Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, October 21, 2026 (part 5 of 6)

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 43 of 50 ends

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Same No No No None

Page 962 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 44 of 50 ends

Discussion: In addition to archeological resources, tribal cultural resources are given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographically-defined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. This section was added to the CEQA Guidelines after the publication of the SVSP EIR to which this Addendum is attached. Nevertheless, impacts on cultural resources were evaluated in the SVSP EIR. Although notice of the project is not required under AB52, as a good faith effort, the City mailed notice of the proposed project to tribes who had requested such notice, and no requests for consultation were received.

Given the foregoing, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 (cease work and consult with archeologist) and MM 4.9-3 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) remain applicable to the proposed project to address impacts to unknown cultural resources.

Page 963 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 45 of 50 ends

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.12.1 & 4.12.3 No No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? SVSP EIR Section

4.12.1 No No No None
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition of the provider’s existing commitments? SVSP EIR Section

4.12.3 No No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? SVSP EIR Section

4.12.4 No No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to utilities and service systems were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the SVSP area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands from development under the SVSP. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the proposed project and concluded there is sufficient water supply to meet the demands of the project. Therefore, the impact conclusions of the SVSP EIR with respect to water supply remain applicable to this project.

Page 964 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 46 of 50 ends

Development of the project area will require the construction of water lines, sewer lines, and associated facilities, that were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP and analyzed in the SVSP EIR. The project does not require any major changes or need for expanded facilities beyond those previously identified. Additionally, the project will have no effect on wastewater generation beyond that previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR. Environmental Utilities determined that the proposed project changes fell within the scope of the prior assessment. The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the SVSP area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project. The SVSP EIR disclosed that the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facilities would be used to dispose of solid waste, and concluded that there was sufficient capacity to accept solid waste from the SVSP. Solid waste generation is based on population, and as the project will not increase the estimated population in the SVSP area beyond the population projected in the SVSP EIR, the project falls within the scope of the prior analysis and would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to this previously-identified impact. Given the foregoing, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.12.4-1 (expand the landfill) and 4.12.4-2 (diversion of construction debris) were included to require payment of fees to be used for landfill expansion and to require a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream. The landfill expansion measure has already been implemented, as fees are already in place that will apply to the proposed project. The remaining measure regarding diversion of construction debris remains applicable, as it is a project-level measure that applies during construction.

Page 965 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 47 of 50 ends

XX. Wildfire
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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?
n/a No No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? n/a No No No None
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? n/a No No No None
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? n/a No No No None
Discussion: The Wildfire section was added to the CEQA Guidelines after the publication of the prior environmental document to which this Addendum is attached. CAL FIRE is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The SVSP is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. Checklist questions a—d above do not apply,

Page 966 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 48 of 50 ends

because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area. Therefore, there would be no impact related to this criteria. Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 an endangered, threatened or rare species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? SVSP EIR No No No None
b) Does the project have impacts which 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.) SVSP EIR No No No None
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SVSP EIR No No No None

Page 967 of 1218 ends

ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496

Page 49 of 50 ends

Discussion: Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. Because the project will not result in new significant effects or substantially more severe significant effects previously identified in the SVSP EIR, the cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond those contemplated in the SVSP EIR, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.. With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in this document, and permit conditions, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species. Based on the foregoing, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to the mandatory findings of significance.

Page 968 of 1218 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 Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (2008032115, adopted on May 5, 2010), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
[ 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 EIR was certified as complete or the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
[ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

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

1. SVSP Applicable Mitigation Measures

2. Sierra View Shopping Center Site Access Study, prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated June 2026

3. Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Saxelby Acoustics, dated June 2026

4. Health Risk Assessment, prepared by Raney Planning & Management, dated June 2026 for:

Page 969 of 1218 ends

PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE PALLET & STORAGE BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED RECYCLING CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL STOP STOP STOP STOP Know what's below.

Callbefore you dig. R 197901001 6/12/2026PSS PSS JAK Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:COVER July 06, 2026 08:35:48am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C1.0 - CV&NOTES.dwg © 2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: 925-398-4840 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH

DEVELOPER

ENGINEER

DEVELOPER

SURVEYOR SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT PLANS
FOR

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD,
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

VICINITY MAP

SITE INFORMATION

SITE MAP

ROSEVILLE, CA COVER SHEET

ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

PROJECT TEAM

BASIS OF BEARING

VERTICAL DATUM

UTILITY NOTE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES

UTILITY COMPANY CONTACT PHONE
GAS P.G. & E. (530) 889-3147
ELECTRICITY ROSEVILLE ELECTRIC JEFF WILCOX (916) 746-1661 TELEPHONE CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS (844) 968-7224
WATER CITY OF ROSEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES (916) 774-5750 SEWER CITY OF ROSEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES (916) 774-5750 DRAINAGE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (916) 774-5339 T.V. CABLE COMCAST (916) 786-8443
FIRE ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPT. MICHAEL BRADLEY (916) 774-5800

EASEMENTS
15 16
17 21
22 25
30 31
32 PROJECT SITE

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD FIDDYMENT RD

JUNCTION BLVD

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
C1.0

SHEET INDEX TABLE

SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE

FLOOD ZONE

CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT B

Page 970 of 1218 ends

NOTES

SURVEYED PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE TO BE ABANDONED

EXISTING EASEMENT

PROPOSED EASEMENT

CENTERLINE

PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT

PROPOSED LANDSCAPING

PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK

FIRE TRUCK TURN RADII

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE

PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE

EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE

PROPOSED WATER LINE

EXISTING WATER LINE

PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED BACKFLOW

PREVENTER/DCDA, FDC

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE

EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET

FLOW LINE/SWALE

PROPOSED RUNOFF DIRECTION

EXISTING RUNOFF DIRECTION

PROPOSED ELEVATION

EXISTING ELEVATION

PROPOSED SLOPE

EXISTING SLOPE

PROPOSED CONTOUR

PROPOSED CONTOUR BY OTHERS

EXISTING CONTOUR

LIMITS OF GRADING/MATCH EXISTING

GRADE BREAK LINE

RIDGE LINE

LOW POINT LINE

DMA BOUNDARY

OVERLAND RELEASE

CMU SCREEN WALL

UTILITY POC TO PUBLIC
71 71
Know what's below.

Callbefore you dig.

R 197901001 6/12/2026PSS PSS JAK Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:NOTES July 06, 2026 08:35:49am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C1.0 - CV&NOTES.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: 925-398-4840 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEER'S NOTES LEGEND

DESIGN ENGINEER NOTES
DESIGN ENGINEER NOTES (CONT.)

ENGINEER'S GRADING NOTES
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: GENERAL

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: GENERAL
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES (CONT.)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: GENERAL

TREE PRESERVATION NOTES
“ ”
’
“ ”
“ ”
“
”
”
“
“ ”
” ”
Y D
H
R=30'
R=50'
C1.1
71

Page 971 of 1218 ends

SEE SHEETS
C2.1
C3.1
C4.1

SEE SHEETS
C2.2
C3.2
C4.2 PUBLIC NOTES
Know what's below.

Callbefore you dig.

R 197901001 6/12/2026PSS PSS JAK Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:PUBLIC NOTES July 06, 2026 08:35:49am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C1.0 - CV&NOTES.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: 925-398-4840 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AB AGGREGATE BASE

AC ASPHALT CONCRETE

AP ANGLE POINT

ARV AIR RELEASE VALVE

BC BACK OF CURB

BEGINNING OF CURVE

BCR BEGINNING CURB RETURN

BO BLOW OFF

BOW BACK OF WALK

BRG BEARING

BW BOTTOM OF WALL

C CONCRETE

CG CURB AND GUTTER

GV GATE VALVE
CL, ℄ CENTER LINE

CONC CONCRETE

DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE

DI DUCTILE IRON PIPE

DTL DETAIL
E EAST

EC END OF CURVE

ECR END CURB RETURN

EL ELEVATION

EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT

ESMT EASMENT

EX EXISTING

FC FACE OF CURB

FG FINISHED GRADE

FH FIRE HYDRANT

FI FIELD INLET

FL FLOW LINE

FR FULLY RESTRAINED

FS FINISHED SURFACE

FUT FUTURE

G GUTTER

GB GRADE BREAK

HCR HANDICAP RAMP

HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPE

HP HIGH POINT

INTX INTERSECTION

INV INVERT

LAT LATERAL

LF LINEAR FEET

LP LOW POINT

LS LANDSCAPE

LT LEFT

MH MANHOLE

MAX MAXIMUM

ME MATCH EXISTING

MIN MINIMUM

MON MONUMENT

N NORTH

NAP NOT A PART

OFF OFFSET

NA NOT APPLICABLE

NTS NOT TO SCALE

P PAVEMENT

PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE

PI POINT OF INTERSECTION

PL PROPERTY LINE

PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVE

PROP PROPOSED

PUE PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT

PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE

PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION

R RADIUS

RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE

RET CURB RETURN

RL RESTRAINT LENGTH

RP RADIUS POINT

RT RIGHT

RW RIGHT OF WAY, RECYCLED WATER

S SLOPE, SOUTH

SD STORM DRAIN

SDE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT

SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

SL STREET LIGHT

SNS STREET NAME SIGN

SS SANITARY SEWER

SSCO SEWER SERVICE CLEAN OUT

SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

STA STATION

STD STANDARD

SW SIDEWALK

TC TOP OF CURB

TG TOP OF GRATE

TL TRUE LENGTH

TRANS TRANSITION

TRC TOP OF ROLLED CURB

TW TOP OF WALL

TYP TYPICAL

W WATER, WEST

WM WATER METER

WV WATER VALVE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
’
’ ·
·
·
’
I
·
·
·
·
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
“
”
“ ”
“ ” “ ”
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC

MITIGATION MEASURES NOTES
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC
MITIGATION MEASURES NOTES (CONT.)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC
MITIGATION MEASURES NOTES (CONT.)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE: PUBLIC
MITIGATION MEASURES NOTES (CONT.) ABBREVIATIONS

KEY MAP
1" = 200'
C1.2

Page 972 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL

STOP STOP STOP STOP
CC4.3
B
C4.3
AC4.3
G
C4.4
FC4.4
EC4.4
D
C4.4 Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.0 July 06, 2026 08:36:06am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C2.0 - PRELIMINARY SITE & PARKING PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OVERALL SITE PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES OVERALL PARKING TABLE NORTH EASEMENTS REQUIRED PARKING BUILDING SUMMARY C2.0 PROPERTY BOUNDARY NOTE

Page 973 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV
EV
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.1 July 06, 2026 08:36:08am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C2.0 - PRELIMINARY SITE & PARKING PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY PARKING
& SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES NORTH
1 PARKING STRIPING DETAIL C2.1 LEGEND

Page 974 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
STOP STOP STOP STOP Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.2 July 06, 2026 08:36:13am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C2.0 - PRELIMINARY SITE & PARKING PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY PARKING
& SITE PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES NORTH
1 PARKING STRIPING DETAIL C2.2

Page 975 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV
S
S
S D
S
S
S D
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.0 July 06, 2026 08:36:30am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C3.0 - OVERALL UTILITY PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL WET UTILITY
PLAN GENERAL NOTES C3.0 LEGEND NORTH

Page 976 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.0 July 06, 2026 08:36:45am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C3.0 - PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY WET
UTILITY PLANLEGEND GENERAL NOTES NORTH C3.1

Page 977 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV
S
S D
D

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
STOP STOP STOP STOP Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.1 July 06, 2026 08:36:47am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C3.0 - PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY WET
UTILITY PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES C3.2 NORTH

Page 978 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV 125
125
126
125
126
128
127 128
128
129
128
127
128
126
126
126
127
128
127
123
124
124 125
125
126
124
123
124
124
125
126
126
126
123
125
125
126
125
126
127
125
126 126
127
127
128
127
128
128
127
126
127
127 126
125
124
122
127
127
124
123
122

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.0 July 06, 2026 08:37:02am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C4.0 - OVERALL GRADING PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL GRADING
PLAN C4.0 GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BUILDING SUMMARY

Page 979 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV
EV
EV
125
125
126
125
126
127
125
126 126
127
127
127
128
128
127
126
127
127
127
124
123
122

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
D
D
D Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.0 July 06, 2026 08:37:17am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C4.0 - PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C4.1

PRELIMINARY GRADING
& DRAINAGE PLAN LEGEND GRADING NOTES NORTH ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BUILDING SUMMARY

Page 980 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV
125
126
128
127 128
128
129
128
128
127

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL

STOP STOP STOP STOP

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL

STOP STOP STOP STOP
D
D Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.1 July 06, 2026 08:37:20am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C4.0 - PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY GRADING
& DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING NOTES LEGEND C4.2 NORTH ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BUILDING SUMMARY

Page 981 of 1218 ends

Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.2 July 06, 2026 08:37:34am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C4.2 - PRELIMINARY PROPERTY CROSS SECTIONS.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C4.3

PRELIMINARY

PROPERTY CROSS

SECTIONS SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C

Page 982 of 1218 ends

Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.3 July 06, 2026 08:37:36am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C4.2 - PRELIMINARY PROPERTY CROSS SECTIONS.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C4.4

PRELIMINARY

PROPERTY CROSS

SECTIONS SECTION D SECTION E SECTION F SECTION G

Page 983 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV D D D D D D D

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
STOP STOP STOP STOP Know what's below. Callbefore you dig. R 197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C5.0 July 06, 2026 08:37:49am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C5.0 - PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

STORMWATER
CONTROL PLAN LEGEND STORM WATER QUALITY NOTES NORTH C5.0 TYPICAL BASIN CROSS SECTION DETAIL

Page 984 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.0 July 06, 2026 08:38:06am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\C6.0 - TSDM Exhibit.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TENTATIVE

SUBDIVISION MAP LOT
LINE EXHIBIT C6.0 GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND

Page 985 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV
EV 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.2 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.6 1.9 0.8 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.4 1.9 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.9 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:E1.0 July 06, 2026 08:38:33am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\E1.0 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E1.0
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN NORTH LEGEND 0.40 - 0.79 0.80 - 100 0.0 - 0.19 0.20 - 0.39 VALUE RANGES KEY

Page 986 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.0

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
STOP STOP STOP STOP Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:E1.1 July 06, 2026 08:38:36am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\E1.0 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E1.1
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN NORTH LEGEND 0.40 - 0.79 0.80 - 100 0.0 - 0.19 0.20 - 0.39 VALUE RANGES KEY

Page 987 of 1218 ends

Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:E1.2 July 06, 2026 08:38:36am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\E1.0 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E1.2

PHOTOMETRIC DETAILS

Page 988 of 1218 ends

Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:E1.3 July 06, 2026 08:38:41am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\E1.0 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E1.3
TITLE 24 COMPLIANCE Kimley-Horn 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300 Pleasanton, CA 94588 4/14/2026 Kimley-Horn 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300 Pleasanton, CA 94588 4/14/2026 California Professional Engineer No. 085704 510-350-0232 925-414-5732 Shawn Rainey B1

Page 989 of 1218 ends

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
0SCALE: 50 100 150 feet 1" = 50' N O R T H PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-LARGE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' / True Green Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata / Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-MEDIUM Arbutus x 'Marina' / Marina Strawberry Tree 24" box, Low Ceratonia siliqua / Carob Tree 24" box, Moderate Koelreuteria paniculata / Golden Rain Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus propinqua 'JFS-Bieberich' / Emerald Sunshine® Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata 'Village Green' / Village Green Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate SMALL/MEDIUM ACCENT TREE Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud 15 gal., Low Lagerstroemia indica 'Red' / Red Crape Myrtle 15 gal., Low Magnolia grandiflora 'St. Mary' / St. Mary Southern Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' / Swan Hill Fruitless Olive 15 gal., Low Prunus cerasifera 'Krauter Vesuvius' / Krauter Vesuvius Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate STREET TREE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Quercus rubra / Northern Red Oak 24" box, Low Quercus suber / Cork Oak 24" box, Low Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' / Drake Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate SCREEN TREE Calocedrus decurrens / Incense Cedar 15 gal., Low Cedrus deodara 'Blue Ice' / Blue Ice Deodar Cedar 15 gal., Low Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel 15 gal., Low Quercus wislizeni / Interior Live Oak 15 gal., Low APPROVED TREES FOR EASEMENT AREA Magnolia stellata rubra / Red Star Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Picea pungens 'Fat Albert' / Fat Albert Colorado Spruce 15 gal., Moderate Prunus cerasifera 'Purple Pony' / Purple Pony Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate Prunus subhirtella 'Pendula' / Winter-flowering Cherry 15 gal., Moderate Viburnum tinus / Laurustinus 15 gal., Moderate CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL GENERAL NOTES 1. A soils fertility analysis report and recommendations by a certified soils analysis laboratory shall be completed prior to construction. Soil samples shall be collected after site rough grading has been completed. 2. For landscape installations, compost at a minimum rate of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated. 3. All landscape planting areas,except bio-retention and upland hydro-seed areas, shall receive a minimum 3" layer of organic wood chip mulch top dressing. "Gorilla Hair" /Shredded bark is not an acceptable mulch. No mulch shall be used in bio-retention areas: See civil plans for soil mix /profile specifications. 4. All trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be irrigated with a drip system, smart controller , weather sensor, etc.and shall meet City of Roseville Water Efficient standards/regulations. 5. All new trees located within 7' of pavement or permanent structure shall have a root barrier. 6. All existing trees, shrubs and groundcover and associated root systems (to remain) shall be protected in place during construction. Plant material shall be replaced in kind if damaged. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I have complied with the criteria of the water use ordinance and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan. 6-9-26 PROJECT INFORMATION Date: 6-9-26 Project applicant: KIMLEY HORN Project address PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. AND FIDDYMENT ROAD, ROSEVILLE Total landscape area (square feet) 169,919 SF Project type Private/Commercial Water supply type Recycled L2 L3 PARKING LOT SHADE CALCULATIONS SHEET INDEX KEY NTS PG&E OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENT (NO TREES/SHRUBS OVER 10' IN HEIGHT ARE ALLOWED) EXISTING TREE (TYPICAL) EXISTING TREE (TYPICAL) DRIVEWAY PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

