9.28.010 Firearms defined. 9.28.020 Discharging within City unlawful

Sections: 9.28.010

Firearms defined.

9.28.020

Discharging within City unlawful.

9.28.030

Parent responsibility.

9.28.040

Exceptions.

9.28.050

Target or shooting range.

9.28.060

Hunting permit.

9.28.070

Special shooting permit.

9.28.280

Appeal.

9.28.090

Penalty for violation.

9.28.010 Firearms defined. For the purpose of this chapter, “firearms” includes any shotgun, rifle, pistol, revolver, or air gun, and any other weapon of similar use and design. 9.28.020 Discharging within City unlawful. It is unlawful for any person to use, fire or discharge any firearm within the City except as provided in this Chapter. 9.28.030 Exceptions. The prohibitions of this chapter do not apply when the use of a firearm is necessary for the protection of life or property or to a peace officer acting in the performance of his or her duties. 9.28.040 Target or shooting range. The prohibitions of this chapter do not apply to the establishment or maintenance of any pistol, rifle, or target range, nor to the discharge at any target thereon, by any person using such range; provided, that such range complies with the Zoning Code and is so installed, constructed, safeguarded, equipped and used as to adequately prevent any bullet, shot, or missile from being projected beyond the confines of such range or shooting gallery 9.28.050 Hunting permit.

Hunting may be permitted on parcels or portions of a parcel of land (Hunting Zone) for which a hunting permit is obtained from the Chief of Police. For purposes of this ordinance a Hunting Zone is the area is which hunting is permitted or proposed and may be the entire property or a portion of it. The Chief of Police may issue a hunting permit, provided he/she has ascertained that hunting within the Hunting Zone will not be dangerous to persons or property. All hunting permits shall be subject to the following conditions, violation of which shall constitute a violation of this chapter: A. Hunting shall be limited to seasons as established by law and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; B. A hunting permit may be issued to a property owner or authorized representative for purposes of training hunting dogs using firearms and live birds consistent with the provisions of this Chapter; C. No firearms other than shotguns may be used and no use of slugs in a shotgun is permitted; D. Hunting permits may not be issued if there are residential dwellings, other than the applicant’s dwelling, within 1000 feet of proposed Hunting Zone or are anticipated to be constructed within 1000 feet of the Hunting Zone during the term of the permit. E. Any other conditions which the Chief of Police may impose for the protection of lives and property. F. Permit Contents 1. Application for a hunting permit shall be made in writing by the owner of the land or his/her authorized representative and shall contain a map showing the location of the land on which hunting is proposed (the Hunting Zone), number of acres and the number of hunters requested to be on the land at any one (1) time. 2. Any hunting permit issued shall state the general nature of the hunting activity and the numbers of hunters anticipated on the property at any time. 3. Any person hunting on land for which a hunting permit has been issued pursuant to this chapter shall have the permit available during hunting activity and display the permit to the police department upon request. 4. A hunting permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be valid for no longer than one (1) year, except a hunting club and in such case the permit may be valid for two (2) years. G. The Chief of Police may identify areas on a map in which a permit is not permitted based on the criteria in this Chapter.

9.28.060 Special Agricultural Shooting Permit. The Chief of Police may issue a special agricultural shooting permit to any property owner or tenant who is a farmer, rancher or orchardist and whose agricultural property lies within the City solely for shooting on the owner’s/tenant’s property for the purposes of: 1) shooting predatory animals that pose a danger to farm animals; 2) Shooting birds which are an immediate threat to growing crops or fruit; and 3) For humanely euthanizing an injured farm animal. Any permit issued under this Section shall be upon such conditions and limitations as the Chief of Police may impose for the protection of lives and property. The Chief of Police may issue permits under this section which are valid up to two (2) years and may be renewed for an additional two (2) years if requested in writing to the Chief of Police within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the permit. 9.28.070 Fees The City Council may set a reasonable permit fee by Resolution for permits under this Chapter. 9.28.080 Appeal. Anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief of Police relative to an application for a permit under this Chapter may appeal the decision to the City Manager by filing a written administrative appeal within ten (10) days of the date on the decision. The decision of the City Manager may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written administrative appeal within ten (10) days of the date of the decision and the decision of the City Council is final. 9.28.090 Penalty for violation. Any person who knowingly or recklessly violates provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and this Chapter may be enforced as an Administrative Penalty pursuant to the provisions of LMC Chapter 1.20.

