space classrooms of approximately 1,250 square feet, with one designed to accommodate a fitness class with flexibility to be used for other educational purposes as needs change.

Outdoor Dining Patio and Quad Extension
An outdoor dining patio and quad extension will be constructed next to the proposed multistory classroom building, immediately to the south of the building.

Competition Pool Complex
A new competition pool with a pool building and bleachers, totaling approximately 20,000 square feet will be constructed where an existing parking lot currently exists. The parking lot is next to the Campo Street entrance between the stadium and varsity baseball field. The competition pool will consist of 10 competition lanes and two warm-up lanes. The pool building is expected to include outdoor showers and approximately three singleuse bathrooms. No lockers will be included, as students will continue to use gym lockers. A 10-foot-tall, galvanized chain-link fence with privacy slats would be installed around the entire perimeter of the competition 1 The public/quasi-public district is applied to land intended for education, religious assembly, governmental offices, municipal corporation yards, water treatment plants, power-generating facilities (including privately owned facilities), and other publicly owned facilities.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1447 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 10 ends

pool. Two five-tier bleachers will be included (approximately 97 feet x 10 feet and 122 feet x 10 feet). Bleachers would each have an overhead canopy with an approximate seating capacity for 620 people. A lighting system will be included.

Tennis Courts
Six new tennis courts, totaling approximately 37,000 square feet will be constructed north of the stadium where Hanson Field is located. A 10-foot-tall, galvanized chain-link fence would be installed around the entire perimeter of the tennis courts. A lighting system will not be included. The tennis courts will be lockable for security.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1448 of 1681 ends

PlaceWorks
Source: Roseville Joint Union High School District.

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
0 Scale (Feet)
250
Figure 4 - Overall Site Plan
1 3 2
4 6
5 2-Story Classroom Building
Outdoor Dining Patio and Quad Extension
Pavement Texture/Color Connection
Tennis Courts
New Parking Lot
LEGEND
1 3
2 4
6 5
Competition Swimming Pool Complex Manzanita Ave Lassen Wy Amber Ct
Campo St
Alta Vista Ave
Sierra
Blvd
Las Flores Ave
Berry St
School Boundary
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1449 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 12 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1450 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction
April 2024 Page 13
Landscaping
As shown on Figure 4, Overall Site Plan, the project’s landscape plan would feature new landscaping around the new multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, tennis courts, and parking lot.

The proposed landscape scheme would include a variety of drought-tolerant ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover. No native oak trees would be removed.

Lighting
Light fixtures would be installed inside and around the exterior of the multistory classroom building.

Additionally, sports lighting would be installed around the competition pool. Existing lighting inside and around the areas proposed for demolition would be removed.

Pavement Texture and Color Connection
Pavement texture and color connection will be included next to the existing cafeteria and the proposed multistory classroom building and outdoor dining patio and quad extension. Currently, Campo Street separates the existing cafeteria from the rest of the school campus. The proposed pavement texture and color connection will help distinguish the cafeteria as part of the school campus by facilitating a connection and improving overall safety for students and staff that cross the street to access the cafeteria.

Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular Access and Circulation
As shown in Figure 4, Overall Site Plan, vehicular access for the project site would be provided via Campo Street and Tiger Way. Staff and visitors would continue to use the Tiger Way driveway entrance while students would continue to use the Campo Street driveway entrance to access student parking. These access points would remain unchanged. The internal path of travel near the Campo Street entrance would be modified to accommodate the new competition pool.

Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Pedestrian access to the project site would continue to be provided via a public sidewalk along the northern and southern side of Berry Street, southern side of Tiger Way, and eastern side of Campo Street; all of these streets are adjacent to the project site. There are two designated crosswalks near the school property at the corner of Tiger Way and Berry Street, as well as one other designated crosswalk along Berry Street that connects a parking lot adjacent to the school campus. There are no designated bike lanes near the school property.

Parking
A parking lot will be re-established where the existing portables are currently located. Parking at this location was once provided prior to placing portables on-site. As such, the parking lot will require striping to delineate parking spaces; no paving will be required. The proposed parking lot will provide a total of 240 parking spaces to accommodate the parking displaced by the new competition pool. Other parking would continue to be provided on campus in the senior parking lot and front entrance parking lot.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1451 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 14 ends

Demolition and Removal of Portables
Figure 5, Demolition and Removal of Portables, illustrates the facilities proposed for demolition and the removal of portables. The proposed project would demolish the old auxiliary gymnasium, pool, and pool building. There are 18 portables that will be removed, and one will be relocated on-site. “Old” Auxiliary Gym
The old auxiliary gymnasium will be demolished to accommodate the new multistory classroom building. The gymnasium is currently unoccupied and non-operational. The auxiliary gymnasium was constructed of cast-inplace concrete approximately 100 years ago and contains materials requiring abatement. Demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium is scheduled to occur in Phase 1.

Pool
The pool and pool building will be demolished to accommodate the new multistory classroom building.

Demolition of the pool is scheduled to occur in Phase 2.

Portables
A total of 18 portables adjacent to the baseball field will be removed and one portable will be relocated for use as offices to accommodate a new parking lot. The portables will remain in use until completion of the new multistory classroom building set for June 2025. These portables will be removed from the school property.

Removal of the portables will result in a net loss of four classrooms. Removal and relocation of the portables is scheduled for June 2025.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1452 of 1681 ends

PlaceWorks
Source: Roseville Joint Union High School District.

ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Removal of Portables
Portable Relocated
Auxiliary Gym Demolition
Pool Demolition
Manzanita Ave
Lassen Wy
Campo St
Alta Vista Ave
Sierra Blvd
Las Flores Ave
Berry St
1 3
2 4
Figure 5 - Demolition and Removal of Portables
School Boundary
0 Scale (Feet)
100
1 2
3 4
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1453 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 16 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1454 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction
April 2024 Page 17
Utilities
The following utilities would serve Roseville High School:
▪ Water: City of Roseville
▪ Wastewater: City of Roseville
▪ Electricity: Roseville Electric
▪ Natural Gas: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
▪ Solid Waste Collection: City of Roseville
▪ Cable Television: AT&T, DirecTV, Xfinity, Dish
Green Building Standards
Green building is the practice of designing, constructing, and operating buildings to maximize occupant health and productivity, use fewer resources, reduce waste and negative environmental impacts, and decrease life-cycle costs (USGBC 2024). The project would be designed using green building practices, including those of the most current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). The Building Energy Efficiency Standards contain energy and water-efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing buildings, and alterations to existing buildings. CALGreen is California’s statewide “green” building code. Its purpose is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

As proposed, project develoment would include mandatory standards from Divisions 5.1, Planning and Design;

5.2, Energy Efficiency; 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation; 5.4, Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency; and 5.5, Environmental Quality, of CalGreen. Some of the specific green building standards address:
▪ Bicycle parking
▪ Light pollution reduction
▪ Water-conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings
▪ Construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling ▪ Recycling by occupants
▪ Finish material pollutant control
Project Phasing and Construction
Project development is anticipated to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium, which will occur from June to August 2024. Phase 2 will occur from March 2025 to December 2026 in two increments.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1455 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 18 ends

Increment 1 includes:
▪ Site preparation
▪ Grading and excavation
▪ Trenching for site utilities
▪ Construction of the new competition pool, pool building, and tennis courts.

Increment 2 includes:
▪ Demolition of the existing pool and pool building
▪ Site preparation
▪ Grading and excavation
▪ Trenching for site utilities
▪ Construction of the multistory classroom building, outdoor patio, and quad extension ▪ Removal of existing portables
▪ Reclaimed parking lot and striping
Overall construction is estimated to take approximately two years and six months, from June 2024 to December 2026. All other existing facilities will remain operational during construction of the proposed project. The proposed project would be fully constructed and operational between late 2026 and early 2027.

Construction activities would include building and asphalt demolition and excavation, site preparation and rough grading, utility trenching, fine grading, building construction, architectural coating, asphalt paving, finishing, and landscaping. All proposed improvements and areas of disturbance would occur on the project site. Construction is proposed to take place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, as allowed in the City of Roseville Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.24, of the Municipal Code. The active construction and staging areas would be on the project site. The level of construction traffic will vary throughout the duration of the project and will depend on specific construction tasks.

The project would require approximately 7,500 cubic yards (cy) of soil to be exported; no soil would be imported. The types and numbers of construction equipment expected to be used during construction activities are summarized in Section 3.3, Air Quality.

Discretionary Actions and Approvals
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The Roseville Joint Union High School District is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has the principal approval authority over the project.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) must be adopted by the Board of Education, confirming its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA. The Board will consider the information in the MND when deciding to approve or deny the proposed project. The analysis is intended to provide environmental review for the whole of the proposed project, including the planning of the project; demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium, pool, and pool building; clearance, excavation, and grading of the site; construction of Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1456 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction
April 2024 Page 19
the multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, parking lot; and ongoing operation.

Nondiscretionary/Ministerial Actions and Approvals
A public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval power over a part of the proposed project is known as a “responsible agency” in the CEQA Guidelines. The responsible agencies and their corresponding approvals for this project may include:
▪ California Department of Education, School Facilities and Transportation Services Division ▪ California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect ⚫ Approval of site plans and building plans
• Approval of a Site Plan Review
▪ City of Roseville
⚫ Approval of roadway and stormwater connection improvements • Approval of any roadway closures needed to implement the improvements Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1457 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

1. Introduction

Page 20 ends

This page is intentionally left blank.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1458 of 1681 ends

April 2024 Page 21

2.Environmental Checklist

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Roseville High School Improvement Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

Roseville Joint Union High School District
2 Tiger Way, Building #2
Roseville, California 95678

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Scott Davis, Director of Facilities Development
916.782.4707

4. Project Location: The project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 015-100-013-000 and 011-230-002-000, at 1 Tiger Way, Roseville, California.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Roseville Joint Union High School District
2 Tiger Way, Building #2
Roseville, California 95678

6. General Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP).

7. Zoning: Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP).

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project involves construction of a new 14,000-square-foot multistory classroom building, competition pool, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, tennis courts, and parking lot, and demolition of the 12,000-square-foot old auxiliary gymnasium, 3,000-square-foot pool, and 180-square-foot pool building.