FIDDYMEANT ROAD

UPLAND DRIVE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY PROPOSED RETAIL
PROPOSED RETAIL PROPOSED QSR PROPOSED RETAIL FUELING STATION CANOPY PROPOSED C-STORE PROPOSED RETAIL PROPOSED BIO-RETENTION PARKING AREA 13,566 SF PARKING AREA 5,982 SF PARKING AREA 3,603 SF PARKING AREA 3,686 SF PARKING AREA 1,710 SF PARKING AREA 3,922 SF PARKING AREA 10,209 SF PARKING AREA 1,026 SF PARKING AREA 4,176 SF 75% 50% 50% 50%50% 50% 50% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% PARKING AREA 1,620 SF 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% OFFSITE AREA NOT INLCUDED PARKING AREA 3,686 SF PARKING AREA 2,806 SF PARKING AREA 6,115 SF PARKING AREA 3,078 SF PARKING AREA 2,698 SF PARKING AREA 4,028 SF 50%50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 75% 25% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%PARKING AREA UNDER PG&E OVERHEAD EASEMENT PARKING AREA UNDER PG&E OVERHEAD EASEMENT PROPOSED QSR DRIVEWAY PROPERTY LINE 50% PGE GAS LINE EASEMENT NO PLANT MATERIAL OVER 4' TALL ALLOWED 50% Prepared Under the Direction of: CALIFORNIA State Of PLACER County Of ROSEVILLE City Of Sheet Plan File: Project Number: - - Scale: Date:

Rev Date Description Designed Drawn Checked
SWC FIDDYMENT RD. & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.
- 6-9-26 PLANNING - - SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER P.O. Box 2083 Petaluma CA 94952 707-280-8990 OliveStreetLandscape.com [email protected] 6-9-26 SEE PLAN L1

OVERALL, TREE AND

PARKING LOT SHADE PLAN

Page 990 of 1218 ends

PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-LARGE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' / True Green Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata / Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-MEDIUM Arbutus x 'Marina' / Marina Strawberry Tree 24" box, Low Ceratonia siliqua / Carob Tree 24" box, Moderate Koelreuteria paniculata / Golden Rain Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus propinqua 'JFS-Bieberich' / Emerald Sunshine® Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata 'Village Green' / Village Green Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate SMALL/MEDIUM ACCENT TREE Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud 15 gal., Low Lagerstroemia indica 'Red' / Red Crape Myrtle 15 gal., Low Magnolia grandiflora 'St. Mary' / St. Mary Southern Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' / Swan Hill Fruitless Olive 15 gal., Low Prunus cerasifera 'Krauter Vesuvius' / Krauter Vesuvius Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate STREET TREE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Quercus rubra / Northern Red Oak 24" box, Low Quercus suber / Cork Oak 24" box, Low Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' / Drake Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate SCREEN TREE Calocedrus decurrens / Incense Cedar 15 gal., Low Cedrus deodara 'Blue Ice' / Blue Ice Deodar Cedar 15 gal., Low Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel 15 gal., Low Quercus wislizeni / Interior Live Oak 15 gal., Low APPROVED TREES FOR EASEMENT AREA Magnolia stellata rubra / Red Star Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Picea pungens 'Fat Albert' / Fat Albert Colorado Spruce 15 gal., Moderate Prunus cerasifera 'Purple Pony' / Purple Pony Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate Prunus subhirtella 'Pendula' / Winter-flowering Cherry 15 gal., Moderate Viburnum tinus / Laurustinus 15 gal., Moderate LARGE SCREEN SHRUB CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

FIDDYMENT ROAD DRIVEWAY PARKING PARKING PARKING

NEW SIDEWALK PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PROPOSED RETAIL PROPOSED QSR DRIVEWAY PROPOSED RETAIL PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING EXISTING SIDEWALK PARKING PARKING

PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL) PARKING
EXISTING SIDEWALK PARKING PROPOSED QSR SCREEN TREE (TYPICAL) TRASH ENCLOSURES EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN (TYPICAL) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYPICAL) EXISTING SITE ELEMENTS TO REMAIN PGE GAS LINE EASEMENT NO PLANT MATERIAL OVER 4' TALL ALLOWED TRASH ENCLOSURES BIO-RETENTION AREA (TYPICAL) BIKE RACK PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL)

PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL) PARKING PARKING MONUMENT SIGN TRASH ENCLOSURE

UPLAND DRIVE BUILDING DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. EXISTING SIDEWALK

DRIVE-THRU PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING
PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL) PARKING BIO-RETENTION AREA (TYPICAL) TRASH ENCLOSURE SCREEN TREE (TYPICAL) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYPICAL) EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN (TYPICAL) SCREEN SHRUB (TYPICAL) PARKING LARGE SCREEN SHRUB Arctostaphylos x 'Sunset' / Sunset Manzanita 5 gal., Low Ceanothus x 'Julia Phelps' / Julia Phelps Wild Lilac 5 gal., Low Olea europaea 'Montra' / Little Ollie® Olive 5 gal., Low Rhaphiolepis umbellata `Eleanor Tabor` / Yedda Hawthorn 5 gal, Low LARGE/MEDIUM ACCENT Agave americana 'Marginata' / Variegated Century Plant 5 gal., Low Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' / Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass 5 gal., Low Lomandra longifolia 'Lomlon' / Lime Tuff Dwarf Mat Rush 5 gal., Low Phormium tenax 'Firebird' / Firebird New Zealand Flax 5 gal., Low Salvia leucantha / Mexican Bush Sage 5 gal., Low VINES Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 5 gal., Moderate Macfadyena unguis-cati / Cat's Claw Creeper 5 gal., Low MEDIUM SHRUBS Arctostaphylos x 'John Dourley' / John Dourley Manzanita 5 gal., Low Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' / Little John Weeping Bottlebrush 5 gal., Low Frangula californica 'Mound San Bruno' / Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry 5 gal., Low Rhaphiolepis indica 'Parhap' / Oriental Pearl Indian Hawthorn 5 gal., Low Westringia fruticosa 'Blue Gem' / Blue Gem Coast Rosemary 5 gal., Low SMALL ACCENT Dianella revoluta 'DR5000' / Little Rev™ Flax Lily 5 gal., Low Dianella tasmanica 'Yellow Stripe' / Golden Flax Lily 5 gal., Low Eremophila hygrophana 'Blue Bells' / Blue Bells Emu Bush 5 gal., Low Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass 1 gal., Low Lavandula angustifolia 'Hidcote Blue' / Hidcote Blue English Lavender 1 gal., Low Lomandra longifolia 'Roma 13' / Platinum Beauty® Variegated Mat Rush 1 gal., Low Pennisetum setaceum `Fireworks` / Fireworks Fountain Grass 1 gal., Low Tulbaghia violacea / Society Garlic 1 gal., Low Yucca x `Bright Star` / Variegated Spanish Dagger 5 gal., Low EXISTING PLANTS TO REMAIN existing plants to remain in place. Preserve and protect. ACCENT GROUNDCOVER Convolvulus mauritanicus 'Blue Lake' / Blue Lake Morning Glory 1 gal., Low Rosa x 'Meiradriflora' / Drift Rose 1 gal., Low Rosa x 'Meisentmil' / Lemon Drift® Rose 1 gal., Low Teucrium chamaedrys 'Nanum' / Creeping Germander 1 gal., Low GROUNDCOVER Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee Point' / Yankee Point Carmel Creeper 1 gal., Low Grevillea lanigera 'Coastal Gem' / Coastal Gem Grevillea 1 gal., Low Myoporum parvifolium / Trailing Myoporum 1 gal., Low Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' / Dwarf Rosemary 1 gal., Low BIO-RETENTION Bio-Retention Plants Hydroseed / Bio-Retention Seed Mix Hydroseed, No Water Use Carex divulsa / European Grey Sedge 4" pot, Low Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' / Canyon Prince Giant Wild Rye 4" pot, Low Muhlenbergia rigens / Deer Grass 4" pot, Low N O R T H 0SCALE: 30 60 90 feet 1" = 30' Prepared Under the Direction of: CALIFORNIA State Of PLACER County Of ROSEVILLE City Of Sheet Plan File: Project Number: - - Scale: Date:

CONCEPTUAL

LANDSCAPE PLAN

MATCH-LINE-SEE THIS SHEET
MATCH-LINE-SEE THIS SHEET MATCH-LINE- SEE SHEET L3

Page 991 of 1218 ends

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL N O R T H 0SCALE: 30 60 90 feet 1" = 30' FIDDYMEANT ROAD PROPOSED FUELING CANOPY PROPOSED FUELING STATION BUILDING PROPOSED RETAIL PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING EXISTING POWER TOWER PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING DRIVEWAY PARKING PARKING SCREEN TREE (TYPICAL) EXISTING PG&E OVERHEAD EASEMENT (NO TREES OR SHRUBS TALLER THAN 10' ARE ALLOWED) PGE GAS LINE EASEMENT (NO PLANT MATERIAL OVER 4' TALL) OFFSITE AREA NOT INLCUDED (TYPICAL) OFFSITE AREA NOT INLCUDED (TYPICAL) PGE GAS LINE EASEMENT (NO PLANT MATERIAL OVER 4' TALL ALLOWED) TRASH ENCLOSURE BIO-RETENTION AREA (TYPICAL) EXISTING PG&E OVERHEAD EASEMENT (NO TREES OR SHRUBS TALLER THAN 10' ALLOWED) PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL) PARCEL LINE (TYPICAL) PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-LARGE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' / True Green Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata / Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate PARKING LOT SHADE TREE-MEDIUM Arbutus x 'Marina' / Marina Strawberry Tree 24" box, Low Ceratonia siliqua / Carob Tree 24" box, Moderate Koelreuteria paniculata / Golden Rain Tree 24" box, Moderate Ulmus propinqua 'JFS-Bieberich' / Emerald Sunshine® Elm 24" box, Moderate Zelkova serrata 'Village Green' / Village Green Japanese Zelkova 24" box, Moderate SMALL/MEDIUM ACCENT TREE Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud 15 gal., Low Lagerstroemia indica 'Red' / Red Crape Myrtle 15 gal., Low Magnolia grandiflora 'St. Mary' / St. Mary Southern Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' / Swan Hill Fruitless Olive 15 gal., Low Prunus cerasifera 'Krauter Vesuvius' / Krauter Vesuvius Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate STREET TREE Acer rubrum 'October Glory' / October Glory Red Maple 24" box, Moderate Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' / Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 24" box, Moderate Quercus rubra / Northern Red Oak 24" box, Low Quercus suber / Cork Oak 24" box, Low Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' / Drake Lacebark Elm 24" box, Moderate SCREEN TREE Calocedrus decurrens / Incense Cedar 15 gal., Low Cedrus deodara 'Blue Ice' / Blue Ice Deodar Cedar 15 gal., Low Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel 15 gal., Low Quercus wislizeni / Interior Live Oak 15 gal., Low APPROVED TREES FOR EASEMENT AREA Magnolia stellata rubra / Red Star Magnolia 15 gal., Moderate Picea pungens 'Fat Albert' / Fat Albert Colorado Spruce 15 gal., Moderate Prunus cerasifera 'Purple Pony' / Purple Pony Purple-leaf Plum 15 gal., Moderate Prunus subhirtella 'Pendula' / Winter-flowering Cherry 15 gal., Moderate Viburnum tinus / Laurustinus 15 gal., Moderate LARGE SCREEN SHRUB Arctostaphylos x 'Sunset' / Sunset Manzanita 5 gal., Low Ceanothus x 'Julia Phelps' / Julia Phelps Wild Lilac 5 gal., Low Olea europaea 'Montra' / Little Ollie® Olive 5 gal., Low Rhaphiolepis umbellata `Eleanor Tabor` / Yedda Hawthorn 5 gal, Low LARGE/MEDIUM ACCENT Agave americana 'Marginata' / Variegated Century Plant 5 gal., Low Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' / Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass 5 gal., Low Lomandra longifolia 'Lomlon' / Lime Tuff Dwarf Mat Rush 5 gal., Low Phormium tenax 'Firebird' / Firebird New Zealand Flax 5 gal., Low Salvia leucantha / Mexican Bush Sage 5 gal., Low VINES Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 5 gal., Moderate Macfadyena unguis-cati / Cat's Claw Creeper 5 gal., Low MEDIUM SHRUBS Arctostaphylos x 'John Dourley' / John Dourley Manzanita 5 gal., Low Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' / Little John Weeping Bottlebrush 5 gal., Low Frangula californica 'Mound San Bruno' / Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry 5 gal., Low Rhaphiolepis indica 'Parhap' / Oriental Pearl Indian Hawthorn 5 gal., Low Westringia fruticosa 'Blue Gem' / Blue Gem Coast Rosemary 5 gal., Low SMALL ACCENT Dianella revoluta 'DR5000' / Little Rev™ Flax Lily 5 gal., Low Dianella tasmanica 'Yellow Stripe' / Golden Flax Lily 5 gal., Low Eremophila hygrophana 'Blue Bells' / Blue Bells Emu Bush 5 gal., Low Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass 1 gal., Low Lavandula angustifolia 'Hidcote Blue' / Hidcote Blue English Lavender 1 gal., Low Lomandra longifolia 'Roma 13' / Platinum Beauty® Variegated Mat Rush 1 gal., Low Pennisetum setaceum `Fireworks` / Fireworks Fountain Grass 1 gal., Low Tulbaghia violacea / Society Garlic 1 gal., Low Yucca x `Bright Star` / Variegated Spanish Dagger 5 gal., Low EXISTING PLANTS TO REMAIN existing plants to remain in place. Preserve and protect. ACCENT GROUNDCOVER Convolvulus mauritanicus 'Blue Lake' / Blue Lake Morning Glory 1 gal., Low Rosa x 'Meiradriflora' / Drift Rose 1 gal., Low Rosa x 'Meisentmil' / Lemon Drift® Rose 1 gal., Low Teucrium chamaedrys 'Nanum' / Creeping Germander 1 gal., Low GROUNDCOVER Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee Point' / Yankee Point Carmel Creeper 1 gal., Low Grevillea lanigera 'Coastal Gem' / Coastal Gem Grevillea 1 gal., Low Myoporum parvifolium / Trailing Myoporum 1 gal., Low Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' / Dwarf Rosemary 1 gal., Low BIO-RETENTION Bio-Retention Plants Hydroseed / Bio-Retention Seed Mix Hydroseed, No Water Use Carex divulsa / European Grey Sedge 4" pot, Low Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' / Canyon Prince Giant Wild Rye 4" pot, Low Muhlenbergia rigens / Deer Grass 4" pot, Low UPLAND Area to remain natural- overseed construction/impacted areas with native upland hysroseed mix Upland Hydroseed / Upland Seed Mix Hydroseed, No Water Use CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE Prepared Under the Direction of: CALIFORNIA State Of PLACER County Of ROSEVILLE City Of Sheet Plan File: Project Number: -- Scale: Date:

Rev Date Description Designed Drawn Checked
SWC FIDDYMENT RD. & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. - 6-9-26 PLANNING - - SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER P.O. Box 2083 Petaluma CA 94952 707-280-8990 OliveStreetLandscape.com [email protected] 6-9-26 SEE PLAN L3

CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN MATCH-LINE-SEE SHEET L2

Page 992 of 1218 ends

130,889 SF

3.005 AC
206,334 SF

4.737 AC
46,158 SF

1.060 AC
35,971 SF

0.826 AC
31,288 SF

0.718 AC
53,171 SF

1.221 AC
76,074 SF

1.746 AC
52,580 SF

1.207 AC PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE PALLET & STORAGE BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE PALLET & BALE STORAGE FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED RECYCLING CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL Know what's below.