2600 Capitol Avenue

www.esassoc.com

Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax

memorandum date

October 6, 2017 

to

cc

Matthew Wheeler  Steve Prosser  Bruce Cline         

from

Christina Erwin

subject

Windsor Cove Compatibility with Village 5 EIR

  Following the publication of the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Final Environmental  Impact Report (Village 5 EIR), the City of Lincoln directed ESA to evaluate whether land use designation changes  within the Windsor Cove portion of the Village 5 project site would adversely affect the analysis contained in the  Village 5 EIR. Windsor Cove is a 90‐acre property located within Area J of the Village 5 Specific Plan area. Two  issues arise when evaluating this land use change: compatibility with the Placer County Airport Land Use  Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and whether the Village 5 EIR adequately covered potential impacts that could occur  as a result of the land use change.  As described in the Village 5 EIR, the proposed land uses for the Windsor Cove property is a mix of Village Low  Density Residential (VLDR), Village Rural Residential (VRR), and Village Open Space Preserve (VOSP). The  proposed action would result in a change of approximately 54 acres of the site to be redesignated as Village  County Estates (VCE) from VRR in the Village 5 Specific Plan.  Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan  The Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) adopted February 26, 2014 describes the  allowable uses for each airport compatibility zone related to the Lincoln Regional Airport. Compatibility Zone C1  “covers the extended approach/departure corridor and lands adjacent to Compatibility Zone B2 lateral of the  runway. This zone is affected by moderate degrees of both noise and risk.” Single‐family residential units are  conditionally permitted in Compatibility Zone C1 at an average density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres (du/ac) or  up to 4 du/ac. In Compatibility Zone C1, clustering of residential development is permitted. However, no single  acre of a project site shall exceed the indicated number of dwelling units per acre.1 The Windsor Cove property  1  

Placer County Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 26, 2014.  Table LIN‐6A. 

Windsor Cove Compatibility with Village 5 EIR

is within Compatibility Zones C1, C2, and D. However, the Village 5 Specific Plan only anticipates dwelling units  in Compatibility Zones C1 and D.  The change from VRR to VCE in Compatibility Zone C1 would allow denser housing, including a higher average  dwelling unit per acre than could occur under the VRR designation. Although Compatibility Zone C1 allows an  average density of 0.5 du/ac, it is possible to cluster housing units such that dwelling units would not exceed the  absolute maximum density described in the ALUCP.  The proposed change of approximately 54 acres from VRR to VCE would result in an increase in the maximum  allowable number of dwelling units in Compatibility Zone C1 of the Windsor Cove property (see Table 1).    TABLE 1  WINDSOR COVE POTENTIAL HOUSING UNITS  Current Village 5 Specific Plan 

Acreage 

Land Use  Designation 

53.39 ac 

VRR 

31.11 ac 

VLDR 

5.50 ac 

VOSP 

Density  Range  0.2‐0.5  du/ac  3.0‐5.9  du/ac  ‐‐‐ 

Potential  Housing  Units 

Additional  Allowable  Anticipated  Dwelling  Units 

Airport Land  Use  Compatibility  Zone 

32‐155 du 

5‐144 du 

C1 

93‐184 du 

0 du 



0 du 

0 du 

C2 

Proposed Windsor Cove Change 

Potential  Housing  Units 

Land Use  Designation 

11‐27 du 

VCE 

93‐184 du 

VLDR 

0 du 

VOSP 

Density  Range  0.6‐2.9  du/ac  3.0‐5.9  du/ac  ‐‐‐ 

NOTES:  ac = acre  du = dwelling unit 

  Based on negotiations between the Village 5 Specific Plan proponent, Windsor Cove proponent, and the City,  the following stipulations have been agreed to:  a. Windsor Cove proponent agrees to limit the total unit count within proposed Windsor Cove  development to no more than 160 residential dwelling units;  b. Windsor Cove development must comply with the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to  the satisfaction of the City; and  c. Windsor Cove development will not “steal units” or reduce the ability of other VRR‐zoned property  within the C‐1 zone to yield their maximum allowable dwelling unit counts due to clustering within the  Windsor Cove property.  Because the Windsor Cove project would comply with the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to  the satisfaction of the City, there would be no conflict with ALUCP as a result of the land use change.  Village 5 EIR  The change in land use designation for approximately 54 acres on the Windsor Cove property could increase the  number of housing units developed on that property. The increase in the number of housing units would be 

