Agenda — Roseville City Council, August 17, 2022 (part 4 of 8)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In April 2020, an Addendum to the 2004 WRSP EIR was prepared to address development of a 6-field sports complex on WRSP Parcel W 60A. The City now proposes to acquire adjacent Parcel W-60B within the WRSP Area and expand the proposed Complex. Although environmental review to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been completed for a portion of the Proposed Project (6 of the 10 fields), a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared to evaluate the full buildout of 10 fields.

As the CEQA Lead Agency, staff determined that a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate CEQA document to address potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. A Subsequent IS/MND may be prepared if changes to a project or its circumstances occur, or new information becomes available. The Subsequent IS/MND has been prepared because the proposed project does not include substantial changes that would require major revisions of the previously certified West Roseville Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (WRSP EIR) and no significant and unavoidable effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a), § 15162(b).

Notice of the intent to adopt a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Sacramento Bee, and sent to property owners and residents within 300’ of the project, and to those who attended the public workshops. The Subsequent IS/MND was made available online and via hard copy for review for 30 days (July 12 through August 10, 2022). As of the date of this Council Communication, no comments have been submitted.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-329
Vicinity Map
Soccer Complex MMRP
Roseville Sports Complex Master Plan
NOI IS_MNDRoseville Sports Complex - IS/MND
Attachment A - Concept Plans
Attachment C- Visual Simulation
Attachment E - Air Quality
Attachment F - Biological
Attachment G- Cultural Resources
Attachment H- Traffic Impact Study
Attachment I - Environmental NoiseAssessment
Attachment B.1.1 - Design Plans
Attachment B.1.2 - Design Plans
Attachment B.1.3 - Design Plans
Attachment B.2.1 - Design Plans
Attachment B.2.2 - Design Plans
Attachment B.2.3 - Design Plans
Attachment B.2.4 - Design Plans
Attachment D- Light Analysis: Part 1
Attachment D- Light Analysis: Part 2
Attachment D- Light Analysis: Part 3
Attachment D- Light Analysis: Part 3
RESOLUTION NO. 22-329

ADOPTING THE SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR

THE ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT
WHEREAS, a 25 acre Regional Sports Complex was proposed at 2600 Westbrook Drive in West Roseville; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to add an additional 20 acres immediately to the south of the project site; and
WHEREAS, once the purchase of the 20 acres is complete, the complex site will total approximately 51 acres supporting ten fields, and makes the complex a more attractive site for statewide and regional events; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was made available for a 30 day public review and comment period from July 12, 2022 through August 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared to assist with the tracking and implementation of required mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Initial Study conclusion is that with implementation of all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and MMRP, all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant and an MND is proposed to satisfy CEQA requirements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the MMRP to satisfy the project’s CEQA requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that it finds on the basis of the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the whole record, including public comments and other documents, that if the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project is conditioned with mitigation measures as proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Roseville, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project is hereby approved.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Regional Soccer Complex
Vicinity Map
Westbrook Blvd W-50E (3 ac) 1.5 acre W-60A (25 ac) Blue Oaks Blvd W-60B (20 ac) Pistachio Regional Park West Park High School Waste Water Treatment Plant
CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
for the
Roseville Regional Sports Complex
Project
August 2022
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project 1 August 2022 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require public agencies to adopt a monitoring or reporting program for projects approved under CEQA that require implementation of mitigation measures as part of project approval.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project (proposed project). The intent of the MMRP is to aid the City of Roseville with implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Final Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

The following mitigation measures are from the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Final Subsequent IS/MND and are the responsibility of the City to implement. As stated in Section 1.3 (Documents Incorporated by Reference) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the WRSP EIR, inclusive of all CEQA analyses and documentation) are incorporated by reference, including the WRSP MMRP. This MMRP describes the additional actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

MMRP Components
The components of the attached table, which contains applicable mitigation measures, are addressed briefly, below.

Impact: This column summarizes the impact identified in the Final Subsequent IS/MND.

Mitigation Measures: All applicable mitigation measures from the WRSP EIR are incorporated by reference, and mitigation measures specifically identified in the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND are presented herein.

Action(s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented.

Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure for specifics.

Implementing Party: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action.

City of Roseville CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Roseville Regional Sports Complex
Project 2 August 2022
Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified.

Monitoring Party: The City of Roseville Development Services Department, in coordination with the Public Works Department, is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Within the City of Roseville, a number of departments and divisions could have responsibility for monitoring some aspect of the overall project. Other agencies may also be responsible for monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, more than one monitoring party may be identified.

City of Roseville CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Roseville Regional Sports Complex
Project 3 August 2022
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party Air Quality
Potential for air pollutant
emissions due to project
construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Control Measures
The City shall ensure that the following control measures will be implemented during construction:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of the CCR).

Implement actions as identified
by MM AQ-1
Contractor. City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department
During Construction Contractor, City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Biological Resources
Potential for impacts to nesting
birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Birds
If construction activities (e.g., building, grading, ground disturbance, removal of vegetation) are scheduled to occur during the general nesting season (February 15—August 30), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist throughout areas of suitable habitat on and within 500 feet of proposed construction activity. The survey shall occur no more than 5 days prior to the scheduled onset of construction. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 5 days, another pre-construction survey for nesting bird species shall be conducted. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.

Implement actions as required
by MM BIO-1.

Contractor. City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Prior to construction Contractor, City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential for impacts to tribal
cultural resources
TCR-1 Post-Review Discovery Procedures
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or TCRs, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100- foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City’s Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately contact a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations. All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.