The new classroom building is planned to contain, at minimum, 12 standard 960-square-foot classrooms, two large flexible-space classrooms of approximately 1,250 square feet, with one designed to accommodate a fitness class with flexibility to be used for other educational purposes as needs change. A new competition pool will be constructed where an existing parking lot currently exists, which is next to the Campo Street entrance between the stadium and varsity baseball field. The competition pool will consist of 12 competition lanes and two warm-up lanes. Six new tennis courts will be constructed north of the stadium where Hanson Field is located. A 10-foot-tall, galvanized chain-link fence would be installed around the entire perimeter of the tennis courts. A lighting system will not be included.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1459 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 22 ends

A total of 18 portables adjacent to the baseball field will be removed and one portable will be relocated for use as offices to accommodate a new parking lot. Removal of the portables will result in a net loss of four classrooms.

Vehicular access for the project site would be provided via Campo Street and Tiger Way. Pedestrian access to the project site would continue to be provided via a public sidewalk along the northern and southern side of Berry Street, southern side of Tiger Way, and eastern side of Campo Street. The internal path of travel near the Campo Street entrance would be modified to accommodate the new competition pool. A new parking lot will be constructed where the existing portables are currently located. The proposed parking lot will provide a total of 240 parking spaces to accommodate the parking displaced by the new competition pool.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is in a residential community with primarily single-family residences. The site is bound by single-family residences and an easement to the north, the Roseville Public Cemetery with a mix of industrial and commercial uses to the east, the Union Pacific Railroad and a mix of single-family and multifamily residences to the south, and single-family residences and the Ferris Spanger Elementary School to the west.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):

California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect ▪ Structural
▪ Fire Life Safety
▪ American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
▪ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
▪ California Department of Education Plan Approval
City of Roseville
▪ Approval of any roadway closures needed to implement the improvements. ▪ Issuance of a demolition permit pursuant to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1460 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2024 Page 23
California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3I contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Per District policy, the District sent Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letters to the following tribes on February 21, 2024:
▪ Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
▪ Tsi Akim Maidu
▪ United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria ▪ Wilton Rancheria
▪ Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe
▪ Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe
As of the time of the publication of this MND no tribes have contacted the District, and as such, no consultation has been initiated. See Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for more information.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1461 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 24 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have “a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1462 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2024 Page 25

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1463 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 26 ends

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
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 nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1464 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2024 Page 27
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1465 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 28 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1466 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2024 Page 29
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1467 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 30 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1468 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2024 Page 31
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1469 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 32 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1470 of 1681 ends

April 2024 Page 33

3.Environmental Analysis
Section 2.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, a scenic vista is generally considered a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Some scenic vistas are officially designated by public agencies or informally designated by tourist guides. Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, large open space area, the ocean, or other water bodies. A substantial adverse effect to a scenic vista is one that degrades the view from such a designated view spot.

There are no designated scenic vistas in the City of Roseville. Views from the project site consist of developed urban land. There are no prominent landscape features on the site itself, and the proposed project would not impact a viewshed of a surrounding scenic vista. Views of the project site are limited to adjacent private residential properties, local roadways, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. A scenic highway is generally considered a stretch of public roadway that is designated a scenic corridor by a federal, state, or local agency. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality.

There is no designated or eligible state scenic highway on or in close proximity to the project site, and the project site is not visible from any officially designated or eligible state or locally designated scenic highway. The City of Roseville does not have any locally designated scenic highways.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1471 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 34 ends

According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest eligible scenic highway is State Route 174, about 30 miles to the northeast near the City of Colfax and at the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (Caltrans 2024). The nearest officially designated scenic highway (State Route 160) is south of Sacramento, about 23 miles to the southwest of the site. The proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources in a state scenic highway. Furthermore, there are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings on-site. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur due to project development, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21071 defines the term “urbanized area” for the purpose of CEQA to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. According to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census data from 2022, the City of Roseville has a population of 154,817 (USCB 2024). Thus, the project site is in an urbanized area as defined by PRC Section 21071 and is therefore evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The project site is zoned P/QP and applied to land intended for educational purposes. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable development regulations of the underlying P/QP zone pertaining to visual character, such as height limitations and setbacks. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. No impact would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is caused by misdirected light that illuminates areas outside the area intended to be lit. Glare occurs when a bright object appears against a dark background, such as oncoming vehicle headlights or an unshielded light bulb.

As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the project site (which consists of the existing high school campus) is surrounded by residential uses. Residential uses are considered light-sensitive receptors, that is, land uses that are sensitive to lighting. The project vicinity has streetlights, vehicle lights, parking lot lights, and building and security lights from the existing school property. The multistory classroom building would have light fixtures installed inside and around the exterior of the building. Additionally, the competition pool will include sports lighting.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1472 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 35
The lighting system consists of 16 fixtures supported by four poles at each corner of the pool deck. Two of the four poles will be approximately 70 feet in height, and each have one LED-400 fixture (i.e., 0.40 kilowatts [kW]), three LED-600 fixtures (i.e., 1.74 kW). The remaining two poles will be approximately 50 feet in height, and each have one LED-400 fixture (i.e., 0.40 kW) and three LED-600 fixtures (i.e., 1.74 kW).

Light spillover from the competition pool is expected to remain within the boundaries of the campus as outdoor pool lighting would be placed, designed, and directed to avoid spillover. Therefore, light spillover would not reach the single-family residences to the southwest. Security and path lights would be directional and would not spill light to nearby residential properties. All lights would also be shielded to avoid light spill and glare onto adjacent properties. Lighting would not be substantially greater intensities than existing lights near the project site, and nighttime views would not be significantly affected. Therefore, light impacts would be less than significant.

However, the lighting from the proposed competition pool would result in a new source of substantial light that could adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Because residences are within 300 feet of the project site, Mitigation Measure AES-1 would ensure that the effects of nighttime illumination on nearby residences are reduced by requiring that lights associated with the competition pool are not used later than 11:00 p.m.

Therefore, glare impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measure
AES-1 To reduce the effects of nighttime illumination from the Roseville High School competition pool, the use of high-powered floodlights will be limited and shall not be used later than 11:00 p.m.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the California Important Farmland Finder (CDC 2024a). The proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no impact would occur.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1473 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 36 ends

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned P/QP and is not zoned for agricultural use (City of Roseville 2024).

There are no lands contracted under the Williamson Act for agricultural use on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the site (CDC 2006). No impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is developed and is zoned P/QP. Project implementation would not cause rezoning of forestland or timberland. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain forestland, nor is the project site zoned as forestland. The project site is developed, and implementation of the proposed project would not convert forestland to non-forest use or result in a loss of forestland. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the project site is not adjacent to agricultural uses.

Improvements proposed with the project would result in the construction of a new multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, and parking lot on the existing Roseville High School campus. The P/QP Zone District is not considered an agricultural zone. There is no potential to convert farmland to nonfarm uses, and no impact would occur.

AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), in coordination with other local air districts in Sacramento, prepared and submitted the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) to demonstrate how Placer County would attain the required federal eight-hour ozone standard by 2024 (CARB 2018). In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), PCAPCD and other air districts in the region also prepared the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (Sacramento Ozone Plan) in July 2017, which stands as the applicable air quality plan for the region, as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Sacramento Ozone Plan demonstrated that the Sacramento area would attain the required federal eight-hour ozone standard in 2024 and contained the required planning elements, including an emission inventory, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration with a Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1474 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 37
baseline year of 2012, transportation conformity budgets for the years 2020 and 2023, and RFP and attainment contingency provisions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) also adopted the 2023 Sacramento Regional Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard (2023 Plan), which demonstrates how the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Areas would provide enough emission reductions from ozone precursors to attain the federal 2015 ozone standard (0.070 parts per million [ppm]) before the end of 2032 (SMAQMD 2023).

The SIP plans and control measures are based on information derived from regional growth projections based on general plans developed by Placer County to forecast future emission levels in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). As such, projects that proposed development consistent with the growth anticipated or development that is less dense that is associated with the Roseville General Plan would be consistent with the SIP. Changes in population, housing, or employment growth projections have the potential to affect PCAPD’s demographic projections and therefore the assumptions in SIP. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect regional growth projections.

The project site is currently designated Public Quasi-Public (P/QP). 2 The land use development on the project
site would be consistent with the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance and is permitted under the P/QP land use designation and P/QP zoning district. The proposed project involves the construction of a new multistory classroom building, hardscape improvements, replacement of the campus pool, tennis courts, and parking lot.

After buildout, the proposed project will not result in an increase in student or staff capacity.

As demonstrated below, the regional emissions that would be generated by the operational phase of the proposed project would be less than the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, it would not be considered by PCAPCD to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions that would have the potential to affect the nonattainment designations in the SVAB. The proposed project would not affect the regional emissions inventory or conflict with strategies in the SIP and impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes project-related impacts from regional short-term construction activities and regional long-term operation of the proposed project.