Callbefore you dig. R 197901001 6/12/2026PSS PSS JAK Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:COVER June 12, 2026 08:47:06am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C1.0 - CV.dwg © 2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: 925-398-4840 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH

DEVELOPER

ENGINEER

DEVELOPER

SURVEYOR SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP PLANS
FOR

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD & PLEASANT GROVE BLVD,
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

VICINITY MAP

SITE INFORMATION

SITE MAP

ROSEVILLE, CA COVER SHEET

ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

PROJECT TEAM

BASIS OF BEARING

VERTICAL DATUM

UTILITY NOTE

FLOOD ZONE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

EASEMENTS
15 16
17 21
22 25
30 31
32 PROJECT SITE

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD FIDDYMENT RD

JUNCTION BLVD

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
C1.0

SHEET INDEX TABLE

SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE

PRIVATE EASEMENT NOTE

CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT C

Page 993 of 1218 ends

130,889 SF 3.005 AC 206,334 SF 4.737 AC 46,158 SF 1.060 AC 35,971 SF 0.826 AC 31,288 SF 0.718 AC 53,171 SF 1.221 AC 76,074 SF 1.746 AC 52,580 SF 1.207 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.0 June 12, 2026 08:47:14am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C2.0 - EXISTING CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL EXISTING LOT
LINES GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND C2.0

Page 994 of 1218 ends

35,971 SF 0.826 AC 31,288 SF 0.718 AC 53,171 SF 1.221 AC 76,074 SF 1.746 AC 52,580 SF 1.207 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.1 June 12, 2026 08:47:14am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C2.0 - EXISTING CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING LOT LINES GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND C2.1 EASEMENTS

Page 995 of 1218 ends

130,889 SF 3.005 AC 206,334 SF 4.737 AC 46,158 SF 1.060 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C2.2 June 12, 2026 08:47:14am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C2.0 - EXISTING CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING LOT LINES LEGEND GENERAL NOTES NORTH C2.2 EASEMENTS

Page 996 of 1218 ends

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV
EV

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL 130,889 SF 3.005 AC 206,334 SF 4.737 AC 46,158 SF 1.060 AC 35,971 SF 0.826 AC 31,288 SF 0.718 AC 53,171 SF 1.221 AC 76,074 SF 1.746 AC 52,580 SF 1.207 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.0 June 12, 2026 08:47:26am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C3.0 - PROPOSED CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL PROPOSED
LOT LINES C3.0 PARCEL SUMMARY GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

Page 997 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL 35,971 SF 0.826 AC 31,288 SF 0.718 AC 53,171 SF 1.221 AC 76,074 SF 1.746 AC 52,580 SF 1.207 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.1 June 12, 2026 08:47:28am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C3.0 - PROPOSED CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED LOT LINES GENERAL NOTES NORTH LEGEND C3.1 EASEMENTS BUILDING SUMMARYPARCEL SUMMARY

Page 998 of 1218 ends

EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV EV EV EV EV 130,889 SF 3.005 AC 206,334 SF 4.737 AC 46,158 SF 1.060 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C3.2 June 12, 2026 08:47:31am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C3.0 - PROPOSED CONDITION.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED LOT LINES LEGEND GENERAL NOTES NORTH C3.2 EASEMENTS BUILDING SUMMARY PARCEL SUMMARY

Page 999 of 1218 ends

EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EVCS
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
S
S
S
S D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

PALLET &

STORAGE
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE

PALLET &
BALE

STORAGE
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING 3 YD 4 YD MIXED

RECYCLING
CHICKEN GREASE RECYCLING 224 GAL
35,971 SF 0.826 AC 31,288 SF 0.718 AC 53,171 SF 1.221 AC 76,074 SF 1.746 AC 52,580 SF 1.207 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.0 June 12, 2026 08:50:57am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C4.0 - SEWER AND WATER PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

SEWER AND WATER
PLAN NORTH C4.0 BUILDING SUMMARY LEGEND GENERAL NOTES

Page 1000 of 1218 ends

EV
EV

EV EV EV
EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV

EV EV EV EV EV
S D 130,889 SF 3.005 AC 206,334 SF 4.737 AC 46,158 SF 1.060 AC Know what's below. Callbefore you dig.

R
197901001
6/12/2026
PSS
PSS
JAK
Plotted By:Szarecki, Piotr Sheet Set:Kha Layout:C4.1 June 12, 2026 08:47:52am K:\BAY_LDEV\197901001 - Roseville Retail Center (JAK)\CAD\PlanSheets\Tentative Subdivision Map\C4.0 - SEWER AND WATER PLAN.dwg ©2026 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DR #300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

SIERRA VIEW

SHOPPING CENTER

SWC OF FIDDYMENT RD &

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95747

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

SEWER AND WATER
PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES NORTH C4.1 BUILDING SUMMARY

Page 1001 of 1218 ends

Sierra View
Shopping Center
Prepared by IARetail

04.10.2026
Building Elevations & Materials
Roseville, CA

CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT D

Page 1002 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 2 Contents
What’s Included?
Site Information 3
Materials - Design Concept 6
Building Elevations 9

Page 1003 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 3 Site Information

Page 1004 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 4 Site Location
Surrounding Context *Work included in this package is inprogress and for visual/design approval.

Site Location: Surrounding Jurisdiction Context:

Roseville, CA

Page 1005 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - OVERALL SITE VIEWS - 07.01.2025 IARetail 2 Site Plan
Project Site
Key:
1 - Coffee Shop (Drive Thru)
2 - In-Line Multi-Tenant Retail
3 - QSR (Drive Thru)
4 - Site Corner Retail
5 - Gas Station
6 - QSR (Drive Thru)
7 - Large Format Retail

Overall Site Plan
NTS
1 2
4 3
5 6
7 SIM.

Pleasant Grove Blvd
Fiddyment Rd
B
A

Page 1006 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - OVERALL SITE VIEWS - 07.01.2025 IARetail 3 Overall Site View A
Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Key Plan
1 2 4 3
5 6
7 SIM.

Pleasant Grove Blvd
Fiddyment Rd
A

Page 1007 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - OVERALL SITE VIEWS - 07.01.2025 IARetail 4 Overall Site View B
Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Fiddyment Rd.

Key Plan
1 2 4 3
5 6
7 SIM.

Pleasant Grove Blvd
Fiddyment Rd B

Page 1008 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 6 Materials - Design Concept

Page 1009 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 7 Design Inspiration
‘Modern Western Highlands’ Influence *Work included in this package is inprogress and for visual/design approval.

Drawing from the local commercial and residential architectural context around Roseville and similar environs, the design for the Sierra View Shopping Center utilizes a similar mix of stone and stone block, vertical cement fiber siding and metal and wood accents. The result is an approachable mix of modern and traditional elements that feel relatable.

Page 1010 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 8 B
Visual Position
Look & Feel *Work included in this package is inprogress and for visual/design approval.

Key:

A - Dark Warm Gray EIFS/Stucco
B - Stacked Stone Veneer
C - Blackened Steel (Look) Brake Metal
D - Standing Seam Roof Accent/Panel
E - Light Warm Gray EIFS/Stucco
F - CMU/Stone Block
G - Dark Pine Treated Lumber
Wood Accent
H - White Brake Metal Trim
I - Dark Charcoal Cement Fiber Siding
J - Mid Warm Gray EIFS/Stucco
K - Warm Tan Cement Fiber Siding
L - Dark Brown Cement Fiber Siding
M - Sage Green Cement Fiber Siding
C
F
H
D
I
E

A K L M G J

Page 1011 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 9 Building Elevations

Page 1012 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 10 Building Elevations
Building 1 - Coffee Shop (Drive Thru)
Elevation B
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Elevation A
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
A B C
L G I
Materials Site Key
A
B C
D
D
24’-6”
24’-6”
19’-6”
19’-6”
22’-9”
17’-6”
17’-6”
13’-0”
13’-0”
3’-0”
3’-0”
A
A
B B
B B
C
C
G D
G
G
G
L
L
I
I

Page 1013 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 11 Elevation D
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
A B C
L G I
Elevation C
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Materials
3D View
Site Key
Building Elevations
Building 1 - Coffee Shop (Drive Thru)
D
A
B C
D
24’-6”
19’-6”
17’-6”
13’-0”
3’-0”
24’-6”
19’-6”
17’-6”
13’-0”
3’-0”
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
G
G
L
L
I
I

Page 1014 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 12 Building Elevations
Building 2 - In-Line Multi-Tenant Retail
M
B F
G
Materials Site Key
A
B C
D
E
C
Elevation B
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
Elevation A
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
D
J
28’-6”
27’-6”
3’-0”
13’-10”
28’-6”
27’-6”
22’-6”
3’-0”
13’-10”
22’-6”

B B B C B
C
C

B C C B

D D E D D C D
E
E
J J

F F E B
F F

M G M F
M M

Page 1015 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 13 A
B C
D
Building Elevations
M
B F
G
Materials Site Key
E
C
Elevation C & D (Similar)
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
3D View
D
Building 2 - In-Line Multi-Tenant Retail
28’-6”
27’-6”
3’-0”
13’-10”

G D C E F B

Page 1016 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 14 Building Elevations
Building 3 - QSR (Drive-Thru)
Elevation B
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Elevation A
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
B C
K G M
Materials Site Key
A
B
C
D
E
D
26’-0”
21’-5”
19’-6”
3’-0”
26’-0”
21’-5”
19’-6”
15’-11”
3’-0”
B
B
B
B
C B
C
C C
C
K
K
K
K
K
K
D
D G D
G E
E
M

Page 1017 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 15 A
B
C
D
Building Elevations
Building 3 - QSR (Drive-Thru)
Elevation D
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
B C
K G M
Elevation C
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Materials
3D View
Site Key
E
D
26’-0”
21’-5”
19’-6”
3’-0”
26’-0”
21’-5”
19’-6”
15’-11”
3’-0”
B B
B
C
C C
K
K K
D
D
G
G
E
E

Page 1018 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 16 Building Elevations
Building 4 - Site Corner Retail
Elevation B
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
B C
K G M
Elevation A
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Materials
3D View
Site Key
A
B
D C
E
D
J
25’-8”
20’-9”
18’-9”
3’-0”
25’-8”
20’-9”
18’-9”
3’-0”
B
B B
C C
C C
D K D
D
G
G
E
E
J
J
M
M
M M
M K

Page 1019 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 17 A
B
D C
Building Elevations
Building 4 - Site Corner Retail
Elevation D
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
B C
K G M
Elevation C
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Materials
3D View
Site Key
E
D
J 25’-8”
25’-8”
20’-9”
20’-9”
18’-9”
18’-9”
3’-0”
3’-0”
B B
B
C
C
D
D D
G D
G
E
E
J
J
M
M
M
M
K
K

Page 1020 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 18 Building Elevations
Building 5 - Gas Station
B
K G C
Materials Site Key
A
B
D
C
E
D
J
E
Elevation C
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Elevation D 3D View
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
20’-0”
17’-6”
11’-0”
3’-0”

J C B C C D B K C B J
20’-0”
17’-6”
11’-0”
3’-0”

J E C B D C K G B C E B J

Page 1021 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 19 A
B
D
C
E
Building Elevations
Building 5 - Gas Station
B
K G C
Materials Site Key
E
D
J
Elevation E
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
Elevation A & B (Similar) Elevation A & B (Similar)
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0” Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
20’-0” 20’-0”
17’-6” 17’-6”
3’-0” 3’-0”
G K C B E optional optional J C B E J K G
15’-6”
20’-4”

G B C E

Page 1022 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 20 Building Elevations
Building 6 - QSR (Drive-Thru)
B
G C
Materials
3D View
Site Key
A
B
C D
D
J M
I
Elevation B
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Elevation A
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
19’-9”
19’3”
17’-1”
11’-5”
10’-0”
3’-0”
19’-9”
17’-1”
11’-5”
10’-0”
3’-0”
B
D B
C
C
C
C
D G I
G J B
J
J
M
M
I M
M

Page 1023 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 21 A
B
C D
Building Elevations
Building 6 - QSR (Drive-Thru)
B
G C
Materials
3D View
Site Key
D
J M
I
Elevation D
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
Elevation C
Scale: 3/32”=1’-0”
19’9”
10’-9”
3’-0”
19’9”
17’-1”
10’-9”
3’-0”
B
B B
B C
C
C
C
J
J
I
I
M
M
G
G M

Page 1024 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 22 Building Elevations
Building 7 - Large Format Retail
Elevation B
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
Elevation A
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
B
G C
Materials
3D View
Site Key
A
B
D C
J D
M
F
E
31’-6”
42’-6”
29’-6”
16’-9”
3’-0”
31’-6”
42’-6”
29’-6”
16’-9”
3’-0”
B
B B

C B B C
C C
C M D
E E

J F G J J F G D B C

C M E B

Page 1025 of 1218 ends

SIERRA VIEW - ROSEVILLE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS + MATERIALS - 04.10.2026 IARetail 23 Building Elevations
Building 7 - Large Format Retail
M
B F
G
Materials Site Key
E
C D
J
Elevation D
Elevation C
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
Scale: 1/16”=1’-0”
A
B
D C
31’-6”
31’-6”
42’-6”
42’-6”
29’-6”
29’-6”
16’-9”
3’-0”
3’-0”

C B E C B M D

G D M C B E B C D E C B
E D E

Page 1026 of 1218 ends

Thank you!
Prepared by IA Interior Architects

04.10.2026

Page 1027 of 1218 ends

1 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Sierra View Shopping Center (PL25-0496)
Project Description
June 10, 2026
The applicant proposes the 58,210 square foot Sierra Vista Shopping Center at the southwest corner of the Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection. The project will provide neighborhood-serving uses including a grocery store, retail spaces, fast food restaurants with drive-throughs, and a fuel station.

Location. The 14.5-acre (gross) project site at 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard is southwest of the Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection in west Roseville. Owned by SVC1 LLC, the property comprises twelve parcels (APNs 498-370-002 through -012 and 017-152-018). Most of the site (13.9 acres) is of Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcel JM-41, and a small area (0.6 acres) in the site’s northwest corner is West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W-20.

Site Characteristics. The site fronts Fiddyment Road on the west and Pleasant Grove Boulevard on the north, with a short Upland Drive frontage on the west side. The site is vacant, relatively flat, and vegetated with annual grasslands. Aside from frontage landscaping, there are no trees. The site has undergone periodic disking and other ground disturbance, and no wetlands or other significant natural features are present.

Frontage improvements, including landscaping, sidewalks, streetlights, curb, and gutter are constructed adjacent to Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. A low-profile monument sign with landscaping identifying the Westpark community and landscaping are on the northeast corner, adjacent to the intersection.

A 375-foot wide power line corridor, containing 230 kV power lines and transmission line towers, traverse from east to west through the south part of the site. The site is encumbered by several easements for power lines, transmission line towers, a gas line, landscape, and public utilities. Infrastructure (water, recycled water, sewer, drainage) and utilities are stubbed to the site.

Surrounding Uses. On the northeast corner of Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, the West Roseville Marketplace commercial center is under construction. The center is anchored by a Safeway grocery store with shops, a drive-through restaurant, and an eight-pump fuel station. A CVS drugstore is on the intersection’s southeast corner and an open space corridor containing a power line corridor is farther south.

The Club at Westpark age-restricted residential community is north across Pleasant Grove Boulevard. A single-family residential neighborhood with one- and two-story units is to the south. The 192-unit affordable Sierra Vista Apartment project is approved on the 7.2-acre parcel (SVSP Parcel JM-30) west of the site and east of Upland Drive, and is under construction. Within the adjacent apartment project to the west, parking areas and a pickleball court are planned on the east, and three-story apartment buildings are planned on the north closest to the project. A single family residential neighborhood is south of the project on SVSP Parcel JM-2.

CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT E

Page 1028 of 1218 ends

2 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Proposed Project. The proposed Sierra View Shopping Center will feature 58,210 square feet (sf) of neighborhood- and community- serving uses including an anchor grocery store, two retail buildings, three fast food restaurants with drive-throughs, and a fuel station. Specific tenants are unknown at this time.

Building Proposed Use Square Footage
1 Restaurant (Drive-through) (Coffee) 3,000
2 Retail 16,742
3 Restaurant (Drive-through) 3,736
4 Retail 3,745
5 Fuel Station 4,700
6 Restaurant (Drive-through) 3,015
7 Retail (Grocery) 23,272
58,210
The project proposes seven freestanding, single-story buildings facing the Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard frontages, along with parking, landscaping, and lighting. The project consists of the following components:
o Retail. The project includes three retail buildings (Buildings 2, 4, and 7) totaling 43,759+ sf. The primary retail building (Building 7) will be a 23,272+ sf anchor grocery store on the site’s south side.

The building entry is planned on the south elevation, and the at-grade loading door and trash compactor on the north. The primary parking fields will be south and east of the building. The grocery store is projected to receive approximately ten heavy truck deliveries per week and fifteen medium truck deliveries per week. Most deliveries to the grocery store will be staggered during weekdays from 6 am to noon, with an occasional delivery between 12-7 pm on weekdays and Saturday.

A 16,742+ sf rectangular retail building (Building 2) will face Pleasant Grove Boulevard and accommodate multiple in-line retail and service tenants. Building 4 (3,745+ sf), in the site’s northeast corner near the intersection, is suitable for tenants such as a retailer or bank. o Restaurants. Three fast food restaurant pads (Buildings 1, 3, 6) totaling 9,751+ sf are planned. Each restaurant is designed with a drive-through lane wrapping around the building. The restaurants are located near the adjacent roadways to minimize impacts to adjacent uses. Building 1 is planned for a coffee tenant.
o Fuel Station. A fuel station is planned immediately north of the Fiddyment Road driveway access.

The fuel station will feature four dispensers (eight pumps) under a covered canopy, and a 4,700+ sf retail building (Building 5). The fuel station will be open 24 hours a day.

Page 1029 of 1218 ends

3 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Access and Circulation. Ingress and egress for the project site will be provided by one driveway on Fiddyment Road, two driveways on Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and one driveway on Upland Drive. The Fiddyment Road driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out turn movements with a left turn in from a proposed northbound left turn lane. The two driveways on Pleasant Grove Boulevard are limited to rightin/right-out turn movements, and the Upland Drive driveway will accommodate full access. A deceleration lane and turn lane will be added to the south side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard adjacent to the site. A 300-foot left turn lane will be constructed in northbound Fiddyment Road to facilitate left turns into the site.

Drive aisles will provide efficient vehicular access from the driveways to the parking areas and through the site. Parking lot drive aisles will be a minimum of 24-feet wide. The driveways and primary drive aisles are designed to accommodate grocery store and gasoline delivery trucks and garbage collection. Six trash enclosures located through the site facilitate City garbage trucks access to the bins. Site circulation is intuitive and meets City standards.