Stop work if potential tribal
cultural resources are
encountered during grounddisturbing activities and have a qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with culturally
affiliated tribes, evaluate the
find and develop a response
plan.

Contractor, Qualified
Archaeologist, and
City of Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Prior to and during
construction
Contractor, City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department
The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural resource or has the potential to be a TCR. The subsequent actions will be determined by the type of discovery, as described below. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to TCRs, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to TCRs, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

City of Roseville CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Roseville Regional Sports Complex
Project 4 August 2022
Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a TCR, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.

The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
 Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative. No further notifications or tribal consultation is necessary because the discovery is not a TCR of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation of this finding to the City.
 Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-TCR from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a). The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City. The City will notify the tribe(s) who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-TCRs. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether or not the find represents a TCR. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a tribe(s), the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a TCR, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a); or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.  Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially TCR that does not include human remains, the tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a), or a TCR, as defined in PRC § 21074. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the nowork radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a); or 2) not a TCR, as defined in PRC § 21074; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
 Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (PRC § 5097.98). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. PRC § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (PRC § 5097.94).  If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (PRC § 5097.98). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

WETLAND HIGH WATER LINE WETLAND HIGH WATER LINE SETBACK

WETLAND HIGH WATER LINE WETLAND HIGH WATER

LINE SETBACK

WETLAND SETBACK

WETLAND HIGH WATER LINE

WETLAND HIGH WATER

LINE SETBACK

WETLAND SETBACK

WETLAND SETBACK WETLAND SETBACK

WETLAND SETBACK

WETLAND SETBACK WETLAND

WETLAND

WETLAND HIGH WATER LINE

WETLAND HIGH WATER

LINE SETBACK

VAN NO PARKINGVAN
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO

PARKING

VAN NO PARKING

BUS PARKING
PASSENGER DROP OFF BUS PARKING PASSENGER DROP OFF 95
94 93 92 95
96 97
97 96
97 94
93 92
94 93
92 95
96 91 STROLLER PARKING
92 90 12 62 46 42 37 LH LH SS 64 REQUIRED RAMP LANDING AREA REQUIRED RAMP LANDING AREA ENTRANCE +12 NO POST NO POST NO POST NO POST NO POST NO POST NO POST BELT TUNNEL

NO POST

NO POST
NO POST 16 8 8 STR STR +56" 12 12 +0' +0' 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 72 16 8 16 1620 16 VAN NO PARKING (45'X20') MAINTENANCE BUILDING WITH RESTROOM (50'X60') MAINTENANCE SHOP (60'X25') COVERED EQUIPMENT STORAGE (40'X25') COVERED WASH STATION WITH SEWER 5- (17'X9') MATERIAL STORAGE AREA (20'X25') STORAGE (20'X25') STORAGE (8'X24') DUMPSTER (8'X24') COMPACTOR (40') RAMP UP TO LANDING JUNE 27, 2022 City of Roseville Soccer Complex City of Roseville Westbrook Boulevard MASTER PLAN - CONCEPT NORTH FIELD 1 FIELD 2 FIELD 4 FIELD 3 FIELD 5 FIELD 6 FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9 FIELD 10 LEGEND FIELDS: 70 YARDS x 120 YARDS (SEE ENLARGEMENT) 20' SPECTATOR SIDE BUFFER 22.5' PLAYER SIDE BUFFER 15' ENDS OF FIELD BUFFER NORTH PARKING LOT 594 PARKING STALLS RESTROOMS AT PLAZA CONCESSIONS BUILDING PICNIC SHADE STRUCTURES (20' X50') TEMPORARY NETTING ALL ACCESSIBLE PLAY AREA (1 ACRE) PARK STORAGE/MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED FUTURE PHASE 1 SOLAR SHADE STRUCTURES - NORTH PARKING LOT (77,760 SQ. FT.) 135' X 40' = 30 PARKING STALLS (10 TOTAL) 108' X 40' = 24 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) 90' X 40' = 20 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) BIOREMEDIATION = 25,926 SQUARE FEET U10 & U12 COMBINED - YOUTH SOCCER STRIPING (45 YDS X 65 YDS) RESTROOM AT PLAYGROUND PLAYGROUND SHADE STRUCTURE (1-21'X' 38' ) EXISTING PUBLIC BUS STOP PIPE GATE BUS DROP OFF FOOD TRUCK PARKING 16' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND MAINTENANCE YARD 42" TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 8' TALL OMEGA II FENCE WITH 22' NETTING 10'X10' POP-UP TENT WITH SCORER'S TABLE SPORTS LIGHTING SHADE STRUCTURES - PROMENADE SOCCER GOAL PLAYER'S AREA WARM-UP AREA PARK ENTRY SIGN ON FENCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SOUTH PARKING LOT 361 PARKING STALLS FUTURE PHASE 2 SOLAR SHADE STRUCTURES - SOUTH PARKING LOT (51,120 SQ. FT.) 144' X 40' = 32 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) 135' X 40' = 24 PARKING STALLS (2 TOTAL) 72' X 40' = 18 PARKING STALLS (8 TOTAL)

DURANGO
ROAD
DRIVE
BROOKSTONE PHILLIP ROAD 594 STALLS 11 7 13 3 4518 1 24 16 1234567891011121314151617 1819202122232425262728 21 28 21 23 14 24 1919 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 1 2 29 11 29 8 101010 101010 1010 1010 25 30 30 30 6 6 6 6 101010 101010 11 11 11 30 22 26