Regional Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and coarse particulate matter (PM10).
2 The public/quasi-public (P/QP) district is applied to land intended for education, religious assembly, governmental offices, municipal corporation yards, water treatment plants, power-generating facilities (including privately owned facilities), and other publicly owned facilities.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1475 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 38 ends

The proposed project would result in demolition debris and would require soil export from the site preparation activity. A quantified analysis of the proposed project’s construction emissions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1 based on information provided by the District and default equipment mix for each construction activity. Project development is anticipated to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium, which will occur from June to August 2024 and Phase 2 will occur from March 2025 to December 2026 in two increments (refer to Section 1.4, Project Description). The approximately 30-month construction period is assumed to begin in June 2024 and end in December 2026.

Potential construction-related air quality impacts are determined by comparing the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions generated by the project-related construction activities to the PCAPCD significance thresholds in Table 2, Maximum Daily Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. Maximum daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. As shown in Table 2, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the PCAPCD significance thresholds and impacts from project-related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant.

Table 2 Maximum Daily Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)a,b
ROG NOX PM10
Construction Emissions 6.99 65.10 11.80
PCAPCD Construction Thresholds 82 82 82
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold? No No No
Source: Appendix A, CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported.

Notes: Reactive Organic Gases = ROG; Coarse Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM10; Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM2.5 a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. Includes implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control required by PCAPCD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping.

Regional Long-Term Operational Impacts
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions generated by a land use would be generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, and architectural coatings), mobile sources from vehicle trips, and energy use (natural gas). The proposed project involves the construction of a new multistory classroom building, hardscape improvements, replacement of the campus pool, tennis courts, and parking lot. In general, the primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by land use development projects are usually from mobile sources.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1476 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 39
As the proposed project would not result in an increase in student enrollment or subsequent vehicle trip generation at project completion, the proposed project’s greatest emission sources are anticipated to be area and energy source emissions from operation of the new multistory classroom building. Operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (version 2022.1) and are based on the information provided by the District.

Similar to existing conditions, the proposed project would generate area source emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. The emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the older buildings on the campus, which were constructed prior to modern building energy codes, would be updated with newer, more energy-efficient buildings that meet the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.

In addition, existing operations on-site generate criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources, area sources, and energy sources principally associated with the operation of the existing auxiliary gymnasium and pool building on campus. These existing on-site emissions would be foregone with the implementation of the proposed project, and PCAPCD recommends that existing emissions be subtracted from proposed project emissions before being compared against PCAPCD significance thresholds. It should be noted that this analysis represents a conservative assessment of project emissions during operation because it does not consider the foregone emissions generated from existing operations on-site. As such, criteria pollutant emissions from full operation of the proposed project without subtracting existing emissions are included herein for a conservative assessment of the proposed project and are compared against PCAPCD significance thresholds.

As shown in Table 3, Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions, the maximum daily operation emissions would be less than their respective PCAPCD significance threshold values. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SVAB, and regional air quality impacts are less than significant.

Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX PM10
Operational Emissions 0.46 0.16 0.01
PCAPCD Operational Project-Level Thresholds 55 55 82
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold? No No No
Source: Appendix A, CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported.

Notes: lbs = pounds.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it causes or significantly contributes to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1477 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 40 ends

Construction Impacts
Future construction under the proposed project would temporarily elevate concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and diesel particulate matter (DPM) in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. Appendix G, Preparing a Health Risk Assessment for Land Use Projects, in the PCAPCD’s CEQA Handbook recommends levels of significance for new sources (PCAPCD 2017). Consequently, a sitespecific construction health risk assessment (HRA) of TACs was prepared (see Appendix B, Construction HRA Modeling, of this IS/MND).

The nearest receptors, their receptor types, and their proximity and orientation to the project site include the following:
▪ Workers: immediately adjacent to new construction.
▪ Elementary school students: Ferris Spanger Elementary School approximately 925 feet to the west. ▪ Residents: Single-family residences approximately 25 feet to the south.

A quantified analysis of the project’s construction emissions was conducted using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Construction emissions were based on 426 working days of the total 30-month construction duration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AERMOD dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk and chronic non-cancer hazard index for non-carcinogenic risk at the nearest off-site receptors. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4, Unmitigated Construction Risk Summary, and contained in Appendix A, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Data, of this IS/MND.

Table 4 Unmitigated Construction Risk Summary
Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards
MER – Resident 15.70 0.08
MER – Worker 0.21 0.04
MER – K-5 Student 0.03 <0.01
MER – Park Visitor 0.04 <0.01
PCAPCD Thresholds 10 1.0
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA Guidance Manual. Bold = exceeds threshold. MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor.

Source: Lakes AERMOD View, Version 12.0.0.

The results of the HRA are based on the maximum sensitive receptor concentration over the approximately 30-month construction exposure period for off-site and on-site receptors, assuming 24-hour outdoor exposure, and averaged over a 70-year lifetime. Risk is based on the updated Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance for the Maximally Exposed Receptor (MER) of each receptor type (e.g., residential, school, worker) within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1478 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 41
As shown in Table 4, cancer risk for the residential MER from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 15.70 in one million, which would exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold. Cancer risk for all other MERs would be below the 10 in one million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the residential MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the duration of construction; therefore, all calculated residential risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents and students were outdoors eight hours a day. For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint equaled less than one for each identified receptor. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards would be within acceptable limits.

Because cancer risk for the residential and student MERs would exceed the significance threshold during project construction, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is included to ensure that off-road equipment used during project construction greater than 50 horsepower meets Tier 4 Interim emissions standards. Mitigated results for the Residential MER are contained in Table 5.

Table 5 Mitigated Construction Risk Summary
Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards
MER – Resident 4.40 0.03
MER – Worker 0.20 0.04
MER – K-5 Student 0.01 <0.01
MER – Park Visitor 0.01 <0.01
PCAPCD Thresholds 10 1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA Guidance Manual. Bold = exceeds threshold. MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor.

Source: Lakes AERMOD View, Version 12.0.0.

As shown in Table 5, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the proposed project’s localized construction emissions and subsequent exposure to nearby receptors. The results demonstrate that, with mitigation, cancer risk would be less than the significance thresholds at all analyzed receptors.

Additionally, demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium and pool building may release asbestos fibers. Since the project site is in PCAPCD, which is a non-delegated air district, the proposed project must comply with Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and submit an Asbestos Notification Form to the USEPA (CARB 2024).

Because cancer risks for nearby MERs would not exceed PCAPCD’s significance thresholds and exposure to asbestos fibers would be mitigated with compliance with asbestos NESHAP requirements, the proposed project would not expose nearby receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1479 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 42 ends

Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Construction contractors shall use United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 Interim equipment for all off-road, diesel-powered construction equipment of greater than 50 horsepower (HP), unless it can be demonstrated to the Roseville Joint Unified School District that such equipment is not commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier 4 engines similar to the availability for other large-scale construction projects in the city occurring at the same time and taking into consideration factors such as (i) potential significant delays to critical-path timing of construction and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of Tier 4 equipment.

Where such equipment is not commercially available, as demonstrated by the construction contractor, Tier 3 equipment retrofitted with a California Air Resources Board’s Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) shall be used.

Operational Health Risk
People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. To reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed a handbook for the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities (CARB 2005). This document was developed as a guide and as a tool for assessing the compatibility and associated health risk when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources.

Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs include industrial (stationary sources), manufacturing, and warehousing (truck idling) land uses that could generate a substantial number of trucks. To avoid exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of air pollutants, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within “1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week)” (CARB 2005).

PCAPCD additionally recommends that a site-specific health risk analysis involving air dispersion modeling be considered for projects that are anticipated to generate TACs, such as goods distribution centers, refineries, power generation facilities, chrome platers, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities.

The types of major air pollutant emissions sources listed by CARB and PCAPCD are not included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would not include stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of daily heavy-duty truck trips (a source of DPM) to warrant a more detailed review. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

CO Hot Spots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hot spots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the State one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of

9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards (AAQS) is typically demonstrated through an Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1480 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 43
analysis of localized CO concentrations, typically produced at intersections where vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Currently, the SVAB is designated attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS.

According to the PCAPCD, CO concentrations should be analyzed at intersections in the project vicinity if the project’s CO emissions from vehicle operation are more than 550 pounds per day (lbs/day) and if the level of service (LOS) would be degraded from acceptable (i.e., A, B, C, or D) to unacceptable (i.e., E or F); or a project would result in the addition of traffic that would substantially worsen (i.e., delay of 10 seconds or more with project-generated traffic included) already unacceptable peak-hour LOS intersections.

After buildout, the proposed project would not result in an increase in student or staff capacity, and thus would not generate new traffic on the overall roadway network. There would be no change in the number of daily trips after improvements on the campus and the proposed project would not generate CO emissions in high enough quantities to result in a CO hot spot at nearby intersections. This impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new multistory classroom building, hardscape improvements, replacement of the campus pool, tennis courts, and parking lot. These type of land uses would not create objectionable odors to the public. Additionally, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, overall, odor impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1481 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 44 ends

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been studied and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has concluded that they should be proposed for addition to the federal endangered and threatened species list.

Sensitive biological resources are habitats3 or individual species that have special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations as endangered, threatened, or rare. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, and organizations like the California Native Plant Society maintain watch lists of such resources.
“Special-status species” is a universal term in the scientific community for species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be or have been listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by USFWS and/or CDFW.

Candidate and Sensitive Species
No candidate or sensitive species occur on-site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Special-Status Species
There are no special-status species previously documented within the project site boundaries.