2

Windsor Cove Compatibility with Village 5 EIR

within the envelope of dwelling units anticipated to be constructed under the Village 5 Specific Plan. The Village  5 Specific Plan anticipates development of approximately 8,206 dwelling units over a 15‐ to 25‐year period.  The City is currently evaluating a proposal by the Windsor Cove proponent for a tentative map consisting of  157 dwelling units. According to preliminary plans, 112 dwelling units would be constructed in Compatibility  Zone D and 45 dwelling units would be constructed in Compatibility Zone C1.  The Village 5 EIR evaluated the environmental effects anticipated from development of the entire Village 5  Specific Plan area, including the Windsor Cove property. Environmental impacts related to agriculture; biological  resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; and hazards and hazardous materials would be  identical to those described in the Village 5 EIR because those topics would result from development of the  land, not intensity of the development.  Impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality; climate change and greenhouse gas emissions; energy;  hydrology and water quality; noise; population, employment, and housing; public services; transportation and  circulation; and utilities and infrastructure may be marginally more intense, but would be within the  development envelope analyzed in the Village 5 EIR.  In general, residential land uses are considered to be compatible because they involve similar uses and  activities. Rural residences are located in the southeast portion of the specific plan area, east of the Windsor  Cove property. The proposed VCE designation would provide a transition in densities from the low‐density rural  residences and the proposed higher density VLDR designation within the Windsor Cove property. These land  uses are not considered incompatible. 

3

2600 Capitol Avenue

www.esassoc.com

Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax

memorandum date

November 17, 2017

to

Steve Prosser, Project Manager, City of Lincoln

cc

Matthew Wheeler, Community Development Director, City of Lincoln

from

Christina Erwin, Environmental Science Associates

subject

Village 5 Specific Plan EIR – Responses to Additional Comment Letters

Following the close of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public comment period (August 26, 2016 through October 11, 2016) and immediately prior to the Planning Commission meeting, letters were submitted to the City of Lincoln regarding the proposed Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD-B) Specific Plan project (proposed project) and the environmental analysis contained in the EIR. No formal response to these letters is required pursuant to CEQA because the comments have been made outside the formal comment period. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15207.) However, to ensure there are no new issues raised, we have prepared this memorandum. Table 1 identifies letters received by the City on the proposed project after the formal comment period and which are not included in the Final EIR. TABLE 1 LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT Letter # 1 2

Entity Law Offices of Matthew Emrick, on behalf of Albert Scheiber Friends of Auburn Ravine

Author(s) of Comment Letter/e-mail

Date

Matthew Emrick

October 28, 2017

James Haufler, President

October 31, 2017

Author Submitted Comment Letter on the Draft EIR Comment Letters I1, I2, I3, and I4

Letter 1 provides responses to specific Responses to Comments as provided in the Final EIR. Because many of the comments are repetitive in nature, responses have been grouped by category, not response number. The commenter alleges the Ag Overlay zone is “vague and unclear and therefore invalid,” and “constitutes an invalid taking.” While these are legal claims for which CEQA does not require a response, the Ag Overlay zone has been revised to apply to all areas of the Village 5 Specific Plan, including the open space designations of VOSP and VOSN. This uniform application of the Ag Overlay should eliminate the commenter’s confusion with respect to the application of the policy. Additionally, the buffering and set backs are clearly described in