BROOKSTONE
DRIVE A 1"-20' FIELD ENLARGEMENT PLAN VIEW WESTBROOK BLVD. ENLARGEMENT A 29 21 21 222121 1919 21 21 24 24 24 24 24 20 16 12 12 1 11 17 15 25 25 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 ADD ALTERNATE 1: FIELDS 2 & 9 4 CANTILEVER SHADE STRUCTURES AT FIELDS SOUTH PLAZA AREA 186 PARKING STALLS- SOUTH FUTURE PHASE: FIELDS 1 &10 4 CANTILEVER SHADE STRUCTURES AT FIELDS MAINTENANCE ROAD/PERIMETER WALKWAY 175 PARKING STALLS - SOUTH 0' 50' 100' 200' 300' 1 345 25 30 1 25 11 18 1 9 25 1 25 361 STALLS 31 31 32 323232 323232 323232 3232 3232 25 25

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5285

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A SUBSEQENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
Public Notice is hereby given that a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental report) for the Roseville Regional Soccer Complex Project is available for public review.

Project Location and Description: The project site is located on a 55-acre site in northwest Roseville, in western Placer County, California. The project site is located within the West Roseville Specific Plan Area, and consists of portions of four parcels: APN 496-020-034-000, APN 496-020-033-000, APN 496-020-032-000, and APN 017-101-017-000. The site land use and zoning designations are for Parks and Recreation (PR) and Light Industrial/Special Area (M1/SA). The project site is bound by Westbrook Boulevard to the west, Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) to the east, and undeveloped commercially zoned parcels to the north and south.

The proposed project consists of the following components: The City of Roseville is proposing to construct a 10-field multisport facility layout consisting of the following components: lighted sports fields, onsite surface parking, walking/jogging trails, play areas, picnic areas, plazas and gathering spaces, a maintenance building, restroom building, field house and concessions building with a covered patio area.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites: The project site is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.

Document Review and Availability: The public comment period will extend 30 days from July 12 to August 10, 2022.

The document can be viewed and/or downloaded from the City of Roseville website at the following link:
www.roseville.ca.us/environmentaldocuments
Copies of the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are also available for review at the City of Roseville Permit Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678. Business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm (closed between 12:00-1:00 pm).

Public Meeting: The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is tentatively scheduled for consideration and possible adoption by the City Council on August 17, 2022. City Council meetings start at 6:00 p.m., online and tentatively in the Roseville Council Chambers, 311 Vernon Street. Interested parties should refer to https://www.roseville.ca.us/ and/or call the Roseville City Clerk’s Office to confirm meeting locations, agendas, times, and dates (774-5263).

Contact: Written comments on the Initial Study and/or questions may be directed to: Terri Shirhall, Development Services Department, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (774-5536), or [email protected].

SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT
WRSP SCH. NO.2002082057
JULY 2022
PREPARED FOR:

City of Roseville
Parks & Recreation Department
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
PREPARED BY:

Montrose Environmental Solutions
1801 7th Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 447-3479
www.montrose-env.com
JULY 2022
PREPARED FOR:

City of Roseville
Parks & Recreation Department
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
PREPARED BY:

Montrose Environmental Solutions
1801 7th Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 447-3479
www.montrose-env.com

SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT
WRSP SCH. NO.2002082057
July 2022 i Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Summary/Environmental Checklist Form............................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose of Subsequent Initial Study.................................................................................1-2

1.3 Documents Incorporated By Reference............................................................................1-2

1.4 Organization of the Initial Study ......................................................................................1-3

1.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................1-3

1.6 CEQA Environmental Determination (To be completed by the lead agency).................1-4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project History..................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................2-1

2.3 Project Description...........................................................................................................2-6 Regional Sports Complex Master Plan .............................................................2-6 Transportation and Pedestrian Improvements...................................................2-7 Phasing and Construction..................................................................................2-8 Utilities..............................................................................................................2-9

2.4 Required Agency Approvals..........................................................................................2-10

2.5 City of Roseville Mitigation Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards............................2-11 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (CHECKLIST).............................................................................3-1

3.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..............................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Evaluation Terminology....................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis.............................................................................3-1

3.2 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................3-3 Environmental Checklist...................................................................................3-3 Setting ...............................................................................................................3-3 Discussion of Impacts .......................................................................................3-6 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................3-8

3.3 Agriculture/Forestry Resources........................................................................................3-9 Environmental Checklist...................................................................................3-9 Setting .............................................................................................................3-10 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-11 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-12

3.4 Air Quality......................................................................................................................3-13 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-13 Setting .............................................................................................................3-13 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-18 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-22

3.5 Biological Resources......................................................................................................3-23 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-23 Setting .............................................................................................................3-24 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-30 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-33 Table of Contents
July 2022 ii Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.6 Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................3-35 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-35 Setting .............................................................................................................3-35 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-39 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-40

3.7 Energy ............................................................................................................................3-41 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-41 Setting .............................................................................................................3-41 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-43 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-45

3.8 Geology/Soils.................................................................................................................3-46 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-46 Setting .............................................................................................................3-47 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-49 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-53

3.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................3-54 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................3-54 Setting .............................................................................................................3-54 Discussion of Impacts .....................................................................................3-59 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................3-61

3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................3-62 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-62 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-63 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-64 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-67

3.11 Hydrology/Water quality................................................................................................3-68 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-68 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-69 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-72 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-74