Walkways are planned for project-wide pedestrian circulation and connections to Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Public sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the site in the Pleasant Grove Boulevard and portions of Fiddyment Road and Upland Drive frontages, and the project will construct the remaining segments. Internal walkways are planned in routes where pedestrian traffic is most likely to occur. A bus turnout with shelter is planned on the Fiddyment Road frontage south of the intersection.

Parking. Based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance parking standards (Roseville Municipal Code (RMC)

19.26.030), the project is required to provide 261 off-street parking spaces. The project provides a 327 off-street parking spaces (5.6 spaces per 1,000 sf), which exceeds the number of spaces required. The parking supply includes standard, compact, accessible, electric vehicle capable, and electric vehicle charging station spaces in multiple parking areas.

The parking spaces required for each use will be on the same parcel as the building1. A recorded private reciprocal parking and access agreement will allow access to parking for all users within the project. As spaces are leased, each tenant will utilize the applicable parking requirement for the use as outlined RMC 19.26.030.

Building Zoning Code Use Type
RMC 19.08.030
Square
Footage
Parking
Standard
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Proposed
1 Fast Food with Drive-Through 3,000 1 space/100 sf 30 30 2 Retail Sales and Services 16,742 1 space/300 sf 56 56 3 Fast Food with Drive-Through 3,736 1 space/100 sf 38 39 4 Retail Sales and Services 3,745 1 space/300 sf 13 13
5 Fuel Sales 4,700 1 space/300 sf 16 18
6 Fast Food with Drive-Through 3,015 1 space/100 sf 30 30 7 Food and Beverage Retail Sales 23,272 1 space/300 sf 78 141 58,210 261 327
1 The proposed Tentative Parcel Map modifies existing parcel lines and results in seven parcels so that each building, with parking area, area is on a separate parcel.

Page 1030 of 1218 ends

4 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Architecture. The project is defined by a modern western highlands architectural influence with a blend of modern and traditional elements. The architectural design is modern and compatible with surrounding development. The building facades feature various rectangular forms and varied rooflines such as flat roofs and gabled forms with prominent standing seam metal roof accents. As a focal point near the intersection, retail Building 4 features a more elaborate gabled roof. Building heights range from approximately 20 feet for the fuel station and restaurants to 42’-6” on the grocery store’s south elevation. The rooflines provide sufficient screening of mechanical rooftop equipment.

The buildings are well-articulated with varied building materials, such as a combination of exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS)/stucco in several shades (dark, mid and light warm gray) and cement fiber siding in colors such as dark charcoal, warm tan, dark brown and sage green. Reveals in the EIFS and cement fiber siding create a grid pattern that interrupts wall surfaces. Stacked stone veneer and masonry stone block are used prominently at the building bases and on key vertical massing elements. Dark pine treated lumber creates wood accents, with contrasting blackened steel brake metal and white brake metal trim. Most buildings are designed with a storefront glazing system with black or dark bronze aluminum frames arranged in repetitive bays that align with the structural building grid.

Architecture for the restaurants, retail buildings, and fuel station is in the same style as the grocery anchor tenant with the same materials and colors. The proposed project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG).

Landscape Concept. The landscape concept features various Mediterranean-style, native, droughttolerant, and low-fuel species to create layers of color and texture and complement the architectural style and setting. Proposed landscaping consists of low-profile vegetation, screening shrubs and trees, shade trees, and canopy trees.

Existing landscaping adjacent to the roadways will remain and landscaping (trees, shrubs, groundcover) will be added to create a 50-foot wide landscape corridor adjacent to Fiddyment Road and a 35-foot wide corridor on Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The project provides 55% parking lot shade with a mix of 24-inch box Red Maple, Zelkova, Elm, and Maidenhair trees, and smaller trees such as Strawberry, Carob, Golden Rain, Elm, and Zelkova varieties.

A six-foot masonry wall and a 16-foot landscape planter with screen trees (Cedar, Laurel, and Oak), shrubs, and groundcover are proposed along the site’s south and west edges adjacent to the adjacent apartment project. Low-profile plants and groundcovers will be used in areas where landscaping is constrained by the gas pipeline and power line easements. The preliminary landscape plan is consistent with the SVSP Design Guidelines, CDG, and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Lighting. Lighting will consist of parking lot lighting and building-mounted light fixtures that complement the center’s architecture. Lighting is designed to comply with the CDG, which require a minimum of one footcandle of lighting in parking areas and 0.5 foot-candles of lighting on pedestrian walkways. Visors will shield light fixtures to focus the light downward and on-site.

Page 1031 of 1218 ends

5 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Fencing. A six-foot masonry wall is planned on the project’s south and west property lines shared with the adjacent apartment project (JM-30).

Signage. The project includes freestanding monument signs and building wall signs to identify the project and tenants. Two freestanding monument signs are planned – one east of the east Pleasant Grove Boulevard driveway and the second north of the fuel station adjacent to Fiddyment Road. Signage for the fuel station will be provided as required by state law, and building wall signs will identify tenants. Signs will incorporate the project’s building materials and colors. No changes are proposed to the Westpark entry monumentation on the northeast corner. Consistent with the Sign Ordinance, a Planned Sign Permit Program (RMC 17.08.210) will be processed for the project’s proposed signage.

Grading and Construction. The site will be mass graded in a single phase. The estimated earthwork is 18,000 cubic yards (cy) cut and 9,500 cy fill, with approximately 8,500 cy of exported material. Building construction will be phased.

Interface with Adjacent Residential Uses. The project is designed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses. The 192-unit Sierra Vista Apartments (SVA) project is under construction on the High Density Residential (HDR) parcel south and west of the project site. ▪ SVA Apartment Building to Project Building 2 (Retail). The approximate distance from the closest residential unit in the SVA project north to Building 2 is 116 feet. The 116-foot section directly from the apartment building to Building 2 consists of sidewalk, parking, and landscape planter (72 feet) on the SVA site to the property line, a six-foot masonry wall on the property line, a landscape planter (18.5 feet), and drive aisle (20 feet), sidewalk (5.5’) on the project site. ▪ SVA Apartment Building to Project Building 7 (Grocery). West of the grocery store pad (Building 7), the distance to the closest residential unit in the SVA project is approximately 134 feet. The 134-foot section consists of sidewalk, parking, and landscape planter (79 feet) on the SVA site to the property line, a six-foot masonry wall on the property line, a landscape planter (15.5 feet), drive aisle (34 feet), and sidewalk (5.5 feet) on the project site.
▪ SVA Apartment Building to Project Building 7 (Grocery) Loading Door and Compactor. The distance from the closest residential unit in the SVA project east to grocery store loading door and compactor is approximately 267 feet. The 267-foot section consists of ) a sidewalk, parking, and landscape planter on the SVA site to the property line (107 feet) a six-foot masonry wall on the property line, a landscape planter (15.5 feet), drive aisle from the face of curb to edge of truck door (56.5 feet). 2 The single-family residential subdivision on parcel JM-2 is approximately 253 feet south of the project site at its closest point.
2 Sierra View Shopping Center Design Review Plans, April 15, 2026, Sheets C2.1, C2.2, and C4.3 and Sierra Vista Apartments Site Plan, July 14, 2025.

Page 1032 of 1218 ends

6 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Land Use Designation and Zoning.

Land Use Designation. Most of the site (13.9 acres) consists of Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcel JM-41, and a small area (0.6 acres) in the site’s northwest corner is West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W20. The SVSP and WRSP are large specific plan areas covering a combined 5,500 acres on Roseville’s west side with residential, non-residential, park, open space, and public facilities uses.

The SVSP and WRSP’s land use designation for the site is Community Commercial (CC) which envisions a broad range of retail goods and services. The CC designation accommodates developments including conventional grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping centers and larger-scale commercial centers. CC uses are generally sited at major intersections with superior visibility and access to vehicular traffic. Parcel JM-41 is one of two parcels in the SVSP identified for a combination of commercial and business professional uses.

The CC designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) up to 0.4, which could accommodate 252,648 sf of development on the site. The proposed project consisting of a 58,210 sf grocery-anchored commercial center has a FAR of 0.09. The proposed project is consistent with the CC land use designation.

Zoning. The site is zoned Community Commercial/Special Overlay (CC/SA). The Special Overlay (SA) component allows area-specific standards to supplement the City’s Zoning Ordinance and CDG.

The proposed retail and grocery uses (Buildings 2, 4, and 7) are permitted in the CC zone. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for fast food restaurants with drive-throughs, fuel sales establishments or electric vehicle charging centers contiguous to properties with a residential zoning designation (RMC Section 19.12.020).

Conditional use permits are required because the proposed fast food restaurants with drive-throughs (Buildings 1, 3, and 6) and the fuel station (Building 5) are in a project contiguous to a parcel designated for residential uses. Parcel JM-30 to the west is designated High Density Residential (HDR) and approved for the Sierra Vista Apartments project (under construction), and parcel JM-2 to the south is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) and developed with single-family homes.

Building Proposed Use Zoning Code Use Type
RMC 19.08.030
CC Zone District
Permitted or CUP
1 Restaurant (Drive-through) (Coffee) Fast Food with Drive-Through Conditional Use Permit 2 Retail Retail Sales and Services Permitted
3 Restaurant (Drive-through) Fast Food with Drive-Through Conditional Use Permit 4 Retail Retail Sales and Services Permitted
5 Fuel Station Gasoline Sales Conditional Use Permit
6 Restaurant (Drive-through) Fast Food with Drive-Through Conditional Use Permit 7 Retail (Grocery) Food and Beverage Retail Sales Permitted

Page 1033 of 1218 ends

7 | Sierra View Shopping Center – Project Description
Entitlements. The following entitlements are required for the project:
▪ Design Review Permit for a 58,210 sf commercial shopping center in the CC zone, including a 23,272 sf anchor grocery tenant, 20,487 sf of retail space, three fast food restaurants with drive-throughs (9,751 sf), and an eight-pump fuel station with a 4,700 sf convenience center building; ▪ Conditional Use Permit to allow fuel sales (Building 5) and drive-through establishments (Buildings 1, 3 and 6) contiguous to residential-zoned properties; and ▪ Tentative Subdivision Map to reconfigure parcels for the proposed project.

Tentative Subdivision Map. The project site consists of twelve parcels. A Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to eliminate four parcels and reconfigure the boundaries of eight parcels. The reconfigured parcels will be sized to accommodate each of the seven buildings with their corresponding parking areas. No development is proposed on the eighth parcel (3.0+ acres ) on the site’s south side.

Development Agreement. The project site is subject to the development agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC and Computer Deductions, Inc. relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (2010), as amended. The project does not propose amendments to the development agreement.

Page 1034 of 1218 ends

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

Project Title/File#: WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack; File #PL20-0142 Project Location: 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, Placer County, CA; APN 017- 152-018-000
Project Owner: Chris Winter, Pulte Home Company, LLC
Project Applicant: David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering Group Project Planner: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Project Description: The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee kiosk with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC), a Rezone from Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC), a Development Agreement Amendment to reflect the land use change, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use contiguous to a residential zoned parcel, and a Design Review Permit to approve the building architecture and site design.

Document Review and Availability: The public review and comment period begins on January 15, 2021 and ends on February 4, 2021. The Mitigated Negative Declaration may be reviewed online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774505.

Written comments on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be submitted to Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, at [email protected] and must be received no later than 5:00 pm on February 4, 2021. Due to the currently in place Placer County Stay at Home Directive, physical correspondence will not be able to be considered during the review period.

This project will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City’s Planning Commission. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated project entitlements. A separate notice will be published once a hearing is scheduled.

Greg Bitter
Planning Manager
Dated: January 14, 2021 Publish: January 15, 2021

CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT F

Page 1035 of 1218 ends

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title/File Number: WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack; File #PL20-0142 Project Location: 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, Placer County, CA; APN 017-152-018-000
Project Applicant: David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering Group Property Owner: Chris Winter, Pulte Home Company, LLC
Lead Agency Contact Person: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner - City of Roseville; (916) 746- 1309
Date: January 14, 2021
Project Description:

The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee kiosk with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC), a Rezone from Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC), a Development Agreement Amendment to reflect the land use change, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use contiguous to a residential zoned parcel, and a Design Review Permit to approve the building architecture and site design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1036 of 1218 ends

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

INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title/File Number: WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack; File #PL20-0142 Project Location: 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, Placer County, CA; APN 017-152-018-000
Project Description: The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee kiosk with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC), a Rezone from Single-Family Residential/Development
Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC), a
Development Agreement Amendment to reflect the land use change, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use contiguous to a residential zoned parcel, and a Design Review Permit to approve the building architecture and site design.

Project Applicant: David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering Group Property Owner: Chris Winter, Pulte Home Company, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 746-1309 This initial study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the above described project application. The document relies on previous environmental documents (see Attachments) and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project. Where documents were submitted by consultants working for the applicant, City staff reviewed such documents in order to determine whether, based on their own professional judgment and expertise, staff found such documents to be credible and persuasive. Staff has only relied on documents that reflect their independent judgment, and has not accepted at face value representations made by consultants for the applicant.

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

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

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

Page 1037 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 2 of 48 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
City of Roseville Mitigation Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards……………………………. 5 Other Environmental Documents Relied Upon …………………………………………………….. 5 Explanation of Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................ 6 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ………………………………………………. 7
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 8
III. Air Quality ………………………………………………. 10
IV. Biological Resources …………………………………. 13
V. Cultural Resources …………………………………… 19
VI. Energy ………………………………………..... 20
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………… 21
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………… 24
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials …………………. 26
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 29
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 31
XII. Mineral Resources ……………………………………. 32
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………… 33
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 37
XV. Public Services ………………………………………… 38
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………….. 39
XVII. Transportation ………………………………………..... 39
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources …………………………….. 42
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 45
XX. Wildfire …………………………………………………. 47
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 48
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 49 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

Page 1038 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 3 of 48 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The 0.61-acre project site is located at 1851 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, at the southeastern intersection of Upland Drive and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (see Figure 1). The site has frontage on both Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Upland Drive. The subject property is identified as Parcel W-20 of the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) and has a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) and a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).

Figure 1: Project Location
Background
The WRSP was approved by City Council in February 2004. The WRSP area includes 3,162 acres in the northwest portion of the City, west of Fiddyment Road and generally north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified with the WRSP (State Clearinghouse #2002082057), which examined the impacts of Specific Plan buildout. This addressed the major cumulative impacts of developing the Specific Plan as a whole, including the subject property (Parcel W-20). Although Parcel W-20 has a land use designation of LDR, the WRSP has not allocated any residential units to the site. The parcel was intended to be a landscape gateway for the Plan area.

Environmental Setting
The project site is a triangular parcel that is undeveloped with the exception of frontage and landscape improvements along Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north and Upland Drive to the west. Frontage improvements consist of sidewalks, curb, and gutter. The landscape along the frontage consists of street trees, accent trees, shrubs and groundcover. Vegetation on the site consists of native and non-native grasses.

Excluding the landscaped area, there are no trees on the site. The site is adjacent to single-family residential uses to the north and east across Pleasant Grove Boulevard, a vacant High Density Residential (HDR) parcel to the south, and single-family residential uses to the west across Upland Drive. Table 1 below identifies the land use designation and uses of the site and surrounding properties.

Fiddyment Rd
Project Site

Page 1039 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 4 of 48 ends

Table 1: Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
Location Zoning General Plan
Land Use Actual Use of Property
Site
Single-Family
Residential/Development
Standards (R1/DS)
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Vacant
North Pleasant Grove Boulevard
with RS/DS beyond LDR-5 Single-Family Residential
South Attached Housing (R3)
High Density
Residential (HDR21.2)
Vacant
East Pleasant Grove Boulevard
with RS/DS beyond LDR-5 Single-Family Residential
West R1/DS LDR-4 Single-Family Residential
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes construction of a 910-square-foot building for a drive-through coffee shop with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The site will consist of a single drive-through lane and a walk-up window for customers. No indoor seating will be provided, however the project does include an outdoor seating area. A total of thirteen (13) parking spaces will be provided on-site. The drive-through lane has a stacking distance of 380 feet, measured from the entrance of the drive-through to the pick-up window, which amounts to a capacity of 19 vehicles. Access to the site will be provided by a new driveway on Pleasant Grove Boulevard that will allow for right-in/right-out turning movements, with two inbound lanes and one outbound lane. A new right-turn deceleration lane will also be provided eastbound on Pleasant Grove Boulevard for vehicles approaching the entrance to the site. Construction of the new driveway will require demolition and construction along the frontage of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.

Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan

Page 1040 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 5 of 48 ends

The site is currently zoned Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) and has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR). Eating and drinking establishments, such as a drive-through coffee shop, is not a permitted use in the R1/DS zone. The project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone to amend the land use and zoning designation to Community Commercial (CC) to allow development of the drive-through coffee shop. The project also includes an Amendment to the Westpark Development Agreement to reflect the change in land use, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use contiguous to a residential zoned parcel, and a Design Review Permit to approve the building architecture and site design.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE MITIGATION ORDINANCES, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS For projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, CEQA Guidelines section 15183(f)allows a lead agency to rely on previously adopted development policies or standards as mitigation for the environmental effects, when the standards have been adopted by the City, with findings based on substantial evidence, that the policies or standards will substantially mitigate environmental effects, unless substantial new information shows otherwise (CEQA Guidelines §15183(f)). The City of Roseville adopted CEQA Implementing Procedures (Implementing Procedures) which are consistent with this CEQA Guidelines section. The current version of the Implementing Procedures were adopted in April 2008, along with Findings of Fact, as Resolution 08-172. The below regulations and ordinances were found to provide uniform mitigating policies and standards, and are applicable to development projects. The City’s Mitigating Policies and Standards are referenced, where applicable, in the Initial Study Checklist.
• City of Roseville 2035 General Plan
• City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance (RMC Title 19)
• City of Roseville Improvement Standards (Resolution 02-37) • City of Roseville Construction Standards (Resolution 01-208) • Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Title 18)
• Noise Regulation (RMC Ch.9.24)
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80)
• Drainage Fees (Dry Creek [RMC Ch.4.49] and Pleasant Grove Creek [RMC Ch.4.48]) • West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 16-152) • Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (RMC Ch. 14.20) • Traffic Mitigation Fee (RMC Ch.4.44)
• Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Improvement Fee (Resolution 2008-02) • South Placer Regional Transportation Authority Transportation and Air Quality Mitigation Fee (Resolution 09-05)
• Tree Preservation Ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66)
• Community Design Guidelines (Resolution 95-347)
• Specific Plan Design Guidelines:
o West Roseville Specific Plan and Design Guidelines (Resolution 04-40)

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
• Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, located online at:
http://roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774579

Page 1041 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 6 of 48 ends

• West Roseville Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002082057), located online at:
http://roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8775152 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, any project which is consistent with the development densities established by zoning, a Community Plan, or a General Plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR updated the City’s General Plan to 2035, and updated Citywide analyses of traffic, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designations examined within the environmental documents listed above. This Initial Study focuses on effects particular to the specific project site, impacts which were not analyzed within the EIR, and impacts which may require revisiting due to substantial new information. When applicable, the topical sections within the Initial Study summarize the findings within the environmental documents listed above. The analysis, supporting technical materials, and findings of the environmental document are incorporated by reference, and are available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.

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

There are four (4) possible answers to the Environmental Impacts Checklist on the following pages. Each possible answer is explained below:
1) A “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from the information that a fair argument based on substantial evidence can be made to support a conclusion that a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change may occur to any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. When one or more “Potentially significant Impact” entries are made, an EIR is required.
2) A “Less Than Significant With Mitigation” answer is appropriate when the lead agency incorporates mitigation measures to reduce an impact from “Potentially Significant” to “Less than Significant.” For example, floodwater impacts could be reduced from a potentially-significant level to a less-thansignificant level by relocating a building to an area outside of the floodway. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures are identified as MM followed by a number. 3) A “Less Than significant Impact” answer is appropriate if there is evidence that one or more environmental impacts may occur, but the impacts are determined to be less than significant, or the application of development policies and standards to the project will reduce the impact(s) to a less-than-significant level. For instance, the application of the City’s Improvement Standards reduces potential erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level.
4) A “No Impact” answer is appropriate where it can be demonstrated that the impact does not have the potential to adversely affect the environment. For instance, a project in the center of an urbanized area with no agricultural lands on or adjacent to the project area clearly would not have an adverse effect on

Page 1042 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 7 of 48 ends

agricultural resources or operations. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study. Where a “No Impact” answer is adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study, further narrative explanation is not required. A “No Impact” answer is explained when it is based on projectspecific factors as well as generous standards.

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

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
The project site is a triangular-shaped parcel located in a typical urbanized setting within a residential zoned area of the City’s West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area. Public views of the site are from Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north (a four-lane arterial roadway) and Upland Drive (a collector roadway) to the west, and their adjacent sidewalks. The foreground of the view includes completed landscaping, which includes street trees, groundcover, and shrubs. The site itself contains no distinct topography or other visual elements.

Surrounding uses include a single-family subdivision to the north, east, and west, and an undeveloped High Density Residential parcel to the south.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
X
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized 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 a
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized
area, would the project
conflict with applicable
zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
X

Page 1043 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 8 of 48 ends

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

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

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) There are no designated or eligible scenic vistas or scenic highways within or adjacent to the City of Roseville.
c) The project site is in an urban setting and has street frontage along the northern and western property lines, with low density residential uses to the north, east, and west, and a future high density residential parcel to the south. The City of Roseville has adopted Community Design Guidelines (CDG) to establish common design elements and expectations for development within the City. The CDG includes provisions related to architectural design, site design and landscape design, to enhance the visual character of the urban environment. The project has been reviewed by City staff and was found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the CDG, the WRSP, and applicable zoning regulations. As such, impacts of the project related to this criterion are less than significant.
d) The project involves nighttime lighting to provide for the security and safety of project users. However, the project is already located within an urbanized setting with many existing lighting sources. Lighting for the project is conditioned to comply with City standards (i.e., Community Design Guidelines) to limit the height of light standards and to require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. The project will not create a new source of substantial light. None of the project elements are highly reflective, and therefore the project will not contribute to an increased source of glare. Impacts of the project are less than significant.

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

Page 1044 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 9 of 48 ends

as Farmland of Local Importance and two small areas designated as Unique Farmland located on the western side of the City along Baseline Road. The current Williamson Act Contract map (2013/2014) produced by the Department of Conservation shows that there are no Williamson Act contracts within the City, and only one (on PFE Road) that is adjacent to the City. None of the land within the City is considered forest land by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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?
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

Page 1045 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 10 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Prime Farmland are called out as protected farmland categories within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Neither the City nor the State has adopted quantified significance thresholds related to impacts to protected farmland categories or to agricultural and forestry resources. For the purpose of this study, the significance thresholds are as stated in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as shown in a–e of the checklist above.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–e) The project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. Given the foregoing, the proposed project will have no impact on agricultural resources.

III. Air Quality
The City of Roseville, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is within the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non-Attainment Area. Under the Clean Air Act, Placer County has been designated a "serious non-attainment" area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, “nonattainment” for the state ozone standard, and a "non-attainment" area for the federal and state PM10 standard (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). Within Placer County, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the
project region is nonattainment 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

Page 1046 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 11 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

In responding to checklist items a, b, and d, project-related air emissions would have a significant effect if they would result in concentrations that either violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation. To assist in making this determination, the PCAPCD adopted thresholds of significance, which were developed by considering both the health-based ambient air quality standards and the attainment strategies outlined in the State Implementation Plan. The PCAPCD-recommended significance threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) is 82 pounds daily during construction and 55 pounds daily during operation, and for particulate matter (PM) is 82 pounds per day during both construction and operation.

For all other constituents, significance is determined based on the concentration-based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are also of public health concern, but no thresholds or standards are provided because they are considered to have no safe level of exposure. Analysis of TAC is based on the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective (April 2005, California Air Resources Board), which lists TAC sources and recommended buffer distances from sensitive uses. For checklist item c, the PCAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) recommends that the same thresholds used for the project analysis be used for the cumulative impact analysis.

With regard to checklist item d, there are no quantified significance thresholds for exposure to objectionable odors. Significance is determined after taking into account multiple factors, including screening distances from odor sources (as found in the PCAPCD CEQA Handbook), the direction and frequency of prevailing winds, the time of day when odors are present, and the nature and intensity of the odor source.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a-c) Analyses are not included for sulfur dioxide, lead, and other constituents because there are no mass emission thresholds; these are concentration-based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards which require substantial, point-source emissions (e.g. refineries, concrete plants, etc) before exceedance will occur, and the SVAB is in attainment for these constituents. Likewise, carbon monoxide is not analyzed because the SVAB is in attainment for this constituent, and it requires high localized concentrations (called carbon monoxide “hot spots”) before the ambient air quality standard would be exceeded. “Hot spots” are typically associated with heavy traffic congestion occurring at high-volume roadway intersections. The Amoruso Ranch EIR analysis of Citywide traffic indicated that 198 out of 226 signalized intersections would operate at level of service C or better—that is, they will not experience heavy traffic congestion. It further indicated that analyses of existing CO concentrations at the most congested intersections in Roseville show that CO levels are well below federal and state ambient air quality standards. The discussions below focus on emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM. A project-level analysis has been prepared to determine whether the project will, on a singular level, exceed the established thresholds.

The PCAPCD recommends that lead agencies use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to quantify a project’s construction and operational emissions for criterial air pollutants (NOX, ROG, and PM). The results are then compared to the significance thresholds established by the district, as detailed above. According to PCAPCD’s published screening table, general commercial projects smaller than 249,099 square feet will not result in NOX emissions that exceed 55 lbs/day. Typically, NOX emissions are substantially higher than ROG and PM10; therefore, it can be assumed that projects that do not exceed the NOX threshold will not exceed the ROG and PM10 thresholds, and will not result in a significant impact related to operational emissions.

The project proposes the construction of a 910-square-foot building, which is well below PCAPCD’s modeled example. Given its small size, the project is not expected to result in construction or operational emissions that would exceed the district’s thresholds for significance. To substantiate this assumption, the proposed project’s emissions were modeled using CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2). The CalEEMod was run using the model defaults as well as project specific information such as land use and building square footage. The results are included as Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table 2 below. The modeled emissions for the project do not exceed

Page 1047 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 12 of 48 ends

the construction and operational thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact related to construction or operational emissions. Impacts are less than significant.

Table 2: CalEEMod Results
Pollutant Project Emissions
(lbs/day)
Significance Threshold
(lbs/day) Exceeds Threshold?
Construction Emissions
ROG 1.9 82 No
NOx 7.9 82 No
PM10 1.24 82 No
Operational Emissions
ROG 1.03 55 No
NOx 5.29 55 No
PM10 1.33 82 No
The project must also comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules and regulations. The project would not substantially contribute to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone or particulate matter, and implementation of the project will not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

In addition, because the proposed project would not produce substantial emissions of criteria air pollutants, adjacent residents or businesses would not be exposed to significant levels of pollutant concentrations during construction or operation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts.

With regard to TAC, there are hundreds of constituents which are considered toxic, but they are typically generated by stationary sources like gas stations, facilities using solvents, and heavy industrial operations. The proposed project is not a TAC-generating use, nor is it within the specified buffer area of a TAC-generating use, as established in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective. Impacts are less than significant.
d) Diesel fumes from construction equipment and delivery trucks are often found to be objectionable; however, construction is temporary and diesel emissions are minimal and regulated. Typical urban projects such as residences and retail businesses generally do not result in substantial objectionable odors when operated in compliance with City Ordinances (e.g. proper trash disposal and storage). The Project is a typical urban development that lacks any characteristics that would cause the generation of substantial unpleasant odors.

Thus, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. A review of the project surroundings indicates that there are no substantial odor-generating uses near the project site; the project location meets the recommended screening distances from odor-generators provided by the PCAPCD. Impacts related to odors are less than significant.

Page 1048 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 13 of 48 ends

IV. Biological Resources
The project site is undeveloped with the exception of frontage and landscape improvements along Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north and Upland Drive to the west. Frontage improvements consist of sidewalks, curb, and gutter. The landscape along the frontage consists of street trees, accent trees, shrubs and groundcover.

Vegetation on the site consists of native and non-native grasses. Excluding the landscaped area, there are no trees on the site. There are no existing wetland features or designated open space areas on the site. The site is adjacent to single-family residential uses to the north and east across Pleasant Grove Boulevard, a vacant High Density Residential (HDR) parcel to the south, and single-family residential uses to the west across Upland Drive.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, 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
Game 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 or 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

Page 1049 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 14 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

There is no ironclad definition of significance as it relates to biological resources. Thus, the significance of impacts to biological resources is defined by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, and relies on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies which relate to biological resources (as cited and described in the Discussion of Checklist Answers section). Thresholds for assessing the significance of environmental impacts are based on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–f, above.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if:

The project has 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; [or] substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species . . .

Various agencies regulate impacts to the habitats and animals addressed by the CEQA Guidelines checklist.

These include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration– Fisheries, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The primary regulations affecting biological resources are described in the sections below.

Checklist item a addresses impacts to special status species. A “special status” species is one which has been identified as having relative scarcity and/or declining populations. Special status species include those formally listed as threatened or endangered, those proposed for formal listing, candidates for federal listing, and those classified as species of special concern. Also included are those species considered to be “fully protected” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (California Fish and Wildlife), those granted “special animal” status for tracking and monitoring purposes, and those plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered

Page 1050 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 15 of 48 ends

in California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The primary regulatory protections for special status species are within the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

Checklist item b addresses all “sensitive natural communities” that may be affected by local, state, or federal regulations/policies while checklist item c focuses specifically on one type of such a community: federallyprotected wetlands. Focusing first on wetlands, there are two questions to be posed in examining wet habitats:
the first is whether the wetted area meets the technical definition of a wetland, making it subject to checklist item b, and the second is whether the wetland is subject to federal jurisdiction, making it subject to checklist item c.

The 1987 Army Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual is used to determine whether an area meets the technical criteria for a wetland. A delineation verification by the Army Corps verifies the size and condition of the wetlands and other waters in question, and determines the extent of government jurisdiction as it relates to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 401 of the State Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act protects all “navigable waters”, which are defined as traditional navigable waters that are or were used for commerce, or may be used for interstate commerce; tributaries of covered waters; and wetlands adjacent to covered waters, including tributaries. Non-navigable waters are called isolated wetlands, and are not subject to either the Federal or State Clean Water Act. Thus, isolated wetlands are not subject to federal wetland protection regulations. However, in addition to the Clean Water Act, the State also has jurisdiction over impacts to surface waters through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), which does not require that waters be “navigable”. For this reason, isolated wetlands are regulated by the State of California pursuant to Porter-Cologne. The City of Roseville General Plan also provides protection for wetlands, including isolated wetlands, pursuant to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Federal, State and City regulations/policies all seek to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage, values, or function.

Aside from wetlands, checklist item b also addresses other “sensitive natural communities,” which includes any habitats protected by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The City of Roseville General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes policies for the protection of riparian areas (streamside habitat) and floodplain areas; these are Vegetation and Wildlife section Policies 2 and 3. Policy 4 also directs preservation of additional area around stream corridors and floodplain if there is sensitive woodland, grassland, or other habitat which could be made part of a contiguous open space area. Other than wetlands, which were already discussed, US Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat protections generally result from species protections, and are thus addressed via checklist item a.

For checklist item d, there are no regulations specific to the protection of migratory corridors. This item is addressed by an analysis of the habitats present in the vicinity and analyzing the probable effects on access to those habitats which will result from a project.

The City of Roseville Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) requires protection of native oak trees, and compensation for oak tree removal. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City of Roseville Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) will prevent significant impacts related to loss of native oak trees, referenced by item e, above.

Regarding checklist item f, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans within the City of Roseville.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a-b) A Biological Resource Assessment was prepared as part of the WRSP. The assessment included a list of species with the potential to occur within the WRSP plan area based on surveys conducted by the project biologists. A review of this list determined that the project site contains potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. Strategies for preserving on-site grasslands as raptor and migratory bird foraging habitat were addressed

Page 1051 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 16 of 48 ends

in the Operations & Maintenance Plan prepared pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit obtained for the WRSP. Mitigation for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would concurrently mitigate for loss of habitat for a number of other wildlife species in the region such as burrowing owl, red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike among many others. The WRSP EIR included a Swainson’s hawk Grassland Habitat Mitigation Plan that was developed based upon consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), to mitigate for the loss of grassland foraging habitat. Pursuant to the WRSP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-8, the Swainson’s hawk Grassland Habitat Mitigation Program shall be implemented by the project applicants prior to approval of grading permits. As this is a requirement of the specific plan, no mitigation is required. This measure will ensure that no special status species are impacted during grading and ground disturbing activities. Although the site lacks habitat, construction activities have potential to disrupt offsite nesting species. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required to ensure that special status migratory birds and raptors are not harmed. Ground disturbing activities shall not occur during the active nesting season. However, if it is necessary to conduct such activities during the nesting season, preconstruction surveys and mitigation as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required to ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat. With implementation of this measure, impacts are less than significant.
c) No wetland features are present on the subject property; thus, the project will have no impact with regard to this criterion.

d) The City includes an interconnected network of open space corridors and preserves located throughout the City, to ensure that the movement of wildlife is not substantially impeded as the City develops. The development of the project site will not negatively impact these existing and planned open space corridors, nor is the project site located in an area that has been designated by the City, United States Fish and Wildlife, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife as vital or important for the movement of wildlife or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) There are no biological resources on the project site which are protected by City policies or ordinances. f) There are no Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site.

V. Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). Two large permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. The gold rush which began in 1848 marked another settlement period, and evidence of Roseville’s ranching and mining past are still found today. Historic features include rock walls, ditches, low terraces, and other remnants of settlement and activity. A majority of documented sites within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an historic
resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
X

Page 1052 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 17 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts to cultural resources is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. The Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources section of the City of Roseville General Plan also directs the proper evaluation of and, when feasible, protection of significant resources (Policies 1 and 2).

There are also various federal and State regulations regarding the treatment and protection of cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act and the Antiquities Act (which regulate items of significance in history), Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.9 of the California Public Resources Code (which regulates the treatment of human remains) and Section 21073 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (regarding Tribal Cultural Resources). The CEQA Guidelines also contains specific sections, other than the checklist items, related to the treatment of effects on historic resources.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2 (a), (b), and (c)). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5(a)(2)); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) No cultural resources are known to exist on the project site per the WRSP EIR; however, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to cultural resources, should any be found onsite (WRSP MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-10, listed below). The measures requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. This mitigation need not be applied herein, as it is already applicable and required of the project pursuant to the WRSP. The project will not result in any new impacts beyond those already discussed and disclosed in the WRSP EIR.