Special-Status Plants
The project site is previously disturbed and developed as a high school. No special-status plant species occur within the project area due to historical and continued disturbance and use and the presence of school buildings and facilities, impervious surfaces, and maintained landscaping. While tree or vegetation removal would be required, the project would not result in direct impacts on special-status plants during construction given their absence within the project site boundaries. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3 Per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, habitat is where a given plant or animal species meets its requirements for food, cover, and water in both space and time.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1482 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 45
Special-Status Wildlife
Based on database search results and wildlife surveys in the project area, the following special-status species are known to occur in or adjacent to the project site: northwestern pond turtle, western spadefoot, monarch butterfly, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (USFWS 2024). However, these species are not discussed further because they and/or suitable habitats are absent from the project site.

The project site is previously disturbed and developed as a high school. No special-status wildlife species occur within the project area due to historical and continued disturbance and use and the presence of a large parking lot entrance and maintained landscaping. However, native migratory birds may be present in the project area.

All locations with a shrub- or tree-canopy layer in the project area may provide suitable nesting habitat for a diverse assemblage of migratory birds.

The site is developed and includes existing school buildings and facilities. A majority of the site is developed with pavement and sidewalks and includes the old auxiliary gymnasium and pool; the northern portion of the project site is Hanson Field, which is adjacent to the track and baseball fields. Ornamental trees and shrubs are scattered throughout the site. The ornamental trees on-site could be used for nesting by birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (US Code Title 16, Sections 703-712), and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq. Tree or vegetation removal will be required for the project; therefore, the project could result in direct impacts on special-status birds if they are nesting in the affected trees and vegetation during construction. Indirect impacts on special-status birds could result from noise and vibration during construction if birds were nesting in the trees adjacent to the project area. Therefore, per Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a preconstruction nesting bird survey is required within 14 days of the beginning of ground disturbance during the nesting season. Additionally, per Mitigation Measure BIO-2, a no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be established if active nests are found. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Conduct a preconstruction nesting raptor and bird survey of all suitable habitat on the project site within 14 days of the commencement of ground disturbance (e.g., tree/vegetation removal, mass grading) during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Where accessible, surveys should be conducted within 300 feet of the project site for nesting raptors and 100 feet of the project site for other nesting birds.

BIO-2 If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be established. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer shall be maintained until the fledglings are capable of flight and become independent of the nest tree, to be determined by a qualified biologist. Once the young are independent of the nest, no further measures are necessary.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1483 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 46 ends

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies; known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or known to be important wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams.

No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are within the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as streams, swamps, marshes, and bogs.

No wetlands potentially jurisdictional to the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act are within the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another.

Movement corridors may provide favorable locations for wildlife to travel between different habitat areas, such as foraging sites, breeding sites, cover areas, and preferred summer and winter range locations. They may also function as dispersal corridors, allowing animals to move between various locations within their range.

The MBTA (50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 10 and Part 21) protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs from disturbance or destruction. “Migratory birds” include all nongame, wild birds found in the U.S., except for the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and rock pigeon (Columba livia).

There are no significant habitat features (e.g., wetlands or riparian areas) on or adjacent to the project site, and project development is not expected to impact wildlife movement. However, the ornamental trees on-site could be used for nesting by birds protected under the MBTA (US Code Title 16, Sections 703-712), and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq. Tree or vegetation removal would be required for the project; therefore, the project could result in direct impacts on migratory birds if they are nesting in the affected trees and vegetation during construction. Indirect impacts on migratory birds could result from noise and vibration during construction if birds were nesting in the trees adjacent to the project area. Therefore, per Mitigation Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1484 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 47
Measure BIO-1, a preconstruction nesting bird survey is required within 14 days of the commencement of ground disturbance during the nesting season. Additionally, per Mitigation Measure BIO-2, a no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be established if active nests are found. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Roseville does not have any established ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that govern the project site (CDFW 2024). Placer County prepared and adopted the Placer County Conservation Plan in 2020 that covers most of South Placer.

However, it excludes the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, Loomis, and Auburn. The City of Roseville is not a current participant in the Placer County Conservation Plan. No impact would occur.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1485 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 48 ends

As shown on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the project site is developed as a high school. Project development would involve construction of a new multistory classroom building, outdoor dining patio and quad extension, competition pool, tennis courts, and parking lot, and demolition of the old auxiliary gymnasium, pool, and pool building.

ASM Affiliates evaluated the existing auxiliary gymnasium both individually and as a contributing resource to a potential Roseville High School campus historic district. However, due to the few remaining pre-1940 buildings from the earliest years of operation the Roseville High School campus would not comprise a potential historic district. The only pre-1940 buildings that remain on campus include the old auxiliary gymnasium, mechanical arts building, and outdoor amphitheater. As such, ASM Affiliates did not identify a historic district to which the auxiliary gymnasium would be a contributing resource.

As an individual resource the auxiliary gymnasium was evaluated under Criterion 1 for the theme of education with a potential period of significance of circa 1926 (i.e., the construction of the auxiliary gymnasium) to 1955 (i.e., the construction of Moeller gym). While the auxiliary gymnasium served as a recreation and athletic space for the school and community, it does not convey a strong association with the theme of education as an individual resource to be eligible as a good representation of this theme. Therefore, the auxiliary gymnasium is not eligible under Criterion 1 for the theme of education. Furthermore, the auxiliary gymnasium is recommended not eligible under Criterion 2. Historic research conducted at the Roseville Historical Society, Roseville Public Library, and through newspaper archives did not reveal any significant people associated with the auxiliary gymnasium or its subsequent association with the Roseville High School’s athletics program.

Under Criterion 3, the auxiliary gymnasium is not a good representation of a particular property type, period, region, or high artistic values. No architectural plans were located that identify the building’s architect; therefore, it is not recommended eligible as a good representation of the work of a master. The auxiliary gymnasium exhibits some of the characteristics of the Art Deco style such as linear, hard edges, and a vertical emphasis of the primary façade with hard-edged, low relief ornamentation surrounding the entrance. However, while it is an example of the Art Deco style, it is not a good representation of the style when examined within the local context of the City of Roseville. Therefore, the auxiliary gymnasium is not eligible under Criterion 3. The auxiliary gymnasium is recommended not eligible under Criterion 4 as it does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research.

Consequently, the project site does not contain any buildings that would be considered historic. Furthermore, the project site does not meet any of the state or federal criteria of a historic resource identified above. No historical events have occurred on-site, and no persons of significance have resided or currently reside on-site.

Additionally, the project site does not exhibit any unique architectural style or features, nor does it have architectural elements or features to suggest unique design or construction.

The project site is not identified on any federal or state historic registers or sources, including the National Register of Historic Places and California State Historical Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest (NPS 2020; OHP 2024). The closest historical landmark to the project site is the Haman House approximately one mile to the southwest. Project development would occur within the confines of the project site and would not impact this historical resource in any way. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1486 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 49
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Archaeological resources are prehistoric or historic evidence of past human activities, including structural ruins and buried resources. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the project site is developed as a high school. The surrounding lands include an easement and residential properties to the north, residential properties to the west, the Roseville Public Cemetery and Berry Street to the east, and Tiger Way and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south.

Given the highly disturbed condition of the project site and its surroundings as well as the minimal grading required for project construction, the potential for development of the proposed project to impact an unidentified archaeological resource is considered extremely low. However, in the unlikely event that prehistoric and/or historic archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been identified to ensure impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Prior to ground disturbance by project site clearance and grading, the District shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology to be on call during all project ground-disturbance activities.

If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. The professional archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the find and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
▪ If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required. ▪ If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the CEQA lead agency and applicable landowner. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures if the find is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: (1) is not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR; or (2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1487 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 50 ends

▪ If the find includes human remains or remains that are potentially human, the professional archaeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the Placer County Coroner. The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code [PRC], and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who will designate a Native American most likely descendant (MLD) for the project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the District does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the District must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5; and California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Specifically, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

There are no cemeteries or known human burials at the project site because the site is already developed as school property, and the subject property has been previously disturbed; however, ground disturbance (i.e., grading and excavation) would have the potential to result in discovery of human remains (although the potential is very low). In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, compliance with existing law regarding the discovery of human remains would reduce potential impacts to human remains to less-than-significant levels. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1488 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 51
ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities use energy from various sources, such as on-site heavyduty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew and vendors. The operation of the proposed multistory classroom building would use energy for cooling, heating, and lighting.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Electrical Energy
Construction of the proposed project would require energy use to power the construction equipment. The energy use would vary during different phases of construction—the majority of construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas powered or diesel powered, and the later construction phases would require electric-powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings. However, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. The electrical energy would be supplied by Roseville Electric and available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections. All construction equipment would cease operating upon completion of project construction. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Energy
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the proposed project would be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to natural gas usage.

Transportation Energy
Transportation energy (i.e., diesel fuel, gasoline, and/or electric) used during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. It is anticipated that the majority of off-road construction equipment, such as that used during site preparation and grading, would be gas or diesel powered.

Construction activities would be subject to applicable State regulations, such as anti‐idling measures and limits on duration of activities, thereby reducing energy consumption. For example, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption to reduce the cost of operating equipment, the construction contractors would reasonably be expected to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, which limits nonessential idling of diesel-powered off-road equipment to five minutes.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1489 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 52 ends

In general, there are no unusual characteristics that would directly or indirectly cause construction activities to be any less efficient than would occur elsewhere (restrictions on equipment, labor, types of activities, etc.).

Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Operation of the proposed project would create higher demands for natural gas and electricity from the new multistory classroom building. Energy use from operation of the proposed project would be from building heating, cooling, and ventilation; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, and parking lot lighting. Energy resources consumed by operation of the proposed project were quantified and are presented in Table 6, Project Annual Electricity Consumption.