3.12 Land Use/Planning .........................................................................................................3-75 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-75 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-75 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-76 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-77

3.13 Mineral Resources..........................................................................................................3-78 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-78 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-78 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-78 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-79

3.14 Noise...............................................................................................................................3-80 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-80 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-80 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-88 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-91

3.15 Population and Housing .................................................................................................3-92 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-92 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-92 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-93 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-93

3.16 Public Services...............................................................................................................3-94 Table of Contents
July 2022 iii Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-94 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-94 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-95 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-97

3.17 Recreation.......................................................................................................................3-98 Environmental Checklist...............................................................................3-98 Setting ...........................................................................................................3-98 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................3-98 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................3-99

3.18 Transportation ..............................................................................................................3-100 Environmental Checklist.............................................................................3-100 Setting .........................................................................................................3-100 Discussion of Impacts .................................................................................3-112 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................3-116

3.19 Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................................3-117 Environmental Checklist.............................................................................3-117 Setting .........................................................................................................3-117 Discussion of Impacts .................................................................................3-119 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................3-120

3.20 Utilities/Service Systems..............................................................................................3-123 Environmental Checklist.............................................................................3-123 Setting .........................................................................................................3-123 Discussion of Impacts .................................................................................3-125 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................3-129

3.21 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................3-130 Environmental Checklist.............................................................................3-130 Setting .........................................................................................................3-130 Discussion of Impacts .................................................................................3-131 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................3-133

3.22 Mandatory Finding of Significance..............................................................................3-134 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................4-1 City of Roseville – Lead Agency ...............................................................................................4-1 Montrose Environmental Solutions – Consultant.......................................................................4-1 Saxelby Acoustics – Noise Consultant.......................................................................................4-1 Fehr & Peers – Traffic Engineer ................................................................................................4-1 Musco Sports Lighting – Light Engineer...................................................................................4-1 5 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................5-1 Table of Contents
July 2022 iv Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Permits and Approvals Needed for the Proposed Project 2-10 Table 3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Violation Criteria 3-15 Table 3-2. PCAPCD Attainment Status 3-16
Table 3-3. PCAPCD Recommended Thresholds of Significance 3-18 Table 3-4. Construction Emissions 3-19
Table 3-5. Operational Emissions 3-20
Table 3-6. PCAPCD CEQA GHG Thresholds of Significance 3-58 Table 3-7. Construction GHG Emissions 3-60
Table 3-8. Operational GHG Emissions 3-60
Table 3-9. Typical Noise Levels 3-82
Table 3-10. Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data 3-83 Table 3-11. Sound Level Standards (for non-tranpsortation or fixed sound sources) 3-86 Table 3-12. Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings 3-88 Table 3-13. Construction Equipment Noise 3-89
Table 3-14. Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment 3-91 Table 3-15. Vehicle Trip Generation 3-104
Table 3-16. Weekday Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison 3-114

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-2
Figure 2-2. Site and Vicinity
Figure 2-3. Site Plans Over Aerial Image
Figure 2-4. Site Plan
2-3
2-4
2-5
Figure 3-1. Proposed Views of the Project Site 3-5
Figure 3-2. Habitat Types 3-29
Figure 3-3. Soil Types 3-50

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Concept Plans
Attachment B: Design Plans
Attachment C: Visual Simulations and Graphics
Attachment D: Light Analysis
Attachment E: Air Quality and GHG Model Runs
Attachment F: Biological Technical Memorandum
Attachment G: Cultural Resources Letter Report (Confidential) Attachment H: Transportation Impact Study
Attachment I: Environmental Noise Assessment
July 2022 1-1 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Roseville (City) – Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department
311 Vernon St.

Roseville, CA 95678
Contact Person and Phone Number: Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator (916) 774-5536, [email protected]
Project Location: The Project Site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Roseville in Placer County (County). The Project Site is bound by Westbrook Blvd. to the west, Pleasant Grove
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the east, and is
surrounded by a mixture of residential, industrial, and open space.

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent City of Roseville, Parks, Recreation & Libraries
316 Vernon St., Suite 400
Roseville, CA 95678
General Plan Designation: Park and Recreation (P/R) and Light Industrial (LI) Zoning: Park and Recreation (PR) and Light Industrial/Special Area (M1/SA)
Description of the Project: The Proposed Project involves construction of a regional sports complex on an approximately 51-acre Project Site.

The Proposed Project would include 10 sports fields, a
universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is included in Section 2.3.

Existing and Surrounding Land Uses: The 51-acre Project Site partially spans across four parcels:

City Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 496-020-034-000
(WRSP Parcel W-60B), 496-020-033-000 (WRSP Parcel
W-60A), 496-020-032-000 (WRSP Parcel W-50E), and
017-101-017-000. All parcels are currently undeveloped and located within City limits. Lands to the north of the Project Site are zoned Community Commercial (CC). Lands to the
west of the Project Site are zoned Low and High Density Residential. Lands to the south of the Project Site are zoned Light Industrial (M1). Lands to the east are zoned
Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and contain the Pleasant Grove WWTP and Roseville Energy Park (REP).
2 Project Description
July 2022 1-2 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Other Public Agencies Whose Approval
may be Required:

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CVRWQCB)
Consultation with California Native
American Tribes
The City sent Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation letters to relevant Tribes. The letter requested that the Tribes notify the City within 30 days if they would like to engage in formal consultation regarding possible significant effects that the Proposed Project may have on tribal cultural resources. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) requested
consultation and responded with suggested mitigation
measures. Additionally, the Wilton Rancheria requested
consultation, but did not reply to subsequent
communication. Therefore, the requirements of Public
Resources Code (PRC) § 21080.3.1 have been satisfied. Refer to the discussion in Section 3.19 regarding outreach to Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