Compliance with policies intended to protect cultural resources will ensure that project-specific impacts are less than significant.
2004 WRSP EIR MM 4.8-1: Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist: Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed to assess the resource and provide

Page 1053 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 18 of 48 ends

proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary for the protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.
2004 WRSP EIR MM 4.8-10: Cease Work Until Review Conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented: Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations.

Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.

VI. Energy
Roseville Electric provides electrical power in the City and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas.

The City purchases wholesale electrical power from both the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which is generated by the federal government’s Central Valley Project, which produces 100 percent hydroelectric energy sources from a system of dams, reservoirs, and power plants within central and northern California. In addition, up to 50 percent of the City’s power is generated at the City-owned Roseville Energy Park (REP). The REP is a 160 megawatt natural-gas-fired power plant that uses a combined cycle gas turbine technology. The City also owns the 48 megawatt combustion-turbine Roseville Power Plant 2 (REP 2), which is used for peaking energy. The City’s electric power mix varies from year-to-year, but according to the most recent Citywide energy analysis (the Amoruso Ranch Environmental Impact Report), the mix in 2013/2014 was 25% eligible renewable (geothermal, small hydroelectric, and wind), 14% hydroelectric, 48% natural gas, and 13% from other sources (power purchased by contract).

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Established in 2002, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) currently requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales by served by renewable energy resources by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. The City published a Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan in June 2018, and continues to comply with the

Page 1054 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 19 of 48 ends

RPS reporting and requirements and standards. There are no numeric significance thresholds to define “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary” energy consumption, and therefore significance is based on CEQA Guidelines checklist items a and b, above, and by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, relying on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies which relate to energy. The analysis considers compliance with regulations and standards, project design as it relates to energy use (including transportation energy), whether the project will result in a substantial unplanned demand on the City’s energy resources, and whether the project will impede the ability of the City to meet the RPS standards.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a-b) The project would consume energy both during project construction and during project operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.

However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or which would be wasteful.

The completed project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This includes standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances, to name a few. The project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the project. The project was distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; energy supplies are available to serve the project.

VII. Geology and Soils
As described in the Safety Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, there are three inactive faults (Volcano Hill, Linda Creek, and an unnamed fault) in the vicinity, but there are no known active seismic faults within Placer County. The last seismic event recorded in the South Placer area occurred in 1908, and is estimated to have been at least a 4.0 on the Richter Scale. Due to the geographic location and soil characteristics within the City, the General Plan indicates that soil liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence are not a significant risk in the area.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

Page 1055 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 20 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
i) Ruptures 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
• Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
• Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
X
• Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
c) Be located in a geological
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

Page 1056 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 21 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to geology and soils is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. Regulations applicable to this topic include the Alquist-Priolo Act, which addresses earthquake safety in building permits, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which requires the state to gather and publish data on the location and risk of seismic faults.

The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80) and Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist item b. The Ordinance and standards include permit requirements for construction and development in erosion-prone areas and ensure that grading activities will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The use of septic tanks or alternative waste systems is not permitted in the City of Roseville, and therefore no analysis of criterion e is necessary.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides.
i–iii) According to United States Geological Service mapping and literature, active faults are largely considered to be those which have had movement within the last 10,000 years (within the Holocene or Historic time periods)1 and there are no major active faults in Placer County. The California Geological Survey has prepared a map of the state which shows the earthquake shaking potential of areas throughout California based primarily on an area’s distance from known active faults. The map shows that the City lies in a relatively lowintensity ground-shaking zone. Commercial, institutional, and residential buildings as well as all related infrastructure are required, in conformance with Chapter 16, Structural Design Requirements, Division IV, Earthquake Design of the California Building Code, to lessen the exposure to potentially damaging vibrations through seismic-resistant design. In compliance with the Code, all structures in the Project area would be wellbuilt to withstand ground shaking from possible earthquakes in the region; impacts are less than significant. iv) Landslides typically occur where soils on steep slopes become saturated or where natural or manmade conditions have taken away supporting structures and vegetation. The existing and proposed slopes of the project site are not steep enough to present a hazard during development or upon completion of the project. In addition, measures would be incorporated during construction to shore minor slopes and prevent potential earth movement. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides are less than significant. b) Grading activities will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction and over-covering of soils associated with site preparation (grading and trenching for utilities). Grading activities for the project will be limited to the project site. Grading activities require a grading permit from the Engineering Division. The grading permit is reviewed for compliance with the City’s Improvement Standards, including the provision of proper drainage, appropriate dust control, and erosion control measures. Grading and erosion control measures will be incorporated into the required grading plans and improvement plans. Therefore, the impacts associated with disruption, displacement, and compaction of soils associated with the project are less than significant. c, d) A review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey for Placer County, accessed via the Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/), indicates that the soils on the site are CometaFiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes, and San Joaquin-Cometa sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes which are not listed as geologically unstable or sensitive. Therefore, the project has no impacts related to this criteria. 1 United States Geological Survey, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=active%20fault, Accessed January 2016

Page 1057 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 22 of 48 ends

f) No paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site per the WRSP EIR; however, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to such resources, should any be found onsite. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. With these measures in place, project-specific impacts are less than significant.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. As explained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency2 , global average
temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s, and most of the warming of the past half century has been caused by human emissions. The City has taken proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which include the introduction of General Plan policies to reduce emissions, changes to City operations, and climate action initiatives.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

In Assembly Bill 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act), signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of California in September 2006, the legislature found that climate change resulting from global warming was a threat to California, and directed that “the State Air Resources Board design emissions reduction measures to meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases . . .”. The target established in AB 32 was to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. CARB subsequently prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) for California, which was approved in 2008. The Scoping Plan provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB’s updated August 2011 Scoping Plan calculated a reduction needed of 21.7% from future “Business As Usual” (BAU) conditions in the year 2020. The current Scoping Plan (adopted May 2014) indicates that statewide emissions of GHG in 1990 amounted to 431 million metric tons, and that the 2020 “Business As Usual” (BAU) scenario is estimated as 5093 million metric tons, which would require a reduction of 15.3% from 2020 BAU. In addition to this, Senate Bill 32 was signed by the Governor on September 8, 2016, to establish a reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Air Resources Board is currently updating the Scoping Plan to reflect this target. 2 http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html, Accessed January 2016 3 Includes Pavely and Renewables Portfolio Standard reduction

Page 1058 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 23 of 48 ends

The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) recommends that thresholds of significance for GHG be related to AB 32 reduction goals, and has adopted thresholds of significance which take into account the 2030 reduction target. The thresholds include a de minimis and a bright-line maximum threshold. Any project emitting less than 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e/yr) during construction or operation results in less than significant impacts. The PCAPCD considers any project with emissions greater than the bright-line cap of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr to have significant impacts. For projects exceeding the de minimum threshold but below the bright-line threshold, comparison to the appropriate efficiency threshold is recommended. The significance thresholds are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: GHG Significance Thresholds
Bright-line Threshold 10,000 MT CO2e/yr
Residential Efficiency (MT CO2e/capita1) Non-Residential Efficiency (MT CO2e/ksf2) Urban Rural Urban Rural

4.5 5.5 26.5 27.3
De Minimis Threshold 1,100 MT CO2e/yr

1. Per Capita = per person

2. Per ksf = per 1,000 square feet of building
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) Greenhouse gases are primarily emitted as a result of vehicle operation associated with trips to and from a project, and energy consumption from operation of the buildings. Greenhouse gases from vehicles is assessed based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from a project, on a Citywide basis. Residential projects, destination centers (such as a regional mall), and major employers tend to increase VMT in a study area, either by adding new residents traveling in an area, or by encouraging longer trip lengths and drawing in trips from a broader regional area. However, non-residential projects and neighborhood-serving uses (e.g. neighborhood parks) tend to lower VMT in a study area because they do not generate new trips within the study area, they divert existing trips. These trips are diverted because the new use location is closer to home, on their way to another destination (e.g. work), or is otherwise more convenient.

The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee shop. As further discussed and evaluated in Section XVII (Transportation) of this Initial Study, the project is considered a locally-serving use that does not include any unique characteristics which would draw in regional traffic, or which would prompt longer trips. The project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of projectgenerated VMT. Therefore, the focus of this analysis is on the emissions which would result from the construction and operation of the project.

As detailed in Attachment 2, CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) was used to model the project’s construction related and operational related GHG emissions (CO2e). Construction-related GHG emissions occur at one point in time and are therefore not typically expected to significantly contribute to climate change. Climate change is a cumulative effect that occurs over time, as emissions increase on a year-to-year basis due to increases in developed area and other factors; construction emissions are a one-time emission source, which end once the project is built. The CalEEMod results indicate the project would result in annual construction emissions of 60.87 CO2e in the most active construction year, which is below the PCAPCD de minimis threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/yr. Thus, the project-generated GHG emissions would not result in significant construction emissions of GHG.

The operational emissions of the project include energy to run the building, area emissions such as landscape equipment to maintain the site, and water and wastewater energy demands. According to the CalEEMod results,

Page 1059 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 24 of 48 ends

the project would result in annual operational emissions of 272.42 MT CO2e, which is below the de minimis threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant operational emissions of GHG.

Based on the evaluation above, project-generated GHG emissions would not conflict with, and are consistent with, the State goals listed in AB32 and policies and regulation adopted by the California Air Resources Board pursuant to AB32. This impact is considered less than significant.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There are no hazardous cleanup sites of record within 1,000 feet of the site according to both the State Water Resources Control Envirostor database (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/). The project is not located on a site where existing hazardous materials have been identified, and the project does not have the potential to expose individuals to hazardous materials.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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 though
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
X
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

Page 1060 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 25 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to hazardous materials is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–h listed above. A material is defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency.

The determination of significance based on the above criteria depends on the probable frequency and severity of consequences to people who might be exposed to the health hazard, and the degree to which Project design or existing regulations would reduce the frequency of or severity of exposure. As an example, products commonly used for household cleaning are classified as hazardous when transported in large quantities, but one would not conclude that the presence of small quantities of household cleaners at a home would pose a risk to a school located within ¼-mile.

Many federal and State agencies regulate hazards and hazardous substances, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA). The state has been granted primacy (primary responsibility for oversight) by the US EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations also have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce human health risks. California regulations pertaining to hazardous waste management are published in the California Code of Regulations (see 8 CCR, 22 CCR, and 23 CCR).

The project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, no further discussion is provided for items e.

Page 1061 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 26 of 48 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a-b) Standard construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents. These are common household and commercial materials routinely used by both businesses and average members of the public. The materials only pose a hazard if they are improperly used, stored, or transported either through upset conditions (e.g. a vehicle accident) or mishandling. In addition to construction use, the operational project would result in the use of common hazardous materials as well, including bleach, solvents, and herbicides. Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol.

Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging.

Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels. c) The project is not located within a ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school, and thus there is no impact with respect to this criterion.
d) The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.54
; therefore, no impact will occur.
f) This project is located within an area currently receiving City emergency services and development of the site has been anticipated and incorporated into emergency response plans. As such, the project will cause a less than significant impact to the City's Emergency Response or Management Plans. Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with all local, State and federal requirements for the handling of hazardous materials, which will ensure less-than-significant impacts. These will require the following programs:
• A Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) is required of uses that handle toxic and/or hazardous materials in quantities regulated by the California Health and Safety Code and/or the City. • Businesses that handle toxic or hazardous materials are required to complete a Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) pursuant to local, State, or federal requirements. g) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. The project site is in an urban area, and therefore would not expose people to any risk from wildland fire. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the City is located within the Pleasant Grove Creek Basin and the Dry Creek Basin. Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries drain most of the western and central areas of the City and Dry Creek and its tributaries drain the remainder of the City. Most major stream areas in the City are located within designated open space. 4 http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm

Page 1062 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 27 of 48 ends

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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:

X
i. result in 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 onor off-site;
X
iii. create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff; or
X
iv. impede or redirect
flood flows? X
d) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X

Page 1063 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 28 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
e) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiches zones, risk
release of pollutants due to
project innundation?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to hydrology and water quality is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. For checklist item a, c (i), d, and e, the Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City of Roseville Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107), Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (RMC Ch. 14.20), and Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 16-152) will prevent significant impacts related to water quality or erosion. The standards require preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for construction activities and includes designs to control pollutants within post-construction urban water runoff. Likewise, it is indicated that the Drainage Fees for the Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove Watersheds (RMC Ch.4.48) and City of Roseville Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist items c (ii) and c (iii). The ordinance and standards require the collection of drainage fees to fund improvements that mitigate potential flooding impacts, and require the design of a water drainage system that will adequately convey anticipated stormwater flows without increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff. These same ordinances and standards prevent impacts related to groundwater (items a and d), because developers are required to treat and detain all stormwater onsite using stormwater swales and other methods which slow flows and preserve infiltration. Finally, it is indicated that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch. 9.80) will prevent significant impacts related to items c (iv) and e. The Ordinance includes standard requirements for all new construction, including regulation of development with the potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and prohibits development within flood hazard areas. Impacts from tsunamis and seiches were screened out of the analysis (item e) because the project is not located near a water body or other feature that would pose a risk of such an event.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a,c (i),d, e) The project will involve the disturbance of on-site soils and the construction of impervious surfaces, such as asphalt paving. Disturbing the soil can allow sediment to be mobilized by rain or wind, and cause displacement into waterways. To address this and other issues, the developer is required to receive approval of a grading permit and/or improvement plants prior to the start of construction. The permit or plans are required to incorporate mitigation measures for dust and erosion control. In addition, the City has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board which requires the City to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The City does this, in part, by means of the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, which require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the City’s Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Standards for New Development, the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, and Stormwater Quality Design Manual. For these reasons, impacts related to water quality are less than significant. b, d) The project does not involve the installation of groundwater wells. The City maintains wells to supplement surface water supplies during multiple dry years, but the effect of groundwater extraction on the aquifer was addressed in the Water Supply Assessment of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR, which included a Citywide water analysis. Although the project site has an existing land use designation of Low Density Residential, it does not have any residential units allocated to the site. Therefore, the City-defined baseline water usage for the site

Page 1064 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 29 of 48 ends

is 0 acre-feet per year (AFY). The project involves a change in land use to Community Commercial, which would increase water demand for the site by 1.1 AFY. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department determined this increase is not significant and there are sufficient water supplies available to allocate the additional water demand. Project impacts related to groundwater extraction are less than significant. Furthermore, all permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which requires the use of bioswales and other onsite detention and infiltration methods. These standards ensure that stormwater will continue to infiltrate into the groundwater aquifer. c (ii and iii)) The project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. The project includes adequate and appropriate facilities to ensure no net increase in the amount or rate of stormwater runoff from the site, and which will adequately convey stormwater flows. c (iv) and e) The project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. The project is not located within either the Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain or the City’s Regulatory Floodplain (defined as the floodplain which will result from full buildout of the City).

Therefore, the project will not impede or redirect flood flows, nor will it be inundated. The proposed project is located within an area of flat topography and is not near a waterbody or other feature which could cause a seiche or tsunami. There would be no impact with regard to these criterion.

XI. Land Use and Planning
The project site has a General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).

The zoning designation is Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS). As mentioned, the WRSP does not have any residential units allocated to Parcel W-20. The site is intended to consist of a landscape gateway feature for the Plan area. Surrounding properties have residential land use and zoning designations, as described in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to land use is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–c listed above. Consistency with applicable City General Plan policies, Improvement Standards, and design standards is already required and part of the City’s processing of permits and plans, so these requirements do not appear as mitigation measures. Land use regulations applicable to the site include the City’s General Plan 2035, the Zoning Ordinance, and the WRSP. The WRSP contains general design guidelines and policies for development within the WRSP as a whole.

Page 1065 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 30 of 48 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project area has been planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community. The project involves frontage improvements including a new driveway and a pedestrian path. As such, the project will not physically divide an established community.
b) The project includes an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC), and a Rezone to change the zoning designation from SingleFamily Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC), in order to facilitate construction of the proposed drive-through coffee shop. The City’s Design Review standards, as well as Cityrequired Conditions of Approval would ensure that the proposed project would be developed in conformance with all applicable land use plans and ordinances, and would not conflict with any agency’s plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts are less than significant.

XII. Mineral Resources
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ’s) based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) was historically responsible for the classification and designation of areas containing—or potentially containing—significant mineral resources, though that responsibility now lies with the California Geological Survey (CGS). CDMG published Open File Report 95-10, which provides the mineral classification map for Placer County. A detailed evaluation of mineral resources has not been conducted within the City limits, but MRZ’s have been identified. There are four broad MRZ categories (MRZ-1 through MRZ-4), and only MRZ-2 represents an area of known significant mineral resources. The City of Roseville General Plan EIR included Exhibit 4.1-3, depicting the location of MRZ’s in the City limits. There is only one small MRZ-2 designation area, located at the far eastern edge of the City.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan,
specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to mineral resources is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a and b listed above.

Page 1066 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 31 of 48 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) The project site is not in the area of the City known to include any mineral resources that would be of local, regional, or statewide importance; therefore, the project has no impacts on mineral resources.