section 3.4.13 of the General Development Plan and Master Response 2 in the Final EIR. However, an Ag Overlay FAQ sheet has been prepared and provided to the commenter, as well as the general public. The commenter claims the EIR lacks analysis regarding the impacts to groundwater as a result of the conversion of agricultural to urban uses. The commenter’s claim is founded on false assumptions or misconceptions regarding the project. First, the majority of the Plan Area has low soil permeability and high runoff potential. (See section 3.10, Hydrology and section 3.16, Utilities and Infrastructure of the Draft EIR.) Specifically, Impacts 3.10-2 and 3.16-1 in the Draft EIR and Master Response 1 and Responses to Comments I1-16 and I2-7 in the Final EIR address groundwater recharge potential, the effects of urbanization on groundwater levels, the effects of urbanization on water demand. The Water Supply Assessment (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) analyzed the Village 5 Specific Plan’s demand for water and evaluated the availability of water supplies to meet that demand. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) demonstrated that water supplies would be sufficient to meet anticipated demand under normal, single-dry and multi-year conditions to meet all of the water demands of the City through 2040 (20,336 AFY) including the Village 5 Specific Plan at buildout (6,460 AFY), with existing supply sources and without the need for new or expanded entitlements or supply sources beyond those already in process (see Draft EIR, Impact 3.16-1, page 3.16-29). As described in Response to Comment I4-15 in the Final EIR, historical data provides evidence that the City has historically maintained its commitment to not extracting groundwater for more than 10% of its overall water usage. (Draft EIR, page 3.16-11.) There is no evidence to suggest the City will or will need to increase groundwater pumping. The commenter raises issues regarding impacts to his “water rights.” The project does not propose to nor could it impact the commenter’s legal rights to water. Water quality issues, including treated wastewater, are addressed in Final EIR Master Response 1. As described there, the proposed project will result in a portion of the project water being discharged back into Auburn Ravine. Approximately 1.0 AF/acre of the 1.3 AF/acre of water use in the proposed project is for indoor consumptive uses. Indoor consumptive water uses include water used for showers, washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, and indoor sinks. This water flows through the City’s wastewater system and is delivered to the City’s Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility (WWTRF). The water delivered to the WWTRF is then treated at the plant, through tertiary level water treatment protocols. A portion of the treated effluent is then discharged into Auburn Ravine under the City’s wastewater discharge permit. The letter also addresses whether an EIR must address effects that the environment may have on a proposed project. The California Supreme Court recently found that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.” In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, the Supreme Court explained that an agency is only required to analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents if the project would exacerbate those existing environmental hazards or conditions. CEQA analysis is therefore concerned with a project’s impact on the environment, rather than with the environment’s impact on a project and its users or residents. Thus, the City is not required to consider the effects of bringing a new population into an area where flooding exists. However, in the interest of disclosure, the EIR discusses potential effects of the environment on people in the Plan Area, including climate change and flooding. Please also see Response to Comment I4-8 in the Final EIR.

Page 2 of 4

Williamson Act contracts are address in section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR. As described in Impact 3.2-2, land under a Williamson Act contract would not be developed until the contract is cancelled. Unless and until contracted parcels are no longer subject to a Williamson Act contract, the parcels could not be developed as proposed under the Village 5 Specific Plan (see Draft EIR, page 3.2-26). Letter 2 requests additional information about the future use of two existing diversion dams on Auburn Ravine within the Plan Area. The project applicant has provided Mr. Haufler and his group access to the property when access was requested. Further, the project applicant has advised Mr. Haufler that it and its farming tenants have coordinated with DWR for the last few years (including this year) to ensure that the dams are removed during the fall and winter runs, and further that when in place, fish have a safe passage. In short, the dams are anticipated to remain in place during summer months for the foreseeable future in full compliance with state and federal laws. The project engineers have identified the 100-year and 200-year floodplains for Auburn Ravine within the Plan Area. With the exception of structural outfalls and some potential bridge pilings, all development will be outside of the 100-year floodplain. The northern side of Auburn Ravine is proposed for Open Space, which will include walking trails with interpretive signage, benches and lookout areas. The City’s contract engineer has verified the proposed setbacks are adequate and fully compliant with local, state and federal law. Thus, there is no new information proposed to be added to the EIR. As noted in the letter and in section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, Central Valley Fall-run Chinook salmon is a species with a high probability of occurring within the Auburn Ravine and Plan Area. Potential impacts to Chinook salmon are addressed in Impact 3.4-8 of the Draft EIR and mitigation is proposed to minimize impacts to the species. As described on page 3.4-35, fall-, spring-, and winter-run Chinook were collected downstream of the Plan Area1 and could be present within Auburn Ravine within the Plan Area. It is acknowledged that Chinook salmon can also be found upstream of the Plan Area and the proposed mitigation applies equally to mitigate for impacts upstream of the Plan Area. The letter correctly notes that the City is required to coordinate with other interested parties in the management of Auburn Ravine as a condition of Wastewater Change Petition WW0066 approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights. The order states, “The City shall coordinate with other interested parties, including but not limited to: Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Nevada Irrigation District, Placer County Water Agency and South Sutter Water District in the management of Auburn Ravine. In the City’s coordination, it must take into account the regulatory constraints on its releases of effluent from the WWTRF. In this context, ‘coordinate’ means discussing and conferring with interested parties; provided, however that pursuant to state law, the City retains its discretion and is not obligated to implement any particular measure.” The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for enforcing the requirements outlined in the order.