Table 6 Project Annual Electricity Consumption
Use Type Annual Energy Consumption
Building – Electricity1 67,840
Parking Lot – Electricity1 78,840
Building – Natural Gas2 581,788
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Notes:
1 Energy resource is expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh/year). 2 Energy resource is expressed in British thermal units (kBTU/year).

Electrical Energy
At minimum, the proposed project would meet the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. The proposed project would also include mandatory standards from Divisions 5.1 (Planning and Design), 5.2 (Energy Efficiency), 5.3 (Water Efficiency and Conservation), 5.4 (Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency), and 5.5 (Environmental Quality) of CALGreen. For example, the proposed project is required to implement the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which would reduce the amount of water necessary for landscape irrigation.

As shown in Table 6, implementation of the proposed multistory classroom building and parking lot would result in an increase of 146,680 kilowatt-hours of electricity use per year. The new building would be designed to be more energy-efficient compared to the existing school buildings and greater proportions of electricity consumed by the proposed building would be sourced from renewable energy sources as the State progresses toward meeting Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, the proposed project may increase reliance on renewable energy sources by installing rooftop solar, as prescribed by Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 11, Section 140.10(a).

As such, the proposed project is anticipated to decrease overall per-capita energy consumption and reliance on fossil fuels from implementation of greater energy efficiencies in building design and materials. Overall, the new building constructed to the standards identified above would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1490 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 53
Natural Gas Energy
As shown in Table 6, the new multistory classroom building would contain and increase the demand of natural gas for heating by 581,788 British thermal units. However, this is a conservative estimate as the old auxiliary gymnasium, and pool building on campus also required natural gas demand. As mentioned previously, the proposed project would be built to meet the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards, meet the CALGreen requirements, and be designed to have greater energy efficiency than the existing school buildings. The new energy efficiency building standards would result in a decrease in per-capita natural gas consumption for space and water heating.

In addition, new buildings would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 11, Section 140.10(a) of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and may include a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum requirements specified by calculations contained in the California Building Standards Condition. As such, the proposed project is anticipated to decrease reliance on fossil fuels from implementation of greater energy efficiencies in building design and materials. Overall, the new building constructed to the standards identified would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas.

Transportation Energy
A typical new school development would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles associated with students, staff, and visitors to the campus. The efficiency of these motor vehicles is unknown, such as the average miles per gallon. Estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and its associated transportation energy use. Since the proposed project would not increase student capacity or staffing, the proposed project would not result in additional trips or an increase in VMT and would not result in additional reliance on fossil fuel consumption.

Additionally, fuel efficiency of vehicles during the buildout year of 2026 would, on average, improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under existing conditions, thereby resulting in a lower per-capita fuel consumption in 2026 assuming travel distances, travel modes, and trip rates remain the same. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to the statewide fuel-reduction strategies and regulatory compliances (e.g., CAFE standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuelefficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, students and staff do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the region with more fuel-efficient vehicle options.

As electricity consumed in California is required to meet the increasing renewable energy mix requirements under the State’s Regional Portfolio Standard (RPS) and accelerated by SB 100, greater and greater proportions of electricity consumed for transportation energy demand envisioned under the proposed project would continue to be sourced from renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels. Vehicle fuel efficiencies would improve year over year through the buildout year of 2026 and result in a decrease in overall per-capita transportation energy consumption.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1491 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 54 ends

Moreover, the proposed improvements would not worsen vehicle congestion because a proposed parking lot would be re-established where the existing portables are located to accommodate the parking displaced by the new competition pool. In addition, there are two designated crosswalks near the school property and the proposed project would not conflict with the existing circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Overall, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in criterion (b) of Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would not conflict with the current CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), all which involve planning for use of renewable energy and energyefficiency standards. Additionally, the proposed project would adhere to the applicable General Plan policies related to energy conservation and would be built to the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Public Resources Code, Title 24, Part 6. As stated before, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. Fault rupture impacts occur when a structure is on top of an active fault that displaces in two separate directions during an earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was adopted in 1972 to prevent building construction in areas where active faults have surface expression. Surface fault rupture is earth surface broken by fault movement. Sudden surface rupture from severe earthquakes can cause extensive property damage, but even slow fault movement, known as “fault creep,” can cause displacement that results in offset or disfiguring of curbs, streets, buildings, and other infrastructure.

The proposed project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Zone, nor is it situated on any known active or potentially active fault (CDC 2024b, 2024c). The nearest fault zone under the Alquist-Priolo Act is a portion of the Dunnigan Hills Fault approximately 30 miles to the west. Other active faults are south of Lake Oroville, at Lake Tahoe, and in the Coast Ranges, approximately 45 to 60 miles away. While the proximity Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1492 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 55
of the Dunnigan Hills Fault to the subject property could subject it to moderate and possibly strong ground motion, such motion would not be greater than at other sites in seismically active northern California.

Impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a seismically active region of northern California.

Ground shaking originating from active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults. Seismic shaking has the potential to be generated by faults many miles from the project vicinity. Regional faulting is associated with the Foothill Fault System, which consists of several different faults, including the Bear Mountains Fault Zone. The northern portion of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone and the Maidu Fault (east of Folsom Lake) and the northern portion of the Deadman Fault (north of Folsom Lake) have exhibited evidence of movement in the last 700,000 to 1.6 million years. Therefore, these faults are considered potentially active. However, the nearest known active fault is the Cleveland Hills fault, approximately 41 miles north. The Dunnigan Hills and Midland faults, which both have unknown histories of activity and are approximately 13 and 19 miles from Roseville, respectively, present the highest potential to produce ground shaking at the project site. Ground shaking could also originate from seismic activity along the larger, but relatively distant Foothill or San Andreas fault systems, the nearest components of which are approximately 20 and 55 miles from Roseville, respectively. Although seismic activity from these faults could potentially affect the project site, the site is at no greater risk than the surrounding development and infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load-supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. The City of Roseville is composed of well-consolidated to very hard, older Pleistocene- to Eocene-age deposits, and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away (City of Roseville 2020b). Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to post-liquefaction settlement and lateral spreading that would be detrimental to the proposed site improvements, and liquefaction of the soil and rock beneath the site is considered unlikely. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing topography at the site and near vicinity consists of low to moderately sloping hillside terrain. The site is not in an area of known historical landslides. There is no evidence of past landslides or soil creep. The potential for the occurrence of a landslide hazard is very low due to the site’s generally flat terrain. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Project development would involve grading and construction activities that would temporarily leave disturbed soil vulnerable to erosion if effective erosion-control measures were not Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1493 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 56 ends

used. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with best management practices (BMPs) that reduce or eliminate soil erosion from construction sites. Common means of soil erosion from construction sites include water, wind, and being tracked off-site by vehicles. Compliance with BMPs, such as jute bales, covering loads, truck washing areas, and covering stockpiles of materials would reduce soil erosion during construction. Paved and building areas with maintained landscaping will reduce the potential for erosion during operation. Compliance with BMPs is required by the federal and State Clean Water Acts and is administered by the City of Roseville. Compliance with existing regulations governing erosion from construction sites would ensure the project’s impacts on soil erosion would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project development would not cause substantial hazards related to liquefaction and landslides, as substantiated in Sections 3.7.a.iii and 3.7.a.iv, respectively. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The topography in the vicinity of the project site is relatively flat. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered very low. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils swell when they become wet and shrink when they dry out, resulting in the potential for cracked building foundations. All structures built on-site would adhere to the 2022 CBC, or most recent version. Additionally, since the site would be part of a school site, the California Geological Survey and Division of the State Architect would ensure that all potential impacts to the buildings would be sufficiently reduced. Therefore, the project would have less-than-significant impacts on exposing people or the proposed structures to adverse effects associated with expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project site is served by an existing sewer system. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No impact would occur.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1494 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 57
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of past life on earth, such as bones, shells, leaves, tracks, burrows, and impressions. The project site is currently developed. The proposed project would require limited grading and other ground-disturbing construction activities to accommodate the construction of the proposed project and utility requirements. Due to the ground disturbance associated with construction, there is potential that natural landform beneath the site would be encountered during construction and that subsurface resources and/or paleontological resources would be discovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that if resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities that resources would be recovered in accordance with state and federal requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Prior to construction, the District shall identify a qualified paleontologist to be on call. If unique paleontological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 50 feet of the find, and the qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The paleontologist shall make recommendations to the District to protect the discovered resources.

Any paleontological resources recovered shall be provided to the North Central Information Center and California State University, Sacramento Natural History Museums, or repository willing and able to accept and house the resource to preserve for future scientific study.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

PCAPCD adopted a de minimis bright-line threshold for the operational phase of 1,100 metric tons of CO2- equivalent emissions (MTCO2e) per year. Therefore, if the proposed project’s construction- and operationphase GHG emissions exceed these thresholds, then GHG emissions would be considered to substantially and cumulatively contribute to statewide GHG emissions in the absence of reduction measures.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1495 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 58 ends

Construction-Phase GHG Emissions
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities primarily due to the use of construction equipment—largely diesel-powered—and construction workers and haul trucks traveling to and from the project site. As the PCAPCD does not explicitly have a significance threshold for construction GHG emissions, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions were quantified using CalEEMod v2022.1, consistent with the modeling assumptions used in the Air Quality analysis in Section 3.3 and were amortized over the expected lifetime of the project (30 years) and added to the operational GHG emissions.

Project-related construction-phase GHG emissions are shown in Table 7, Project-Related Construction GHG Emissions.

As shown in Table 7, the proposed project would generate a total 879 MTCO2e over the course of the 30- month construction schedule. Over an assumed 30-year lifetime of the proposed project, construction GHG emissions would be an estimated 29 MTCO2e per year and are added to the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions.