XIII. Noise
The project site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by existing and future residential uses, which typically do not generate substantial noise volumes. The site is located adjacent to Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Upland Drive. According to the City’s General Plan Noise Element, Pleasant Grove Boulevard is identified as a transportation noise source while Upland Drive is not. The project site is within the existing 65 dB Ldn noise contour line and the future 2035 70 dB Ldn noise contour line of Pleasant Grove Boulevard (City of Roseville General Plan 2035 Noise Element, Figure IX-1 and Figure IX-2). The nearest sensitive receptors are the future residents of the undeveloped High Density Residential parcel located immediately south of the site. The nearest existing residents are located within the residential area to the west of this site, across Upland Drive. These residential uses are also located within the same roadway noise contour lines as the project site. The nearest home is approximately 100 feet west of the site. A six-foot tall masonry sound wall is located along the western side of Upland Drive, behind the landscaping area and sidewalk, for the protection of the residential neighborhood from roadway and other noise.

Would the project result in:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
ground borne vibration of
ground borne 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

Page 1067 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 32 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Standards for transportation noise and non-transportation noise affecting existing or proposed land uses are established within the City of Roseville General Plan Noise Element Table IX-1, and these standards are used as the thresholds to determine the significance of impacts related to items a and c. The significance of other noise impacts is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items b and c listed above. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City Noise Regulation (RMC Ch. 9.24) will prevent significant non-transportation noise as it relates to items a and b. The Ordinance establishes noise exposure standards that protect noise-sensitive receptors from a variety of noise sources, including nontransportation/fixed noise, amplified sound, industrial noise, and events on public property. The project is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport and there are also no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, item c has been ruled out from further analysis.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The overall noise goal for the City is to protect the health and welfare of the community by promoting community development that is compatible with noise level criteria. The Noise Element identifies noise level standards for transportation-related noise sources. For most nose-sensitive land uses (such as residential uses), a 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard and 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard is established. The proposed project is a drive-through coffee shop, which is considered a commercial use and not a noise-sensitive land use.

Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors and as mentioned, the project site is immediately adjacent to future residential uses to the south. The site is also adjacent to existing residential uses that are located to the west across Upland Drive and to the north across Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Table 1 of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.24) identifies the sound limits for sensitive receptors for non-transportation and fixed noise sources. The table is included as Figure 3 below. As identified, fixed noise sources are not to exceed 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) as measured at the property line of noise sensitive land uses. These standards apply to permanent increases in noise, not to construction noise, which is instead regulated by the City’s Health and Safety Ordinance and is evaluated within checklist item b.

Figure 3: Noise Ordinance Table 1
An Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) was prepared for the project by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) to evaluate noise levels associated with project operations (see Attachment 3). The assessment identifies the following as the primary noise sources of the project: 1.) drive-through operations (e.g., drive-through menu speaker board, post and vehicle idling, passbys); 2.) delivery truck loading area activities; 3.) delivery truck onsite circulation; and 4.) rooftop mechanical equipment (HVAC). The assessment concluded that noise from drive-through operations could potentially exceed the applicable noise level limits at the nearest residential uses.

Page 1068 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 33 of 48 ends

As such, noise mitigation measures are required in order to comply with the General Plan noise standards, and to ensure impacts are less than significant. Noise from delivery truck loading area activities, delivery truck onsite circulation, and rooftop mechanical equipment is not expected to exceed the noise limits, provided that the requirements identified in WRSP EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5-3 are met. Each of these noise sources and related mitigation measures are addressed separately, below.

Drive-Through Operations
The ENA evaluated expected noise levels from the use of an amplified speaker menu board in the drive-through.

The location of the menu board is shown in Figure 4 below. The assessment concluded that the project drivethrough operations are predicted to satisfy the applicable daytime hourly average and maximum noise level standards at the nearest existing and future residential property lines. However, noise levels from drive-through operations are predicted to exceed the nighttime hourly average noise level standards at the future High Density Residential property line to the south, if the hours of operation extend into nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Therefore, in order to avoid exceeding General Plan noise standards, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is included which requires either the construction of a 10-foot solid noise barrier along the southern project property boundary (as shown in blue on Figure 4), or to limit all drive-through operations to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). With mitigation, impacts related to noise will be less than significant.

Figure 4: Environmental Noise Assessment Figure 2
Truck Delivery Activities
The primary noise sources associated with delivery activities are trucks stopping (air brakes), trucks backing into position (back-up alarms), and pulling away from the loading/unloading area (revving engines). The project site plan does not propose a loading dock. For purposes of the noise analysis, it was assumed that deliveries would

Page 1069 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 34 of 48 ends

occur on the north side of the building, as illustrated in Figure 4 above. Pursuant to WRSP EIR MM 4.5-3(a)(1), commercial truck deliveries shall be limited to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Given this, the ENA compared truck delivery activity noise to daytime noise level standards only. The assessment concluded that project truck delivery activity noise exposure is predicted to satisfy the applicable City of Roseville General Plan daytime hourly average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) noise level standards at the nearest existing and future residential uses. As a result, additional noise mitigation measures are not warranted for this aspect of the project.

On-Site Delivery Truck Circulation
The project on-site delivery truck circulation noise exposure is predicted to satisfy the applicable daytime hourly average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) noise level standards at the nearest existing and future residential uses. In addition, project on-site delivery truck circulation noise levels are also predicted to satisfy the hourly average and maximum noise level standards identified in MM 4.5-3 of the WRSP EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program. As a result, additional noise mitigation measures are not warranted for this aspect of the project.

Mechanical Equipment (HVAC)
Pursuant to WRSP EIR MM 4.5-3(b), roof-top HVAC equipment shall be oriented away from residential areas and systems shall not produce noise levels that exceed 50 dB at a distance of 25 feet. In addition, rooftop parapets shall block line-of-sight of HVAC equipment from noise-sensitive uses. Provided that the project complies with these requirements, the ENA concluded that additional noise mitigation measures are not warranted for this aspect of the project.
b) Surrounding uses may experience short-term increases in groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, and airborne noise levels during construction. However, these increases would only occur for a short period of time. When conducted during daytime hours, construction activities are exempt from Noise Ordinance standards, but the standards do apply to construction occurring during nighttime hours. While the noise generated may be a minor nuisance, the City Noise Regulation standards are designed to ensure that impacts are not unduly intrusive. Based on this, the impact is less than significant.

XIV. Population and Housing
The project site is located within the City’s West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area. The site has a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) and a land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR). The WRSP includes unit allocations and population projections for the Plan Area.

The WRSP does not have any residential units allocated to the project site. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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

Page 1070 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 35 of 48 ends

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to population and housing is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–c listed above.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The CEQA Guidelines identify several ways in which a project could have growth-inducing impacts (Public Resources Code Section 15126.2), either directly or indirectly. Growth-inducement may be the result of fostering economic growth, fostering population growth, providing new housing, or removing barriers to growth.

Growth inducement may be detrimental, beneficial, or of no impact or significance under CEQA. An impact is only deemed to occur when it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be shown that the growth will significantly affect the environment in some other way.

The project will change the zoning on the site and introduce a small, locally-serving retail use. The previous zoning and WRSP anticipated low density residential uses on the site, which would have had some level of growth inducing impacts. Therefore, while the project in question will induce some level of growth, this growth was already identified and its effects disclosed and mitigated within the West Roseville Specific Plan EIR. The project will not result in additional infrastructure that will lead to additional growth nor will the project negatively affect the City’s ability to provide public services. Therefore, the impact of the project is less than significant. b) The project site is currently vacant and no housing exists on the project site. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion.

XV. Public Services
Fire protection, police protection, park services, and library services are provided by the City. The project is located within the Roseville Elementary School District and the Roseville Joint Unified High School District.

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

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X

Page 1071 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 36 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to public services is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. The EIR for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, which updated Citywide analyses, addressed the level of public services which would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community.

Development Agreements and other conditions have been adopted in all proposed growth areas of the City which identify the physical facilities needed to serve growth, and the funding needed to provide for the construction and operation of those facilities and services. Although the project involves a General Plan Amendment, the City’s Fire, Police, Parks, and Utilities Departments have all reviewed the project plans and have not identified any significant impacts to City services. In addition, the project has been routed to the various public service agencies, both internal and external, to ensure that the project meets the agencies’ design standards (where applicable) and to provide an opportunity to recommend appropriate conditions of approval. a) Existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay a fire service construction tax, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the Fire Department. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
b) Sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for police services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
c) Project applicants are required to pay school impact fees at a rate determined by the local school districts. School fees will be collected prior to the issuance of building permits, consistent with City requirements. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
d) Future park and recreation sites and facilities have already been identified as part of the Specific Plan process. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
e) The City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.

XVI. Recreation
There are no parks or recreation facilities immediately adjacent to the project site. The nearest developed recreation areas are Robert P. “Bob” Mahan Park and Nela Luken Park at the Village Center, both located approximately one (1) mile northwest of the site. The project is also located within 0.3-mile of land to the southwest that is designated as Parks and Recreation according to the General Plan and Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

Page 1072 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 37 of 48 ends

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
X
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to recreation services is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–b listed above.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The WRSP EIR addressed the level of park services—including new construction, maintenance, and operations—which would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community. The project has the potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood and recreational facilities, but the increase is not anticipated to be substantial or result in accelerated physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities.

Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
b) Park sites and other recreational facilities were identified within the WRSP, and the plan-level impacts of developing those facilities were addressed within the Final EIR for the Specific Plan. The project does not include recreational facilities nor will it require additional recreational facilities. Thus, the project will not cause any unforeseen or new impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

XVII. Transportation
The project site is located at the southeast corner of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Upland Drive intersection, approximately 750 feet west of Fiddyment Road. Pleasant Grove Boulevard, along the north of the site, is a four-lane roadway that is considered a minor arterial within the vicinity of the project site. Upland Drive is a twolane collector roadway located to the west. Upland Drive will eventually extend south into the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area, but is currently a stub street ending approximately 180 feet south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Upland Drive intersection is side-street stop controlled and includes left-turn lanes in the northbound and westbound directions. The intersection is planned for signalization in the future. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadways within the project site vicinity.

Page 1073 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 38 of 48 ends

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 indicates that a project’s effect on automobile delay cannot be considered a significant impact, and directs transportation system analysis to focus on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), per checklist item b. However, the CEQA Guidelines also include consistency with a program, plan, or policy addressing transportation systems as an area of potential environmental effects (checklist item a). The City has adopted the following plans, ordinances, or policies applicable to this checklist item: Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Short-Range Transit Plan, and General Plan Circulation Element. The project is evaluated for consistency with these plans and the policies contained within them, which includes an analysis of delay as a potential policy impact. The Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes Level of Service C or better as an acceptable operating condition at all signalized intersections during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Exceptions to this policy may be made by the City Council, but a minimum of 70% of all signalized intersections must maintain LOS C. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Traffic Mitigation Fee (RMC Ch. 4.44) will fund roadway projects and improvements necessary to maintain the City’s Level of Service standards for projects consistent with the General Plan and related Specific Plan. An existing plus project conditions (short-term) traffic impact study may be required for projects with unique trip generation or distribution characteristics, in areas of local traffic constraints, or to study the proposed project access. A cumulative plus project conditions (long-term) study is required if a project is inconsistent with the General Plan or Specific Plan and would generate more than 50 p.m. peak-hour trips. The guidelines for traffic study preparation are found in the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards–Section 4.

For checklist item b, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes a detailed process for evaluating the significance of transportation impacts. In accordance with this section, the analysis must focus on the generation

Page 1074 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 39 of 48 ends

of VMT. Projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop5 or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor6 should be presumed to have less than significant impacts, as should any project which will decrease VMT when compared with the existing conditions. VMT may be analyzed qualitatively if existing models or methods are not available to estimate VMT for a particular project; this will generally be appropriate for discussions of construction traffic VMT.

Impacts with regard to items c and d are assessed based on the expert judgment of the City Engineer and City Fire Department, as based upon facts and consistency with the City’s Design and Construction Standards.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The City of Roseville has adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Short-Range Transit Plan. The project was reviewed for consistency with these documents. All facilities identified in these plans for this area are already installed, and the project does not impact or conflict with these planning documents.

Fehr & Peers, a transportation engineering consultant, prepared a traffic study for the proposed project (Attachment 4), which included a trip generation estimate. Pass-by trips are trips already on the network that are diverted to and from a commercial or retail land use, and therefore would not be considered as new trips generated by the project. Pass-by trips were estimated from data presented in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017). After accounting for pass-by trip reductions, the traffic study estimated the project would generate an estimated 54 net new external vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 48 net new vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour.

The traffic study evaluated the effects of the project on LOS under both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The Existing Plus Project scenario considers the development of the project without any additional changes to the surrounding land use and transportation characteristics. The Cumulative Plus Project scenarios considers the development of the project alongside land use and transportation system changes through 2035 as identified in the City of Roseville General Plan. This scenario includes the extension of Upland Drive south into the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area as well as the signalization of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Upland Drive intersection. The study concluded the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Upland Drive intersection would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

The study also evaluated the drive-through queue storage using queue observations at comparable drivethrough coffee businesses, such as the existing Dutch Bros locations in Roseville, located at 1225 Baseline Road and 715 Sunrise Avenue. The study determined the proposed drive-through lane would provide 380 feet of storage, for up to 19 vehicles, when measured at the drive-through lane entry point and the service window.

The maximum drive-through queue observed at the Sunrise Avenue Dutch Bros store was 13 vehicles and the maximum drive-through queue observed at the Baseline Road Dutch Bros store was 21 vehicles. Therefore, if the project would be expected to generate levels of customer activity (and on-site employee order fulfillment efficiency) similar to the Sunrise Avenue Dutch Bros store, the project would provide sufficient drive-through storage to accommodate the maximum queue. However, if the project would be expected to generate levels of customer activity similar to the Baseline Road Dutch Bros store, the maximum drive-through queue would exceed the available storage by two vehicles.
5 A site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3) 6 A corridor with fixed route bus service at service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours.

Page 1075 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 40 of 48 ends

Vehicles that exceed the drive-through queue storage would impede the path of travel for vehicles entering the project site. Fehr & Peers notes that the Baseline Road Dutch Bros store exceeded 19 vehicles (the available drive-through storage for the proposed project) for only two five-minute intervals during the entirety of the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. observation period. This represents just over one percent of the 145 five-minute intervals recorded during the maximum drive-through queue observations. Therefore, while it is conceivable that the maximum drive-through queue would exceed the available drive-through storage for the proposed project, this condition would likely occur only during brief periods of heavy visitation and would not persist for extended periods of time. Moreover, sufficient space is available such that a maximum drive-through queue of 21 vehicles would not spill back into travel lanes on Pleasant Grove Boulevard.

The traffic study determined the following modifications to the project are needed to improve project access and on-site circulation design:

1. Construct a right-turn deceleration lane on eastbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard approaching the project driveway that is 135 feet in length plus a 60-foot taper.

2. Construct the driveway as a Type A-7 driveway (refer to Detail ST-22) with a corner radius of 25 feet to accommodate large truck maneuvers in/out of the project site.

3. Widen the project driveway to a width of 40 feet and provide two inbound lanes and one outbound lane.

Install “Drive Thru” pavement markings in the westerly inbound lane.

4. Maintain the existing median landscaping on the west leg of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Upland Drive intersection and routinely prune the existing trees and vegetation to maintain a six-inch to six-foot clear line of sight within the green area shown on Figure 4 of Attachment 4.

5. Eliminate parking stalls #10, #11, and #12 shown on the project site plan.

These modifications have been incorporated into the preliminary site plan (see Figure 2 in the Project Description section of this Initial Study). Therefore, based on the traffic study and the evaluation above, impacts to traffic and level of service have been determined to be less than significant. b) Traffic analyses focus on the number of trips traveling in specified areas during peak periods, in order to quantify impacts as specific intersections. However, there is no direct relationship between the number of trips and the amount of VMT generated by a use. Projects which substantially increase trips to a specific area may in fact decrease VMT in the City. As an example, if a new grocery store is added to an area, customers who go to that store were already going to a grocery store elsewhere, and are most likely to choose the new store because it is closer to home or on their way to another location (e.g. work). So while the store would generate additionalnew trips, it would lower Citywide VMT. Unless a project includes unique characteristics, nonresidential projects do not increase VMT; they divert existing trips into a similar or more efficient pathway.

The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee shop. The project does not include any unique characteristics which would draw in regional traffic, or which would prompt longer trips. The project would locate services and employment in proximity to existing developed areas. As referenced in the traffic study prepared by Fehr & Peers, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) produced the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), which generally describes retail development including stores less than 50,000 square feet as locally-serving. In the context of CEQA, it concludes that locallyserving retail may be found to cause less-than-significant transportation impacts. The proposed project falls well below this building size threshold. Moreover, given the prevalence of coffee stores (drive-through and walk-in) throughout the City of Roseville and the broad distribution of these coffee stores throughout the City’s residential and employment areas, it is expected that the project would similarly cater to local residents and employees and function as a locally-serving establishment. For these reasons, the project is presumed to have a less-thanPage 1076 of 1218

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 41 of 48 ends

significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of project-generated VMT, pursuant to guidance provided in the Technical Advisory.
c-d) The project has been reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City project require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards. Compliance with existing regulations ensure that impacts are less than significant.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). Two large permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. A majority of documented sites within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses.

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
X
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1 the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Page 1077 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 42 of 48 ends

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

In addition to archeological resources, tribal cultural resources are also given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographically-defined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The WRSP EIR included a historic and cultural resources study, which concluded there were no listed or eligible sites documented in the project area. However, the WRSP EIR includes standard mitigation measures which are designed to reduce impacts to any previously undiscovered resources should any be found on site.