1

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014. Completion of the 2013 Auburn Ravine Rotary Screw Trap Monitoring Report. Memorandum from Michael Healey to Colin Purdy, July 10, 2014. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Page 3 of 4

The effects of light pollution on wildlife species is addressed in the Draft EIR on pages 3.4-79 and 3.4-80. The discussion related primarily to effects of the proposed electronic message center on wildlife species and migratory corridors. However, development near Auburn Ravine would increase artificial ambient lighting conditions from landscape lighting, nighttime vehicle traffic, and buildings which could spill over onto Auburn Ravine. As described in the Village 5 Specific Plan, the Plan is designed to preserve and promote natural resources that currently exist in the Plan Area, which include, but are not limited to, Auburn Ravine. The General Development Plan (GDP) requires that no nighttime lighting be allowed in open space areas unless safety standards require otherwise. The Village 5 Specific Plan identifies Village Open Space Preserve and Village Natural Open Space as the land uses adjacent to Auburn Ravine. Generally, appropriate levels of lighting that provides adequate nighttime visibility, is required throughout the Plan Area. Exterior lighting must conform to all City of Lincoln, Department of Public Works standard to meet minimum foot-candle distribution that ensures a sufficient level of illumination for public areas for safe, night time orientation. Light fixtures should be shielded and directed downward to illuminate specific areas and reduce spillover lighting. Structural barriers, such a 3-4-foot vegetated hedge or other structural method that would not additionally hinder wildlife movement through riverine riparian vegetation, may be employed to screen automobile headlights that are directed perpendicular to Auburn Ravine. These mechanisms would reduce potential night lighting impacts by ensuring no lighting is directed towards the Auburn Ravine riverine riparian, and light spillover would be minimized in areas within portions of the Plan Area that abut or cross Auburn Ravine. The proposed project provides for extensive public access to Auburn Ravine, including streamside trails, overlooks and interpretative signage. (See General Development Plan Chapter 6 and Exhibit 7.6 – Pedestrian Trails and Bike Paths.) Individual subdivision maps which affect the Auburn Ravine area will be conditioned to ensure proper trails, outlooks and signage are required.

Analysis and Conclusion We have reviewed the attached correspondence for issues that may pertain to the EIR. All potential environmental issues raised in these comment letters were addressed in the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD-B) Specific Plan EIR. The comments addressed in this memorandum do not identify any environmental effects beyond those described in the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD-B) Specific Plan EIR, and no further analysis is required.

Page 4 of 4

Village 5 Project Review City of Lincoln City Council December 5, 2017

Project Site

Plan Area

Project Summary: 4,775 Acres Village 5 Specific Plan Area Gross Acreage • 709 Acres Rural Residential .2-.5 du/ac • 500 Acres of Country Estate 1-2.9 du/ac • 570 Acres of LDR 3.0-5.9 du/ac • 441 Acres of MDR 6.0-12.9 du/ac • 69 Acres of HDR 13.0-30.0 du/ac • 7.5 Acres of Village Mixed-Use • 443 Acres of Commercial/Professional • 1,558 Acres of Parks/Open Space • 118 Acres of Public Uses • 365 Acres of ROW (Local and Hwy 65)

Entitlements & CEQA  Certification of the Environmental Impact      

Report - CEQA General Plan Amendment Specific Plan (including IFP) Pre-Zone – Planned Development General Development Plan Soccer Complex MOU Development Agreement