Table 7 Project-Related Construction GHG Emissions
Year Total MTCO2e/Year Percentage of Total Emissions
2024 580 66%
2025 57 6%
2026 242 28%
Total Construction 879 100%
Amortized over 30 years 29 MTCO2e -
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Notes: MTCO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent Operational-Phase GHG Emissions
Because student capacity would not increase after buildout of the proposed project, operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in trips, water demand, wastewater generation, or solid waste generation.

Operation of the new multistory classroom building would only result in area sources (e.g., consumer cleaning products) and energy usage (i.e., natural gas and electricity). Furthermore, GHG emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the existing school buildings, which were constructed prior to modern building energy codes, would be replaced with a new classroom building that meets the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.

Project-related operation-phase GHG emissions are shown in Table 8, Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions.

As noted in the Air Quality analysis in Section 3.3, this analysis considers the full operation of the proposed project and conservatively does not subtract emissions from existing on-site building operations that would be replaced before comparing against PCAPCD significance thresholds. As shown in Table 8, operation of the proposed project would not generate annual emissions that exceed the PCAPCD’s de minimis level for operational phase of 1,100 metric MTCO2e per year (PCAPCD 2017). Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1496 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 59
Table 8 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions
Source1
GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year) Percentage of Total Emissions
Area <1 <1%
Energy 56 45%
Amortized Construction Emissions 29 55%
Total 86 100%
PCAPCD De Minimis Level for operational phase 1,100 MTCO2e/Year NA Exceeds Threshold? No NA
Source: Appendix A, CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Notes: MTCO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District 1 Because student capacity would not increase after buildout of the proposed project, operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in trips, water demand, wastewater generation, or solid waste generation. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency’s (PCTPA) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on November 16, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the State’s anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions (CARB 2022). The Scoping Plan was updated to address the carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order (EO) B-55-18 and the ambitious GHG reduction target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 as directed by AB 1279.

The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities or counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program).

The CARB Scoping Plan also outlines three distinct approaches that lead agencies may consider for evaluating alignment of proposed land use development projects (residential or mixed-use residential) with the State’s climate goals, and therefore may have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions. The first approach is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1497 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 60 ends

is net-zero GHG emissions, especially for new residential development. The third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment with State climate goals is to align with GHG thresholds of significance, which many local air quality management districts (AQMDs) and air pollution control districts (APCDs) have developed or adopted (CARB 2022).

The proposed project would adhere to the key project attributes, programs, and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG emissions-reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, the new multistory classroom building would meet the latest applicable CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 were adopted and would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

PCTPA’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy PCTPA adopted the Final RTP 2040 RTP in September 2019 to document the policy direction, actions, and funding recommendations to meet Placer County’s transportation systems over the next 20 years (PCTPA 2019). The 2040 RTP was incorporated into the six-county Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) developed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). While the 2040 RTP focuses on Placer County, the MTP plans for transportation investments across the six-county Sacramento region.

The 2040 RTP identifies new growth areas to accommodate jobs and housing that will balance well with the land use and transportation planning in the county. This long-range planning document contains 10 goals, each with supporting policies and objectives, to address the County’s traffic congestion, mobility needs, and maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure. Some of the overarching goals in the 2040 RTP is to maintain countywide roadway systems, provide regionally and locally coordinated transit service that connects residential areas with employment centers, improve passenger rail service, promote aviation services that complement the countywide transportation system, provide safe and efficient movements of goods throughout the county, and to promote a convenient non-motorized transportation system (PCTPA 2019). The 2040 RTP transportation projects help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, and forecast development is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data to promote active transportation and reduce GHG emissions. The projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in the 2040 RTP, would reduce GHG emissions related to vehicular travel and improve air quality.

The 2040 RTP does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. As stated previously, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in staff or student capacity. As such, the proposed project would not change the existing vehicle trip generation to and from campus. The proposed project would not be considered a regionally significant project and would not directly induce substantial population growth.

Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with PCTPA’s ability to implement the regional strategies in the 2040 RTP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1498 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 61

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The term “hazardous material” is defined in different ways by different regulatory programs. For purposes of this environmental document, the definition of “hazardous material” is similar to that in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501:

Hazardous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous waste” is a subset of hazardous materials, and the definition is essentially the same as that in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.2:

Hazardous wastes are those that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous nonradioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials (infectious agents such as microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, viruses, and medical waste).

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities of the proposed project would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than would project operation. Construction activities would include the use of materials such as cleansers and degreasers; fluids used in routine maintenance and operation of construction equipment, such as oil and lubricants; fertilizers; pesticides; and architectural coatings, including paints. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short-term or one time in nature and would cease after completion of the construction phase. Project construction workers would also be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials use.

The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and waste would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations, including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), USEPA, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Caltrans, Placer County Division of Environmental Health, and the Roseville Fire Department. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1499 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 62 ends

Regulations, Part 263, establishes standards that apply to persons transporting hazardous waste. If a transporter discharges or spills hazardous waste, he or she is required to take appropriate, immediate action to protect human health and the environment, such as notifying local authorities. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements by the City of Roseville would be required through the duration of the construction phase. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would involve the limited use of hazardous materials for air conditioning, janitorial, maintenance, and repair activities. These materials would include cleansers, paints, degreasers, adhesives, sealers, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes. However, these types of materials are not considered acutely hazardous and would be used in limited quantities. Additionally, school facilities are not associated with uses that use, generate, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous materials—such uses generally include manufacturing, industrial, medical (e.g., hospital), and other similar uses.

Furthermore, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies, including the DTSC, USEPA, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Caltrans, Placer County Division of Environmental Health, and the Roseville Fire Department. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts.

Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the proposed project would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9.a. As concluded in this section, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during project construction and operation phases would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1500 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 63
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Ferris Spanger Elementary School and Independence High School are within

0.25 mile of the project site. As discussed in Sections 3.9(a) and 3.9(b), the use of hazardous materials and substances during the operation of the proposed project is generally minimal and in small quantities. All hazardous materials and substances at the proposed project site would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements—e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; California Hazardous Waste Control Law; and principles prescribed by the California Department of Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health—and the proposed project would be under the regulatory oversight of agencies such as the Placer County Division of Environmental Health, DTSC, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The State’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List, Government Code Section 65962.5) identifies sites with leaking underground fuel tanks, hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective actions, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste, and other sites where environmental releases have occurred. According to review of the information available on the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker and DTSC’s Envirostor websites, the project site is not listed on GeoTracker but is listed on EnviroStor as a school investigation site (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024). A Phase I Site Assessment was conducted at the site in 2003. The cleanup status for Roseville High School was “No Action Required” as of March 14, 2003. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Currently, the project site is not identified as containing hazardous materials contamination, storage of hazardous materials, a leaking underground storage tank site, or other cleanup site. There are no other known sites containing hazardous materials contamination in the project area that would have the potential to impact the project site. Therefore, no impact to the public or to the environment would occur as a result of the project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
e) For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not in an airport land use plan and there are no public airports or private airstrips in two miles of the site. The nearest airport to the project site is Sacramento McClellan Airport, approximately 7.9 miles southwest. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1501 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 64 ends

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Compliance with the Standardized Emergency Management System, California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Section 2443, must “be documented in the areas of planning, training, exercise, and performance.” The City of Roseville Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was approved by the City Council in June 2011. The purpose of the EOP is to provide the basis for a coordinated response before, during, and after a disaster incident affecting Roseville. Under the EOP, during a local level emergency or disaster, the Director of Emergency Services is responsible for organizing and directing the preparedness efforts of the City’s emergency operations and mutual-aid partners.

The proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of the EOP or any of the daily operations of the City’s emergency operation center, Roseville Fire Department, or Roseville Police Department. All construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and fire department’s standards and regulations. For example, the proposed project would be required to provide the necessary on- and off-site access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation phases. The proposed project would also be required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations of the Roseville Fire Department and the Fire Safe Regulations (Fire Code) of the City’s Code of Ordinances to ensure that it does not interfere with the provision of local emergency services (provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate numbers/locations of fire hydrants, etc.).

Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Roseville’s emergency response or evacuation plans. Project-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. A wildland fire hazard area is typically characterized by areas with limited access, rugged terrain, limited water supply, and combustible vegetation. As explained in Section 3.20, Wildfire, the project site is not in a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2024). Development of the project would comply with all City of Roseville requirements, including fire flows, on-site hydrants, and backflow assemblies. Project design and construction would comply with requirements for building materials and construction methods for new buildings in a FHSZ in the CBC (California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2) Chapter 7A. Chapter 7A contains requirements for roofing; attic ventilation; exterior walls; exterior windows and glazing; exterior doors; decking; protection of underfloor, appendages, and floor projections; and ancillary structures. The project would also comply with the California Fire Code (CFC) (California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9) Chapter 49, whose requirements generally parallel those in CBC Chapter 7A.

Compliance with these codes and regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a fire hazard or exacerbate the fire risk in the project area. Adherence to existing local, state, and federal laws would ensure that this impact remains less than significant.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1502 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 65

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the USEPA has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. In California, the SWRCB administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements.

The City of Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 requires development to comply with a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit from the Central Valley RWQCB. Section F.1 of the MS4 permit specifies requirements for new developments, and Section F.1.D details the requirements for standard stormwater mitigation plans (also known as water quality management plans). The MS4 permit imposes pollution prevention requirements on planned developments, construction sites, commercial and industrial businesses, municipal facilities and activities, and residential activities.