1.2 PURPOSE OF SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY
This Draft Initial Study (IS) was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15162. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure informed governmental decisions by identifying ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage through feasible mitigation or project alternatives and to provide public disclosure (CEQA Guidelines § 15002 [a][1]-[4]). The City is the Lead Agency for review of the Proposed Project under CEQA. As the Lead Agency, the City determined that a Subsequent IS is the appropriate CEQA document to address potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b), the Lead Agency may prepare a Subsequent IS if changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a), a Subsequent IS has been prepared because the Proposed Project does not include substantial changes that would require major revisions of the previous West Roseville Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (WRSP EIR) and no significant and unavoidable effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The City’s General Plan 2035 (General Plan) was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2020, along with the certified Final General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR was prepared in compliance with the CEQA of 1970 (PRC § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan. The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) was adopted in February 2004. A Final EIR for the WRSP was published in January 2004. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150(a), the General Plan, WRSP, and corresponding EIRs, inclusive of all subsequent CEQA analyses and documentation, are incorporated by reference. The impact discussions for each section of this Subsequent IS are in part 2 Project Description
July 2022 1-3 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration based on information in these documents. All documents are online at www.roseville.ca.us/Planning and at the City of Roseville, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This document is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0. Introduction: Describes the purpose, contents, and organization of the document and provides a project summary. Includes the significance determination, which identifies the determination of whether impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project are significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation may be required.

Section 2.0. Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the Proposed Project.

Section 3.0. Environmental Impact Analysis: Contains the Environmental Checklist from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with a discussion of potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are noted following each impact discussion.

Section 4.0. List of Preparers
Section 5.0. References
Attachments. Contains information to supplement sections within the Subsequent IS.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Proposed Project, involving at least one impact requiring mitigation to bring the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impacts to these resources are evaluated using the checklist included in Section 3.0. The Proposed Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact or no impact without mitigation on unchecked resource areas.
 Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance

1.6 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
2 Project Description
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
!ZI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

Signature
Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator
Printed Name
July 2022 1-4
Date
City of Roseville
Lead Agency /
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2022 2-1 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT HISTORY
The WRSP includes 3,162 acres west of Fiddyment Road, generally north of Pleasant Grove Blvd. The plan was adopted in February 2004. A Final EIR for the WRSP was certified February 14, 2004 (State Clearinghouse No. 2002082057). Chapter 8 of the WRSP, Public Services Plan, included the planned development of a Regional Sports Park containing 10 soccer fields, baseball fields, a lighted soccer/football stadium, tennis courts, softball fields, concession area with restrooms, outdoor seating, and parking lots (refer to page 8-8 and Figure 8-4 of the WRSP). This Regional Sports Park was proposed to be located on WRSP Parcels F-55 and F-56, on the corner of Blue Oaks Blvd. and Hayden Parkway, adjacent to a high school site. The WRSP EIR analyzed potential impacts of this Regional Sports Park.

Since approval of the WRSP and WRSP EIR, the proposed location of the Regional Sports Park (currently referred to as the Roseville Regional Sports Complex [Complex]) has changed, which this Subsequent IS evaluates (Proposed Project). The location of the Complex has been relocated approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the original proposed location to WRSP Parcels W-60A, W-60B, W-50E, and City parcel 017-101-017-000. APN 017-101-017-000 is not within the WRSP area; therefore, 2.96 acres of the total 51-acre Project Site lies outside of the WRSP boundaries. Additionally, the site plan arrangement has been modified to include 10 sports fields, a universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. Overall, the Proposed Project is a less intensive use than originally proposed and represents a smaller Project Site (approximately 51 acres rather than 75.15 acres). The revised site plan is depicted on Figures 2-3 and 2-4 and detailed engineered site and design plans are included in Attachments A and B.

In April 2020, the City approved an addendum to the 2004 WRSP EIR to develop a 6-field sports complex on WRSP Parcel W-60A. The City now proposes to acquire adjacent Parcel W-60B within the WRSP Area and expand the proposed Complex. Although environmental review has been completed for a portion of the Proposed Project (6 of the 10 fields), this Subsequent IS evaluates the entire project (full buildout of 10 fields and all related accessories) to accurately disclose, assess, and mitigate potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project Site is located in the northwestern portion of the City in Placer County, California. The Project Site is bound by Westbrook Blvd. to the west, Pleasant Grove WWTP to the east, and is surrounded by a mixture of residential, industrial, and open space (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The 51-acre Project Site partially spans across four parcels: City APNs 496-020-034-000 (WRSP Parcel W-60B), 496-020-033-000 (WRSP Parcel W-60A), 496-020-032-000 (WRSP Parcel W-50E), 017-101-017-000.