General Plan Amendment

Village 5 Specific Plan Area

Village 5 Development Context

Village 5 Specific Plan Area

Village 5 Summary

Village 5 Specific Phasing

Village 5 Circulation

Village 5 Circulation

Village 5 Multi-Modal Trails

Village 5 Backbone Water

Village 5 Reclaimed Water

Village 5 Wastewater

Village 5 Drainage

Village 5 Parks and OS

Village 5 Soccer Complex

Infrastructure Finance Plan The Finance Plan outlines the strategy for financing and constructing backbone infrastructure and public facilities. The objectives of that strategy are to:  Assure funding and/or construction of backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve the Specific Plan area;  Match the phasing and funding according to anticipated demand and market conditions. As demand creates the need for future phases the Finance Plan may be updated to reflect the required infrastructure and funding mechanisms;

IFP Cont.  Provide for different types of public finance mechanisms;  Utilize existing City public facilities element and other agency fee programs;  Create a plan area fee program with the City, as defined in the Development Agreement.  Provide for “pay-as-you-go” financing mechanisms; and,  Provide for “Fair Share” financing mechanisms.

Pre-Zone Establishes Planned Development District as the Master or Base Zoning for the Site in preparation for future annexation in conformance with the City’s Zoning Code.  Specific Zoning Districts correspond to General Plan Land Use Designations and described more fully within the General Development Plan. 

Pre-Zone

General Development Plan

Uses

Detached Single Family

Medium Density (plus cluster)

High Density Residential

Mixed-Use

Commercial

GDP Residential Design Guidelines  Commercial Design Guidelines  Landscape Design Guidelines 

 Open

Space

 Parks  Schools  Streetscape  Entry

Monumentation  Water Conservation 

Area A Planning Level Detail

GDP – Agricultural Overlay

Development Agreement Required per Village 5 Specific Plan Specifies Developer Obligations    

 

Phasing Public Improvements (Infrastructure) Parks Interim and Long-Term Maintenance Financing Interim Police and Fire Protection Fees (Plan Area and City)

Airport Land Use Commission

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD-B) Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report City Council Hearing | December 5, 2017

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Draft EIR Structure • Technical analysis for environmental topical areas, supported by technical studies • Specific Plan analyzed at project-specific and cumulative levels • Areas A and J analyzed at greater level of detail, where possible • Mitigation specific to certain Areas of project site

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Draft EIR Public Review • Draft EIR Comment Period August 26 – October 11, 2016 • Published Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Lincoln News Messenger on August 26, 2016 • Sent to appropriate public agencies, all property owners within the project area, and property owners within 400 feet of the property area • Published Draft EIR on the City’s website at http://www.lincolnca.gov/city-hall/departmentsdivisions/community-development/environmental-documents

• Held Planning Commission meeting on September 21, 2016

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Comments Received on Draft EIR and Key Environmental Issues • 25 comment letters received + comments during Planning Commission meeting • Key environmental issues raised:

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Agricultural Overlay (AO) Zone

• Covers entirety of V5SP Area except Open Space • Allows agricultural production to continue • New urban uses adjacent to agriculture must provide setbacks

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Water Supply and Groundwater

• Water supply certainty described in Water Supply Assessment • Six primary sources of water • Up to 6 new groundwater wells • Groundwater pumping would not exceed 10% of overall water supplies

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Water Supply and Groundwater

• Recharge areas: Auburn and Markham Ravines • Other areas have low permeability • Project has been designed to collect drainage and direct it to detention basins and the ravines

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP)

• Biological Resources analysis recognizes the PCCP is not yet adopted • Project allows for implementation of PCCP if it is adopted • If PCCP not adopted, the mitigation would require ratios that match PCCP

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Traffic and Circulation

• Additional evaluation of Placer County and City of Rocklin roadways • Expanded evaluation of SR 65 / Nelson Lane interchange • Additional information provided regarding calculation of fair share payments

Village 5 & SUD-B Specific Plan

Airport Land Use Compatibility

• V5SP land use densities are consistent with the ALUCP Compatibility zones • Detention basins located in appropriate Compatibility zones • Detention basins would be designed to drain and not hold water

Planning Commission Hearing Agricultural Overlay – SP Page 4-13/GDP Page 3-21  Hunting Activities – GDP Page 3-21  Airplane Activity – Staff Report  Non-Conforming Use Appeal – GDP Page 3-3  Buffering – GDP Page 3-22  Commercial Downspouts – GDP Chapter 5  CEQA Comments After Review Period – CEQA Resolution Exhibit  Density Transfer/Clustering – SP Page 4-14 

Recommended City Council Actions 

Conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony and take the following actions: 





Adopt Resolution 2017-___ Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Village 45 Specific Plan Project; Adopt Resolution 2017-___ Approving the General Plan Amendment; Adopt Resolution 2017-___ Approving the Village 5 Specific Plan;

Recommended City Council Actions Cont. 