Requirements for waste discharges potentially affecting stormwater from construction sites of one acre or more are in the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, issued in 2012. The site is larger than one acre and would be subject to requirements of the Construction General Permit. Projects obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB prior to grading activities and preparing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the project site, and to contain hazardous materials. Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are described in Table 9, Construction Best Management Practices.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1503 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 66 ends

Table 9 Construction Best Management Practices
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls and Wind
Erosion Controls
Cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and transported by water or wind
Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, earth
dikes, swales
Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water
Barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber
rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basin;
cleaning measures such as street sweeping
Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles Stabilized construction roadways and construction entrances/exits; entrance/outlet
tire wash
Non-Storm Water
Management Controls
Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater,
such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance and
fueling of vehicles and equipment. Conduct various
construction operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize
non-stormwater discharges and contamination of any
such discharges
BMPs specifying methods for: paving and
grinding operations; cleaning, fueling, and
maintenance of vehicles and equipment;
concrete curing; concrete finishing
Waste Management and
Controls (i.e., good
housekeeping practices)
Management of materials and wastes to avoid
contamination of stormwater
Spill prevention and control, stockpile
management, and management of solid wastes
and hazardous wastes
Source: CASQA 2015.

The project’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs in compliance with the Construction General Permit during grading and construction. The SWPPP would specify BMPs, such as those outlined in Table 9, that the construction contractor would implement to protect water quality by eliminating and/or minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and construction and show the placement of those BMPs. Additional construction BMPs that would be incorporated into the project’s SWPPP and implemented during the construction phase include, but are not limited to:
▪ Perimeter control with silt fences and perimeter sandbags and/or gravel bags. ▪ Stabilized construction exits with rumble strip(s)/plate(s). ▪ Installation of storm drain inlet protection on affected on-site drains and within roadways. ▪ Installation of silt fences around stockpile and covering of stockpiles. ▪ Use of secondary containment around barrels, containers, and storage materials that may impact water quality.
▪ Stabilization of disturbed areas where construction ceases for a determined period (e.g., one week) with erosion controls.
▪ Installation of temporary sanitary facilities and dumpsters.

BMPs identified in the SWPPP would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater with sediment and other pollutants such as trash and debris; oil, grease, fuels, and other toxic chemicals; paint, concrete, asphalt, bituminous materials, etc.; and nutrients. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1504 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 67
Based on the preceding, water quality and waste-discharge impacts from project grading and construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
Operational-related activities of the proposed project (e.g., runoff from parking areas, solid waste storage areas, and landscaped areas) would generate pollutants that could adversely affect the water quality of downstream receiving waters if effective measures are not used to keep pollutants out of and remove pollutants from urban runoff. Therefore, the City is responsible for reviewing project plans and ensuring that requirements for waste discharges potentially affecting stormwater from project operations are met.

These requirements are in Chapter 14.20, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the municipal code. As previously stated, the proposed project is subject to the NPDES permit. Compliance with the NPDES permit includes the incorporation of BMPs into the project’s standard urban stormwater mitigation plan. The project applicant is required to prepare a stormwater mitigation plan that includes the BMPs necessary to control stormwater pollution from the completed project. The structural or treatmentcontrol BMPs (including, as applicable, post-construction treatment-control BMPs) in the stormwater mitigation plan must meet the design standards in the municipal NPDES permit. Stormwater mitigation plan requirements include minimizing stormwater pollutants and limiting peak post-project stormwater runoff rates to no greater than predevelopment rates where increased runoff could increase downstream erosion.

As part of the approval process, the City is responsible for reviewing the plan to ensure that all applicable requirements have been addressed and that the applicant has identified BMPs necessary to protect the MS4 from discharges. The BMPs could include maintaining landscaping using minimum or no pesticides, providing an adequate number of receptacles while keeping them covered, and sweeping sidewalks regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. Project design features, such as areas draining to BMPs, would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern during the project’s operational phase. On-site landscaping would assist in minimizing the amount of runoff from the site by providing permeable areas for water infiltration and decreasing runoff volume. Infiltration through landscaped areas would serve as a water treatment function.

Moreover, no grading permit shall be issued by the Division of the State Architect until the City confirms that the project’s stormwater mitigation plan complies with the applicable municipal NPDES permit requirements.

Based on this, the project would comply with water quality standards, and impacts are less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, the major groundwater basin in the Sacramento River hydrologic region with 18 subbasins. Roseville is in the North American subbasin (Basin Code 5-021.64), which underlies northern Sacramento, southern Sutter, and western Placer Counties. The subbasin is bounded by the Bear River on the north, the Feather River and Sacramento Rivers on the west, the American River on the south, and a north-south line extending from the Bear River south to Folsom Lake that passes about two miles east of the city of Lincoln. The subbasin encompasses Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1505 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 68 ends

approximately 351,000 acres. The Department of Water Resources estimates that the storage capacity of the North American subbasin is approximately 4.9 million acre-feet.

The project site is in the central portion of Roseville where direct recharge is possible by applying water to the land because this area is along the eastern side of the North American groundwater subbasin, where coarsegrained soils are underlain by coarse-grained sediments that are directly connected to the groundwater aquifers (City of Roseville 2022b). Water applied in this area would migrate through the groundwater aquifer to the southwestern corner of the city. However, the project site is mostly developed and consists of impervious surfaces. Therefore, development of the site would not be expected to substantially impede groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the implementation of low-impact development techniques, as required by the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual: Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program would preserve some of the ability of stormwater to percolate to the groundwater aquifer in developed areas (to the extent that such recharge occurs). Implementation of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance would reduce the amount of water that is necessary for landscape irrigation, helping to conserve groundwater supplies on a regional level.

With regard to groundwater supply, drinking water for the City of Roseville is primarily supplied from surface water obtained from the Folsom Reservoir. However, the City currently operates 6 groundwater wells and has plans to construct 10 more. The existing wells are capable of delivering a total of 17,500 acre-feet per year.

When all 10 wells are constructed, they would increase the City’s groundwater pumping capacity to 43,800 acrefeet per year. The City’s groundwater wells are primarily used for backup water supply and to improve water supply reliability during drought and emergency conditions. It is the City’s policy to use groundwater for water supply only in times of shortage.

With regard to groundwater recharge in relation to water supply, the City’s aquifer storage and recovery program allows it to maximize sustained use of the groundwater basin in conjunction with surface water supplies, while providing a strong backup water supply during critically dry years, consistent with the City’s commitments contained in the Water Forum Agreement. The City’s program is designed to inject and store surplus drinking water in the underlying aquifer during periods of normal and above normal precipitation. This stored drinking water can be extracted and used to meet peak demands during dry years. The City currently operates one groundwater injection well. At full buildout of the program, the City envisions a network of up to 12 groundwater injection wells that could store up to 10,000 acre-feet per year of water (City of Roseville 2022b).

The aquifer storage and recovery program ensures that the City’s use of groundwater does not substantially deplete groundwater supplies.

Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, substantiates that Roseville will have adequate water supplies to meet water demands in its service area through 2045 during normal years—in single-dry years and some multiple dry years, water supply deficit may occur. However, according to the City of Roseville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, remaining deficits will be mitigated by potable water conservation measures implemented as part of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (City of Roseville 2022b).

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1506 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 69
In addition, the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan was developed to provide planned and coordinated monitoring, operation, and administration of groundwater basins with the goal of long-term groundwater resource sustainability, and to comply with the passage of the 1992 Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030, Water Code Part 2.75, Section 10750 et seq.). The City’s groundwater and water supply master planning is in alignment with this plan and will not impede plan implementation.

Based on past construction activities on-site, it is not anticipated that the proposed underground utility trenches will encounter shallow groundwater. Therefore, the project would not impede sustainable groundwater management, and impacts are less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

Construction of the project would increase the potential for erosion and siltation. However, the proposed project would include BMPs, such as landscaping, that would reduce runoff, and improvements would be constructed over a short period of time. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream. Project implementation would include pervious and impervious surfaces on-site. With the use of BMPs and compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, to ensure that drainage patterns and stormwater runoff are maintained, impacts would be less than significant. iii) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would include pervious and impervious surfaces on-site. The proposed project would disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas and small collection areas where runoff could be retained. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.20, which requires development to comply with an MS4 permit from the Central Valley RWQCB. With the proposed BMPs, impacts associated with impervious surfaces would be reduced. The proposed project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to stormwater. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1507 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 70 ends

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being within Zone X, indicating minimal risk of flooding (FEMA 2024). Moreover, the project site is not in a 100- or 500-year flood zone (FEMA 2024). Although the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces, the project site is not in an area of flood risk, and on-site landscaping would reduce impacts from on- or off-site flooding. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. As provided in Section 3.10.c.iv, the project site is not within a flood hazard zone. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiches, mudflows, or tsunamis due to the absence of any nearby bodies of water and mud/debris channels. In addition, the project is not in the vicinity of any levees. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to seiches, mudflows, or tsunami hazards, and no impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As provided in Section 3.10.b, the project site is in a groundwater management plan. The City’s groundwater and water supply master planning is in alignment with Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan and will not impede plan implementation. Development of the site would not be expected to substantially impede groundwater recharge or decrease water supplies. The proposed project would comply with water quality requirements in the Statewide Construction General Permit, the NPDES, and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.20, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control. Therefore, the project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and impacts are less than significant.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would not divide an established residential community because it would occur entirely on an existing school property with a parking lot. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would generally not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project site is in the City of Roseville and the prevailing adopted planning and regulatory documents that govern development and use of the project site are the City of Roseville General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 19 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code). The City of Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1508 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 71
Roseville General Plan land use designations of the project site is Public Quasi-Public (P/QP). The project site is zoned Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) (City of Roseville 2024). The proposed Roseville High School Improvement Project is permitted under the P/QP land use designation and P/QP zoning district. As the location of the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. No mineral resource recovery sites of statewide or regional significance are on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Additionally, mining on the project site would be incompatible with the surrounding uses, which consist mostly of residential uses. Mining is also not a permitted use under the site’s general plan land use and zoning designations. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or resource recovery site. No mineral resource impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.12(a), no mineral resource recovery sites are identified on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There would be no loss of availability of locally important mineral resources, and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary.