Three of the four parcels are located within the WRSP land use plan. The Project Site includes all of APN 496-020-033-000 (25.20 acres—zoned Park and Recreation (PR)), the majority of APN 496-020-032-000 (3.0 acres—zoned PR), the southern portion of APN 017-101-017-000 (2.7 acres— ^_
Project Site
§¨¦99
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
§¨¦113
§¨¦50
§¨¦65
§¨¦113
§¨¦50
§¨¦80
£¤70
£¤20
£¤88
£¤20
£¤99
£¤49
UV113
UV45
UV16
UV160
UV124
UV174
UV193
UV104
UV113
Figure 2-1
Regional Location
SOURCE: ESRI, 2022; Montrose Environmental, 6/14/2022
0 4 8
Miles
!¢
N OÐR T H
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 LegenSCdALE
^_
^_ Project Site
Placer County
Westbrook Blvd
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Westpark Dr
496-020-034-000
496-020-033-000
017-101-017-000
496-020-032-000
Curnan Way
Figure 2-2
Site and Vicinity
SOURCE: Placer County parcel data; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 0 500 1,000
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
LEGEND
Project Site
City Parcels
We
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Figure 2-3
Site Plans Over Aerial Image
SOURCE: Verde Design, 6/6/2022; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/14/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
Playground
Public Restrooms
Public Restrooms
Parking
Parking
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 Figure 2-4
Site Plan
SOURCE: Verde Design 6/27/2022; AES-Montrose, 6/28/2022 2 Project Description
July 2022 2-6 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration zoned PR), and the northern portion of APN 496-020-034-000 (20.1 acres—zoned Light Industrial/Special Area).

All parcels are currently undeveloped and located within City limits. An aerial photograph of the Project Site is provided in Figure 2-3. Surrounding land uses are comprised of residential, industrial, commercial, and public uses. Lands to the north of the Project Site are zoned Community Commercial (CC). Lands to the west of the Project Site are zoned Low and High Density Residential. Lands to the south of the Project Site are zoned Light Industrial (M1). Lands to the east are zoned Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and contain the Pleasant Grove WWTP and REP. Regional access to the Project Site is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80). Vehicular access to the Project Site is provided via Westbrook Blvd. An existing power line easement exists along the eastern border of the Project Site and runs from north to south. The Project Site is vacant and relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 90 feet to 100 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX MASTER PLAN
The Proposed Project would include construction of a total of 10 sports fields (artificial turf), a universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2-4, with detailed engineering and design plans found in Attachment B. Renderings of Proposed Project elements, including views of the Project Site, conceptual playground plans, and signage, are included in Attachment C. An 8-foot chain link fence would surround each sports field.

Fencing along Westbrook Blvd. would be decorative and include a 22-foot high netting above the fence to catch stray soccer balls. Trees would be planted along the northern, western, and southern Project Site boundaries to provide screening and to improve aesthetics of the Project Site. Refer to Figure 3-1 and Attachment C for a rendering of the view of the Proposed Project from Westbrook Blvd., including fencing and landscaping. The Proposed Project would be constructed in two phases, with initial construction of 6 to 8 fields (Phase 1) and the remaining 2 to 4 when funding is available (Phase 2). This Subsequent Initial Study analyzes all potential impacts from full buildout of the Proposed Project.

Parking and Public Transport
The Proposed Project includes two parking lots (North Lot and South Lot) and provides a total of 955 parking stalls, 594 stalls in the North Lot (12 of which are accessible stalls) and 361 stalls in the South Lot (9 of which are accessible stalls). Parking was designed to accommodate a maximum potential of 95 people per field, which is higher than the anticipated maximum potential of 75 people per field. A designated bus drop-off area is proposed on the southern portion of the Project Site at the southern end of the South Lot. Food trucks are expected to be present at tournaments or larger events and would park within the North and South Lots. A public bus stop location is located on the southwest end of the Project Site along Westbrook Blvd. A bus pullout area and bus shelter pad currently exist. 2 Project Description
July 2022 2-7 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lighting
The Proposed Project would install 37 poles for stadium lighting along the 10 soccer fields; each pole would be 70 feet tall and designed for downcast lighting. A light analysis is included in Attachment D.

Additionally, lighting would be installed in the parking lots and on accessory buildings such as restrooms and food stalls.

Landscaping
Landscaping is proposed throughout the Project Site and would be irrigated with recycled water. Trees would be planted along the northern, western, and southern Project Site boundaries (refer to Figure 3-1 for a rendering of the Project Site as viewed from Westbrook Blvd.). A Planting Plan, which depicts the location and type of landscaping is included on Sheet L9.1 of Attachment B. A row of existing redwood and fir trees line the eastern border of the Project Site, partially providing a visual barrier of the Pleasant Grove WWTP. A walking path would be constructed through these trees on the eastern border of the Project Site.

On-Site Operations
The sports fields would serve local sports groups, as well as facilitate regional tournaments. Fields would be rented out individually; some rentals would be recurring reservations, while others would be reserved for tournaments and events. At maximum capacity during general field use, it is anticipated that up to 50 visitors would occur per field, with a maximum visitor potential of 500 people when all 10 fields are in use. For special tournaments, it is anticipated that up to 75 visitors would occur per field, with a maximum visitor potential of 750 people when all 10 fields are in use. Approximately 15 tournaments would occur per year between November through March and holiday weekends (Friday through Sunday only); an additional 5 tournaments would occur for other sports throughout the year. At a maximum, the use of all 10 fields is only anticipated to occur up to 3 nights per week. The majority of use is anticipated to occur Monday through Thursday and Saturdays. Use on Fridays would be minimal (potentially up to 35 visitors).

During weekdays, the Project Site would be used for practices that run from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. It is anticipated that the Complex would operate with three, 1.5-hour practice timeslots beginning at 4:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., and 7:30 p.m. During weekends, games would run from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The Proposed Project would require up to eight employees—one sports supervisor, one recreation leader, two maintenance workers, and four seasonal part-time employees.

TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The Proposed Project would include the following modifications to both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive intersections:
 Construction of a new east leg. The westbound approach would include two lanes—a shared through-left lane and a right-turn lane.
 Construction of a northbound right-turn pocket with a storage length of approximately 220 feet. 2 Project Description
July 2022 2-8 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Proposed Project does not propose to modify the existing all-way stop sign-control or marked crosswalks at either the northerly or southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive intersection. The Proposed Project would construct new sidewalks along the Westbrook Blvd. Project Site frontage, as well as a new north-south pedestrian path through the center of the Project Site. The Project Site would occupy a portion of the existing Phillip Road alignment. With implementation of the Proposed Project, the east-west segment of Phillip Road would have a new westerly terminus at the Project Site’s northerly parking lot (i.e., this segment of Phillip Road would extend between Westpark Drive and the Project Site). The north-south segment of Phillip Road would not provide access to the Project Site.

PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION
The Proposed Project is anticipated to be built in two phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to include the construction of 6 to 8 of the 10 fields, between 594 to 769 parking stalls, approximately 77,760 square feet (sf) of rooftop solar panels within the North Lot, and associated facilities such as restrooms and playground. Construction of Phase 1 of the Proposed Project is anticipated to begin in Spring 2023 and complete in Fall 2024. Phase 2 is anticipated to include the addition of the remaining 2 to 4 fields, remaining parking stalls (approximately 361 to 186 stalls), and approximately 51,120 sf of solar panels within the South Lot. Construction of Phase 2 is dependent on available funding; construction is anticipated to occur within five years of completion of Phase 1.

Construction activities would include site grading, excavation, and trenching for installation of utilities, installation of artificial turf and playground, and construction of structures. Overhead electrical lines currently exist on the Project Site. The East/West trending overhead lines would be relocated underground. The North/South trending overhead lines would remain as is. Grading Plans and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan were developed for the Proposed Project and are included as Sheet L4.1 and Sheet L2.1 of Attachment B, respectively. Grading of Project Site soils is anticipated to include 41,636 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 41,458 cy of fill material, for a total net cut of 178 cy.

Approximately 2,110 cy of asphalt, 2,052 cy of concrete, 5,984 cy of aggregate base, 7,375 cy of turn permeable base, and 34 cy of playground surfacing would be required. Equipment associated with construction activities is anticipated to include dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, cranes, forklifts, welders, pavers and paver equipment, rollers, and air compressors. A detailed breakdown of the estimated equipment use type, hours used, horsepower, and load factors are provided in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) report listed in Attachment E.

The Proposed Project would require the removal 24 trees. This includes a stand of living interior live oaks composed of 9 small-diameter oaks estimated as not exceeding a 10-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) for an individual stem. These nine trees would be removed to accommodate the North Lot component of the Proposed Project and are located northeast of the intersection of Westbrook Blvd. and Phillip Drive. Additionally, the Proposed Project would remove six redwood and fir trees on the eastern border of the Project Site to accommodate the north-south foot path component of the Proposed Project. These trees were previously installed for landscaping and sightline screen purposes to block views of the WWTP and transmission powerlines located to the east of the Project Site. Lastly, nine cottonwoods located mid-field of the Project Site southeast of the northern terminus of Brookstone Drive would be removed. Removal of trees on the Project Site as part of the Proposed 2 Project Description
July 2022 2-9 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project would be mitigated as required by the City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance (Roseville Municipal Code §19.66.030).

Construction entrances would be located on the western edge of the Project Site boundary at Brookstone Drive and Durango Way. Construction is not expected to interfere with traffic along Westbrook Blvd. or result in extended lane closures. Staging of construction materials is expected to be located in the northeast section of the Project Site within the Project Site boundary (refer to Sheet L2.1 of Attachment B).

Construction would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Up to 12 construction workers are expected to be onsite at a time.

UTILITIES
Water Supply
Water supply services for the Proposed Project would be supplied by the City of Roseville Department of Environmental Utilities and would be necessary for restrooms, water fountains, and misting devices.

Recycled water would be utilized for landscaping. Existing municipal water lines exist in the vicinity of the Project Site along Westbrook Blvd. in a north-south direction (24-inch) and along Durango Way (6-inch), and Brookstone Drive at two locations north (6-inch) and south (8-inch) of Durango Way in an east-west direction. Two main points of connection would be utilized, which are able to provide a max flow rate of 27 gallons per minute (GPM) and 90 GPM. The Proposed Project would tie into existing water and recycled water utility lines. The annual water demand for the Proposed Project is anticipated to be approximately 48,360,457 gallons per year. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department – Engineering Division has confirmed that adequate water supplies exist to serve the demands of the Proposed Project (Hanson, 2022).

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater services for the Proposed Project would be provided by the City of Roseville Department of Environmental Utilities and would be required to serve up to four proposed restrooms. An existing 8-inch sewer line is located on the western edge of the Project Site, and a 24-inch sewer line is located on the northern and southern edges of the Project Site. Wastewater would be processed at the Pleasant Grove WWTP, which is located directly to the east of the Project Site. The annual wastewater demand for the Proposed Project is anticipated to be no more than the estimated water demand for the Proposed Project: 48,360,457 gallons per year. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department – Engineering Division has confirmed that existing wastewater facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Proposed Project (Hanson, 2022).