Introduce and waive First Reading of Ordinance ____ approving a Pre-Zone of the Village 5 Project Area; Introduce and waive First Reading of Ordinance ____ approving the Village 5 General Development Plan; Adopt Resolution 2017-____ Approving the Soccer Complex Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and, Adopt Resolution 2017-___ Approving the Development Agreement between the City of Lincoln and Richland Developers Inc.

City Council Alternatives 





Continue the Public Hearing to a date certain of December 12, 2017; Approve the project with amended or revised conditions of approval; or, Deny the project.

City of Lincoln City Council December 5, 2017

VILLAGE 5

Village 5 - Specific Plan

• Family Owned and Operated since the mid1970’s • Focus on Master-Planned Communities • Offices in Roseville, Irvine & Tampa • 20+ year history in Lincoln

VILLAGE 5

Richland Communities

PROJECT LOCATION

VILLAGE 5

Project Location

LINCOLN

ROCKLIN

Project directly shaped by stakeholder feedback • 5 meetings with Village 5 landowners: 2013, 2015, 2017 • Community presentations (Lincoln Chamber, service organizations) • Ongoing community engagement • Project website launched 2014: www.lincolnwestvillages.com

VILLAGE 5

Community & Stakeholder Outreach

VILLAGE 5

Land Use Plan

Village 5 - Total Size

4,775 Acres

Developable Land

2,733 Acres

Parks & Open Space

1,558 Acres

Residential

8,244 Homes

Commercial

4,599,400 Sq. Ft.

Employment

11,180 Jobs

Sports Complex

71 Acres

Education

5 Schools

Emergency Services

2 Fire Stations

VILLAGE 5

The Numbers

VILLAGE 5

Parks & Open Space

VILLAGE 5

Regional Sports Park

VILLAGE 5

Road Network

VILLAGE 5

Mobility Plan

Why is the Ag Overlay Proposed? What Changed Since Planning Commission? Benefits Existing Ag Properties • Allows continuation AND new ag uses • Ag allowed on interim basis or in perpetuity Defines standards for New Development • Buffer requirements for new uses only • Animal keeping/separation

FAQs – See www.lincolnwestvillages.com

VILLAGE 5

Ag Overlay: Permitted Uses & Development Standards

VILLAGE 5

Ag Overlay - Original

VILLAGE 5

Ag Overlay - Revised

VILLAGE 5

Phase Areas

Project Timing • Annexation - LAFCO Application (1st Quarter, 2018) • Backbone Engineering Plans for Area A • First Neighborhood Design/Tract Maps

2019-2020 • Annexation – Approved • Break Ground on Area A (Infrastructure = $111M)

2020-2035+ • First Homes Constructed (2020/2021) • 15+ Years for Full Buildout

VILLAGE 5

2018 - 2019

Implements Lincoln’s Vision and Long Term Goals of having: • • • • • • •

Distinctive community with a strong sense of place Balance of complementary uses Enhance existing natural resources Appropriate land uses transitions Range of housing choices and opportunities Mixed uses adjacent to SR 65 bypass Compatibility with Lincoln Regional Airport

VILLAGE 5

General Plan Implementation

Economic Development • Great Access: High Visibility and access from SR 65 • Balanced Jobs & Housing: 11,000 jobs (1.4:1 ratio) • Diversity: Mix of uses and housing density • Self Sustaining: Funds emergency and public services without over-burdening existing residents • Provides Surplus: $6M+ annually to General Fund at buildout • Complements the Community: Connects with Downtown and other Villages

VILLAGE 5

• Shopping & Employment Opportunities: Regional and community-scale retail and office

• Implements City’s vision and General Plan • Master-Planned and Balanced Community • Significant trails, parks and open space • Regional Sports Park • Variety of housing types • Strengthens City’s financial standing • Enables long-term economic sustainability and growth

VILLAGE 5

Benefits to Lincoln

Recommend Documents