Language included in the measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and the requirement to contact the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. The project will not result in any new impacts beyond those already discussed and disclosed in the WRSP EIR; therefore, project-specific impacts are less than significant.
b) Notice of the proposed project was mailed to tribes which had requested such notice pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) on September 1, 2020. No request for consultation was received within the AB 52 30-day consultation period and the SB 18 90-day consultation period. As discussed in item a, above, no resources are known to occur in the area. However, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to resources, should any be found on-site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and the requirement to contact the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. The project will not result in any new impacts beyond those already discussed and disclosed in the WRSP EIR; therefore, project-specific impacts are less than significant.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Roseville. The developer will be responsible for extending new lines onto the site in order to serve the project. Storm water will be collected on-site and transferred via the existing storm drain system into an off-site storm drain system. Solid waste will be collected by the City of Roseville’s Refuse Department. The City of Roseville will provide electric service to the site, while natural gas will be provided by PG&E. Comcast will provide cable. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division, Environmental Utilities, Roseville Electric and PG&E. Adequate services are available for the project.

Page 1078 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 43 of 48 ends

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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 the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition of the provider’s
existing commitments?
X
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to utilities and service systems is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–g listed above.

Page 1079 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 44 of 48 ends

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The major utility infrastructure to serve this area is already installed, which includes a looped sewer line and looped water line system in the streets surrounding the site, and stormwater lines. Minor additional infrastructure will be constructed within the project site to tie the project into the major systems, but these facilities will be constructed in locations where site development is already occurring as part of the overall project; there are no additional substantial impacts specific or particular to the minor infrastructure improvements. b) The City of Roseville 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted May 2016, estimates water demand and supply for the City through the year 2040, based on existing land use designations and population projections. In addition, the Amoruso Ranch Water Supply Assessment (AR WSA, Appendix E of the Amoruso Ranch FEIR), dated May 2016, estimates water demand and supply for ultimate General Plan buildout. The UWMP indicates that existing water supply sources are sufficient to meet all near term needs, estimating an annual water demand of 45,475 acre-feet per year (AFY) by the year 2020 and existing surface and recycled water supplies in the amount of 70,421 AFY. The AR WSA estimates a Citywide buildout demand of 64,370 AFY when including recycled water, and of 59,657 AFY of potable water. The AR WSA indicates that surface water supply is sufficient to meet demand during normal rainfall years, but is insufficient during single- and multiple-dry years. However, the City’s UWMP establishes mandatory water conservation measures and the use of groundwater to offset reductions in surface water supplies. Both the UWMP and AR WSA indicate that these measures, in combination with additional purchased water sources, will ensure that supply meets projected demand. The project involves a change in land use from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial, which would increase water demand for the site by 1.1 AFY. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department determined this to be a de minimis amount of water and there are sufficient water supplies available to allocate the additional water demand; the project would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements. c) The proposed project would be served by the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP).

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality and quantity of effluent discharged from the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. The Pleasant Grove WWTP has the capacity to treat 12 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently treating 7.0 mgd. The volume of wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the facility; the proposed project will not contribute to an exceedance of applicable wastewater treatment requirements. The impact would be less than significant. d,e) The Western Placer Waste Management Authority is the regional agency handling recycling and waste disposal for Roseville and surrounding areas. The regional waste facilities include a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL). Currently, the WRSL is permitted to accept up to 1,900 tons of municipal solid waste per day. According to the solid waste analysis of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan FEIR, under current projected development conditions the WRSL has a projected lifespan extending through 2058. The project is consistent with the existing land use designation, and therefore there is sufficient existing capacity to serve the proposed project. Though the project will contribute incrementally to an eventual need to find other means of waste disposal, this impact of City buildout has already been disclosed and mitigation applied as part of each Specific Plan the City has approved, including the most recent Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan. All residences and business in the City pay fees for solid waste collection, a portion of which is collected to fund eventual solid waste disposal expansion. The project will not result in any new impacts associated with major infrastructure. Environmental Utilities staff has reviewed the project for consistency with policies, codes, and regulations related to waste disposal and waste reduction regulations and policies and has found that the project design is in compliance.

Page 1080 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 45 of 48 ends

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

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to utilities and service systems is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–d listed above. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–d) Checklist questions a–d above do not apply, because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area.

Page 1081 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 46 of 48 ends

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
e) 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 an
endangered, threatened or
rare species, or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
f) Does the project have
impacts which 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
g) Does the project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Significance Criteria and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to mandatory findings of significance is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–c listed above.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. The cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the WRSP EIR, and mitigation measures have already been incorporated. With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best

Page 1082 of 1218 ends

INITIAL STUDY
January 14, 2021
WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack – 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl.

File #PL20-0142

Page 47 of 48 ends

management practices, mitigation measures described in this chapter, and permit conditions, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings.

Page 1083 of 1218 ends

Last Revised March 2019
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Initial Study Prepared by:
____________________________________________
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services – Planning Division Attachments:

1. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program

2. CalEEMod Results

3. Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants

4. Traffic Study, prepared by Fehr & Peers

Page 1084 of 1218 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Title/File Number: WRSP PCL W-20 – Coffee Shack; File #PL20-0142 Project Location: 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, Placer County, CA; APN 017-152-018-000
Project Description:

The proposed project is a 910-square-foot drive-through coffee kiosk with associated parking and landscaping. The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC), a Rezone from Single-Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC), a Development Agreement Amendment to reflect the land use change, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use contiguous to a residential zoned parcel, and a Design Review Permit to approve the building architecture and site design.

Environmental Document Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project Applicant: David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering Group Property Owner: Chris Winter, Pulte Home Company, LLC
Lead Agency Contact Person: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 746-1309 Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental impacts MONITORING PROCESS: Existing monitoring mechanisms are in place that assist the City of Roseville in meeting the intent of CEQA. These existing monitoring mechanisms eliminate the need to develop new monitoring processes for each mitigation measure. These mechanisms include grading plan review and approval, improvement/building plan review and approval and on-site inspections by City Departments. Given that these monitoring processes are requirements of the project, they are not included in the mitigation monitoring program.

It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant/owner to provide written notification to the City using the Mitigation Verification Cover Sheet and Forms, in a timely manner, of the completion of each Mitigation Measure as identified on the following pages. The City will verify that the project is in compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Any non-compliance will be reported by the City to the applicant/owner, and it shall be the project applicant’s/owner’s responsibility to rectify the situation by bringing the project into compliance. The purpose of this program is to ensure diligent and good faith compliance with the Mitigation Measures which have been adopted as part of the project.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
IS/MND ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1085 of 1218 ends

TABLE OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Documents to be Submitted to City
Staff Use Only
BIO-1: Avoid nesting sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:
(a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30 and February 15 to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area. This period may be modified with the authorization of the DFG; or
(b) Prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15 and August 30, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests or burrows are found, and the site is within 350 feet of potential construction activity, a fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 350 feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area. The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the City in consultation with CDFG.
(c) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones), unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species.
(d) In the event that a nest is abandoned, despite efforts to minimize disturbance, and if the nestlings are still alive, the developer shall contact CDFG and, subject to CDFG approval, fund the recovery and hacking (controlled release of captive reared young) of the nestling(s). (e) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th, or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist. (f) The project applicant, in consultation with the CDFG, shall conduct a pre-construction survey within the phases of the project site that are scheduled for construction activities. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if burrowing owls are occupying the project site. The survey shall be conducted no more than three weeks prior to grading of the project site.

If the above survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no further mitigation would be required. However, should burrowing owls be found on the project site, the following measures shall be required:
(g) The applicant shall avoid all potential burrowing owl burrows that may be disturbed by project construction during the breeding season between February 15 and August 30 (the period when nest burrows are typically occupied by adults with eggs or young). Avoidance shall include the establishment of a 350-foot diameter non-disturbance buffer zone around any occupied burrows. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction fencing. Disturbance of any occupied burrows shall only occur outside of the breeding season (August 30 through February 15).

Based on approval by the CDFG, preconstruction and nonbreeding season exclusion measures may be implemented to preclude burrowing owl occupation of the project site prior to project-related disturbance (such as grading). Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from burrows in the construction area by placing one-way doors in the burrows according to current CDFG protocol. The one-way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls, regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation, must be cleared. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of the one-way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow. The oneway doors shall not be used more than two weeks before construction to ensure that owls do not recolonize the area of construction.

Results of preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted prior to the issuance
of a grading permit or Improvement
Plans. Applicable construction
restrictions shall be reflected within
plans. The applicants shall prepare
annual reports on the status and
success of mitigation and shall submit
these reports to USFWS and CDFG.

The applicants shall coordinate with
USFWS and CDFG to modify as
necessary any mitigation plans in an
effort to attain mitigation success.

Pre-Construction and Construction:

Surveys required prior to
construction. If surveys are
positive for birds, then remainder of
mitigation steps are required prior
to construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Nesting bird surveys

Page 1086 of 1218 ends

NOI-1: Commercial Noise Control
For all commercial uses within 150 feet of residential uses, implement the following or equally effective measures:
(a) For commercial loading docks and on-site truck circulation areas that are planned to be within 150 feet of sensitive receptors (including backyards), the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Loading docks and on-site truck circulation routes shall be designed to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 70 dB Lmax or 50 dB hourly Leq at the nearest residence. An acoustic analysis shall demonstrate that the loading area design, including any noise attenuation features (e.g., covering, sound walls, orientation) would be adequate to achieve this standard; and,
(2) Deliveries shall generally be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. (b) For all commercial buildings, roof-top HVAC shall be oriented away from residential areas and systems shall not produce noise levels that exceed 50 dB at a distance of 25 feet.

In addition, roof-top parapets shall block line-of-sight from noise-sensitive uses to HVAC equipment.
(c) Setbacks or enhanced barriers (e.g., 8 feet tall) as needed to achieve City standards. (d) In order to satisfy the applicable City of Roseville General Plan nighttime hourly average noise level standards, one of the following specific noise mitigation measures are recommended:

1. The construction of a 10’ solid noise barrier along the southern project property boundary. The solid barrier could consist of either masonry or precast concrete panels.

2. Limit drive-through operations to the hours between 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.

An acoustical analysis shall be conducted to demonstrate that City noise standards would be achieved by these measures. Additional measures shall be implemented, if needed, to meet the standards.

Project plans will be reviewed for
compliance. The applicants shall
submit site-specific acoustical
analyses to the Chief Building
Inspector for review.

Pre-Construction: Prior to issuance
of Improvement Plans and/or
Building Permits
Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans
Engineering will review
Improvement Plans for
compliance with wall and
noise requirements.

Building will review
Building Plans for
compliance with HVAC
requirements.

An Acoustical Study
MM 4.8-1: Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary for the protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

This condition shall be reflected in all
construction and building plans, and
construction site workers shall be
advised by the site manager of this
measure.

Construction: Measure applies if
resources are discovered during
construction.

Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans.

Engineering and Building None
MM 4.8-10: Cease Work Until Review Conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.

This condition shall be reflected in all
construction and building plans, and
construction site workers shall be
advised by the site manager of this
measure.

Construction: Measure applies if
resources are discovered during
construction.

Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans.

Engineering and Building None

Page 1087 of 1218 ends

MITIGATION VERIFICATION SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
Project Title/Planning File #
Project Address
Property Owner
Planning Division Contact

SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL Mitigation Measure Supporting Attachments Included Date Complete
I HAVE ATTACHED THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED ITEMS:
☐ Table of Applicable Mitigation Measures
☐ Mitigation Verification Form(s)
☐ Specific supporting documentation required by measure(s), if applicable (e.g. biologist’s report) I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner or an agent of the property owner and am authorized to submit this Mitigation Verification Form. I also certify that the above-listed mitigation measures have been completed in the manner required, and that all of the information in this submittal is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge:

Signature and Date Print Name Contact Number

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

Page 1088 of 1218 ends

MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM
Mitigation Measure
Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. The following information is a required part of the description:
dates, personnel names or titles, and the stage/phase of construction work. Additional notes sheets may be attached, if necessary, or the below may simply reference a separate attachment that provides the required information.

Page 1089 of 1218 ends

INSTRUCTIONS
COVER SHEET:

A Cover Sheet for the project/development is prepared by City staff, with the top portion filled out. Each time Mitigation Verification Forms(s) are being submitted, a Cover Sheet completed by the Developer, Contractor, or Designee is required. An example of a completed summary table is provided below. The signature on the Cover Sheet must be original wet ink.

EXAMPLE MITIGATION VERIFICATION SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
Project Title/Planning File # New Coffee Shop, PL15-0000 Project Address 10 Justashort Street
Property Owner Jane Owner
Planning Division Contact Joe Planner, Associate Planner, (916) 774-####

SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL Mitigation
Measure Supporting Attachments Included Date Complete
MM-3 Copy of survey report signed by biologist 5/10/2016 MM-4 All information included in Mitigation Verification Form 5/12/2016 MM-5 E-mail from Air District approving Dust Control Plan 5/05/2016

Page 1090 of 1218 ends

MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM:

A Mitigation Verification Form is provided by City staff, along with the Cover Sheet and Table of Applicable Mitigation Measures. A form is filled in and submitted for each mitigation measure by the Developer, Contractor, or Designee. The form needs only the mitigation number to be filled in, along with the Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. Multiple forms may be submitted simultaneously, under one cover sheet. It is also permissible to submit a form for each part of a measure, on separate dates. For instance, in the example measure MM-4 in the table above, the actual mitigation requires informing construction workers and retaining a qualified archeologist if resources are uncovered.

Thus, a developer may submit a form in May certifying that construction workers have been informed, and also submit a second copy of the form in July because resources were discovered and additional actions had to be undertaken.

Each mitigation measure specifies the type of supporting documentation required; this must be submitted in order for the City to accept the mitigation as complete. An example of a completed Mitigation Verification Form is provided below.

EXAMPLE

MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM
Mitigation Measure MM3
Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. The following information is a required part of the description:
dates, personnel names or titles, and the stage/phase of construction work. Additional notes sheets may be attached, if necessary, or the below may simply reference a separate attachment that provides the required information.

The mitigation measure text is included on the Improvement Plans General Notes page (Improvement Plan EN15-0001).

On May 4, 2016, prior to any ground-disturbing activities (the pre-construction phase), a site meeting was held. At this meeting, workers on the site were informed of the potential to unearth remains, and were instructed to cease work and notify their supervisor immediately if any resources were observed.

Page 1091 of 1218 ends

Project Characteristics - Start of construction and operational year are estimated.

Land Use - Proposed use is a drive thru coffee shop.

Energy Use -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.91 1000sqft 0.02 910.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 74

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Roseville Electric
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
793.8 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
W-20 Coffee Shack
Placer-Sacramento County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 29 Date: 12/2/2020 10:23 AM W-20 Coffee Shack - Placer-Sacramento County, Annual
IS/MND ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1092 of 1218 ends

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0508 0.4675 0.4354 6.9000e0041.8600e0030.0261 0.0280 6.7000e0040.0241 0.0248 0.0000 60.4036 60.4036 0.0182 0.0000 60.8594 Maximum 0.0508 0.4675 0.4354 6.9000e0041.8600e0030.0261 0.0280 6.7000e0040.0241 0.0248 0.0000 60.4036 60.4036 0.0182 0.0000 60.8594 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0508 0.4675 0.4354 6.9000e0041.8600e0030.0261 0.0280 6.7000e0040.0241 0.0248 0.0000 60.4035 60.4035 0.0182 0.0000 60.8593 Maximum 0.0508 0.4675 0.4354 6.9000e0041.8600e0030.0261 0.0280 6.7000e0040.0241 0.0248 0.0000 60.4035 60.4035 0.0182 0.0000 60.8593 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 29 Date: 12/2/2020 10:23 AM W-20 Coffee Shack - Placer-Sacramento County, Annual

Page 1093 of 1218 ends

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 3.9800e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 Energy 5.4000e0044.8800e0034.1000e0033.0000e0053.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0040.0000 15.5851 15.5851 4.8000e0041.8000e00415.6492 Mobile 0.1067 0.7111 0.8355 2.7100e0030.1691 2.3700e0030.1715 0.0455 2.2200e0030.0477 0.0000 250.1873 250.1873 0.0151 0.0000 250.5645 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1274 0.0000 2.1274 0.1257 0.0000 5.2704 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0876 0.5604 0.6480 9.0200e0032.2000e0040.9381 Total 0.1112 0.7159 0.8396 2.7400e0030.1691 2.7400e0030.1719 0.0455 2.5900e0030.0481 2.2150 266.3328 268.5478 0.1503 4.0000e004272.4223 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2021 8-31-2021 0.2840 0.2840
2 9-1-2021 9-30-2021 0.0939 0.0939
Highest 0.2840 0.2840
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 29 Date: 12/2/2020 10:23 AM W-20 Coffee Shack - Placer-Sacramento County, Annual

Page 1094 of 1218 ends

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 29 Date: 12/2/2020 10:23 AM W-20 Coffee Shack - Placer-Sacramento County, Annual

Page 1095 of 1218 ends

Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 6/1/2021 6/14/2021 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 5 1 3 Grading Grading 6/16/2021 6/17/2021 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 6/18/2021 11/4/2021 5 100 5 Paving Paving 11/5/2021 11/11/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/12/2021 11/18/2021 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,365; Non-Residential Outdoor: 455; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 29 Date: 12/2/2020 10:23 AM W-20 Coffee Shack - Placer-Sacramento County, Annual

Page 1096 of 1218 ends

Roseville City CouncilOctober 21, 2026

Roseville City Council
October 21, 2026