NOISE
Noise Fundamentals
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and, when overexposed, is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, federal, state, and city governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as classroom instruction, communication, or sleep. Additional information on noise and vibration fundamentals and applicable regulations are contained in Appendix C.

Existing Noise Environment
The project site is in a predominantly residential area in the City of Roseville along Tiger Way. The project site includes existing Roseville High School classroom buildings and recreational sites such as the existing pool. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, to the south and west of the project site across Campo Street are residences and east and north of the project site is the existing Roseville High School campus.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1509 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 72 ends

Noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily characterized by roadway noise from Tiger Way and Campo Street. Noise from nearby residential uses (e.g., property maintenance noise) and existing school uses also contribute to the overall noise environment in the project vicinity. To establish existing conditions, ambient noise monitoring was conducted around the project site on March 21, 2024, during afternoon school hours.

The short-term sound level meter used (Larson Davis LxT) for noise monitoring satisfies the American National Standards Institute standard for Type 1 instrumentation.4 The short-term sound level meter was set to “slow” response and “A” weighting (dBA). The meter was calibrated prior to and after each monitoring period. All measurements were at least 5 feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Short-term measurement results are detailed below and summarized in Table 10, Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary. ▪ Short-Term Location 1 (ST-1) was conducted south of the existing portable classrooms on the project site. The measurement location was approximately 10 feet from the nearest portable classroom, behind a chain-link fence. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 4:42 p.m. on Thursday, March 21, 2024. The noise environment is characterized primarily by distant traffic noise of vehicles entering and exiting the senior parking lot from Campo Street, vehicles driving in the alley, and pedestrians walking and chatting.

One motorcycle traveled along the alley approximately five feet from the measurement around 4:50 p.m..

Noise levels generally ranged from 41 to 92 dBA.
▪ Short-Term Location 2 (ST-2) was conducted near the intersection of Campo Street and Alta Vista Street. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 5:06 p.m. on Thursday, March 21, 2024. The noise measurement was conducted during after-school activities. The noise primarily consisted of traffic along Campo Street, cars parking, people talking with occasional shouting, and distant band practice noise. Noise levels generally ranged from 53 to 75 dBA.
▪ Short-Term Location 3 (ST-3) was conducted along Las Flores Avenue. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 5:31 p.m. on Thursday, March 21, 2024. The noise measurement was conducted during afternoon hours. The noise primarily consisted of traffic along Las Flores Avenue, pedestrians walking and chatting, cars parking, and distant band practice. Noise levels generally ranged from 47 to 67 dBA.

Table 10 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary
Monitoring
Location Description
15-minute Noise Level, dBA
Leq Lmax Lmin L50 L25 L8 L2
ST-1
Alley South of Portable Classrooms
3/21/2024, 4:42 p.m.
66 92 41 45 46 50 66
ST-2
Campo Street North of Existing Pool
3/21/2024, 5:06 p.m.
62 75 53 60 63 65 68
ST-3
West of Project Site along Las Floras Avenue
3/21/2024, 5:31 p.m.
54 67 47 51 53 58 63
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
4 Monitoring of ambient noise was performed using a Larson-Davis model LxT sound level meter.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1510 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 73
Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences west and south along Alta Vista Avenue and Campo Street.

Applicable Standards
California Building Code
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for nonresidential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section 5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance.

Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roofceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher.

Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).

City of Roseville Municipal Code
Stationary sources of noise are governed under Roseville Municipal Code, Chapter 9.24, Noise Regulation. Section

9.24.100 states for non-transportation or fixed sound sources that no person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises that produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. It is unlawful for any person to create or allow the creation of any sound that exceeds these standards by more than 3 dBA or exceed the existing ambient sound by 3 dBA or more (whichever is greater). Lastly, the sound level standards shall be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, consisting of speech and music. However, in no case shall the sound level standard be lower than the ambient sound level plus 3 dBA.

Section 9.24.030 of the municipal code also exempts the following noise sources from the provisions of the municipal code.
▪ Sound sources typically associated with residential uses (e.g., children at play, air conditioning and similar equipment, but not including barking dogs).
▪ Sound sources associated with property maintenance (e.g., lawn mowers, edgers, blowers, pool pumps, power tools, etc.) provided such activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. ▪ The normal operation of public and private schools typically consisting of classes and other schoolsponsored activities. ▪ Private construction (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair activities) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1511 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 74 ends

Federal Transit Administration
The City of Roseville does not have a quantified threshold for temporary construction noise and vibration.

Therefore, to determine impact significance, the following Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria are used in this noise impact study.

A vibration or construction noise impact would occur if:
▪ Vibration levels would exceed 0.20 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at the façade of a non-engineered structure (e.g., wood-frame residential). ▪ Project construction activities would generate noise levels greater than 80 dBA Leq at the sensitive receptor property line.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable noise standards may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Following is a discussion of the temporary and permanent noise impacts as a result of the project’s construction and operational phases.

Construction Noise
The total duration for project construction is anticipated to be in two phases. Phase 1 would include demolition of the auxiliary gymnasium, which would be approximately three months, with a tentative start date of June 2024. Phase 2 will occur from March 2025 to December 2026 in two increments.

Overall construction is estimated to take approximately two years and six months, from June 2024 to December 2026. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment.

Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the worker and vendor vehicles. However, these occurrences would generally be infrequent and last short periods of time.

Worker and vendor trips would range between approximately 15 and 45 daily trips during individual and overlapping construction phases. Haul truck trips would range between 1 and 316 trips a day. A maximum of 362 combined worker, vendor, and haul truck trips a day would occur during overlapping phases. Even though Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1512 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2024 Page 75
the project-related traffic would increase the traffic volumes temporarily, the overall traffic volumes of up to 362 daily construction trips would not result in a doubling of traffic. Project construction trips would result in a temporary noise increase of less than 3 dBA CNEL, which would not be a substantial nor permanent noise increase. Therefore, construction-vehicle noise impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Construction Equipment
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the ongoing time-variations of noise emissions.

Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on the specific activity performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and shielding effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power requirements.

Average noise levels from project-related construction activities are calculated by modeling the three loudest pieces of equipment per activity phase (e.g., demolition, site preparation, building construction). Equipment for each construction phase is modeled at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the center of each activity to the property line of the nearest receptors) because the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average (Leq) construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors.

Construction equipment for the phases are modeled from the closest project site to the sensitive receptors, respectively. Construction activity occurring at the location of the portable classrooms would be closest to the residences along Alta Vista Avenue, while construction activity at the location of the existing pool would be closest to the residences near Campo Street. Additionally, construction for the outdoor dining patio and quad extension would occur to the nearest residential properties along Sierra Boulevard to the northwest and residential properties to the south of Coronado Avenue.

The project’s expected construction equipment mix was categorized by construction activity using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 11. RCNM input and output worksheets are included in Appendix C.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1513 of 1681 ends

R O S E V I L L E H I G H S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

R O S E V I L L E J O I N T U N I O N H I G H S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 76 ends

Table 11 Project-Related Construction Noise by Activity Phase, dBA Leq Construction
Activity Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Residences
Along Alta
Vista
Avenue
Residences
Along
Campo
Street
Residences
Along
Sierra
Boulevard
Residences
Along
Coronado
Avenue
Distance in feet from portable classroom location 50 75 340 280 780 Building Demolition 85 81 68 70 61
Pavement Demolition 84 80 67 69 60
Site Preparation 79 76 62 64 55
Grading 1 82 78 65 67 58
Grading 2 80 77 64 65 56
Grading 3 81 77 64 66 57
Building Construction 79 76 62 64 55
Paving 83 80 66 68 59
Architectural Coating 74 70 57 59 50
Finishing/Landscaping 77 73 60 62 53
Distance in feet from existing pool site 50 230 85 100 340 Building Demolition 85 71 80 79 68
Pavement Demolition 84 70 79 78 67
Site Preparation 79 66 74 73 62
Grading 1 82 69 77 76 65
Grading 2 80 67 76 74 64
Grading 3 81 68 76 75 64
Building Construction 79 66 74 73 62
Paving 83 70 78 77 66
Architectural Coating 74 60 69 68 57
Finishing/Landscaping 77 63 72 71 60
Building Demolition 85 71 80 79 68
Distance in feet from outdoor dining patio and quad extension 50 360 140 110 160 Building Demolition 85 67 76 78 74
Pavement Demolition 84 66 75 77 73
Site Preparation 79 62 70 72 69
Grading 1 82 65 73 75 72
Grading 2 80 63 71 73 70
Grading 3 81 64 72 74 71
Building Construction 79 62 70 72 69
Paving 83 66 74 76 73
Architectural Coating 74 57 65 67 64
Finishing/Landscaping 77 60 68 70 67
Building Construction 84 66 75 77 73
Architectural Coating 79 62 70 72 69
Maximum dBA Leq 77 83 64 ---
Exceed 80 Leq dBA Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA RCNM software are included in Appendix C.

Bold = Exceeds FTA 80 dBA Leq Threshold.

Addendum Attachment 2

Page 1514 of 1681 ends

Roseville City CouncilMay 6, 2026

Roseville City Council
May 6, 2026