Stormwater
Approximately 25,926 sf of bioremediation (bioswales) planted with filtering vegetation would be implemented throughout the Project Site, as seen on Figure 2-4. A Drainage and Utility Plan, which depicts the location of stormwater connections and bioremediation areas is included in Sheet L5.1 of 2 Project Description
July 2022 2-10 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment B. Stormwater infrastructure currently exists in the vicinity of the Project Site along Westbrook Blvd. with pipe diameters varying between 12 and 36 inches.

Electric and Solar Energy
Energy for the Proposed Project would be provided by Roseville Electric. Energy would be required for powering the stadium lighting, parking lot lighting, accessory structure lighting, security systems, and electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations (approximately 191 EV charging stations). The estimated maximum energy load calculations for the Proposed Project are approximately 2,480 kilowatts (kw) of energy (i.e., utilization of all 10 sports fields and all EV charging stations). Refer to Sheet E0.1 of Attachment B for Electrical Plans. The location of proposed solar panels is included within Attachment A. Solar panels would be constructed on the roofs of shade structures within the parking lots. During Phase 1, approximately 77,760 sf of solar panels would be installed within the North Lot, with additional solar installed in Phase 2 within the South Lot (approximately 51,120 sf of solar panels).

Solar energy would not power the Proposed Project; however, the solar energy would be placed back into the Roseville Electric grid.

2.4 REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15050 and 15367, the City is the ‘Lead Agency’ for the Proposed Project, which is defined as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project.”
Required permits and approvals are shown in Table 2-1. Local approvals required to construct and operate the Proposed Project include adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan by the City Council and approval of the plans and specifications as well as the construction contract for the Proposed Project. In addition, the proposed construction activities would trigger Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This coverage would require development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). No other State or federal approvals are required for the Proposed Project.

TABLE 2-1. PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

AGENCY PERMIT/APPROVAL
City of Roseville Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Roseville Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan City of Roseville Approval of Plans and Specifications and Construction Contract City of Roseville City required permits (such as grading permit).

State Water Resources Control
Board/Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Clean Water Act Section 402 coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit).
2 Project Description
July 2022 2-11 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE MITIGATION ORDINANCES,

GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS
CEQA Guidelines allow the use of previously adopted development policies or standards as mitigation for the environmental effects of future projects, 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 that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the effects (§15183[f]). In January 2021 the City of Roseville adopted Findings of Fact under Resolution 21-018, applicable to the following regulations and ordinances, which include standards and policies that are uniformly applied throughout the City and will substantially mitigate specified environmental effects of future projects. These policies and standards apply to approved projects and serve to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level as discussed in the initial study checklist. As part of the Proposed Project, the City will implement the following regulations and ordinances to reduce potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project.  Noise Regulation (Roseville Municipal Code Ch.9.24).
 Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Roseville Municipal Code Ch.14.20).
 Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 07-432).  City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (Resolution 07-137).  Community Design Guidelines (Resolution 95-347).
 Tree Preservation Ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66)
 Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation (Tribal Consultation Policy) (Resolution 20-294)
 West Roseville Specific Plan and Design Guidelines (Resolution 04-40) July 2022 3-1 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
(CHECKLIST)

3.1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15063, an IS should provide the lead agency with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration for a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines state that an IS may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence.

If it is determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the Subsequent IS checklist must indicate whether the impact is a New Significant Impact, Substantially More Severe Significant Impact, or Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation, compared to the original EIR analysis. Findings of No New Impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed project do not require further discussion. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 provides guidance regarding evaluation of environmental impacts for a Subsequent Negative Declaration.

3.1.1 EVALUATION TERMINOLOGY
The following sections contain the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of a proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
 New Significant Impact: An impact not previously evaluated in the WRSP EIR that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified and no mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, an EIR must be prepared.
 Substantially More Severe Significant Impact: An impact previously evaluated in the WRSP EIR, determined to be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. If no mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, an EIR must be prepared.  Less-than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation: A new impact associated with the Proposed Project that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adding additional mitigation that was not identified in the WRSP EIR.
 No New Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in a new potentially significant impact that was not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR.

3.1.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
In addition to growth associated with the build-out projections in the General Plan and WRSP, the projects described below were considered in determining whether the impacts of the Proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h). 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-2 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Roseville Industrial Park: The project request, located at 6382 Phillip Road, is for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Major Project Permit, Parcel Map, Tree Permit, and Development Agreement to allow the development of an industrial park with a range of industrial uses, including light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses (totaling up to 2,430,000 sf), a potential electrical substation, and associated site improvements. The project would include up to 15 buildings, ranging in size from 80,000 sf to 300,500 sf.  West Roseville Marketplace: The project includes a request for a Design Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for an 8.80-acre commercial center located on the northeast corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Fiddyment Road. The project would include a major tenant (i.e., Safeway), several shops, one free-standing building with a gas station, and a free-standing drive-through building. The project includes a major building totaling approximately 55,592 sf, inline shops totaling 13,950 sf, a free-standing drive-through pad totaling 5,500 sf, and a gas station with 8 pumps and an 830 sf free-standing kiosk.  Winding Creek Apartments: The project, located at 3338 Blue Oaks Blvd., is a request for a Design Review Permit to allow the construction of 216 multi-family residential units on an

8.6-acre High Density Residential parcel, with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The project consists of 9, 24 plex 3-story garden style walkup buildings with two different building types and an approximate 5,300 sf single story clubhouse building. The clubhouse consists of leasing offices, a game room, and a gathering room as well as a fitness room with outdoor yoga area. Other site amenities include a pool with covered outdoor seating and cabana area with barbecue grills.
 WRSP PCL W-16 Multifamily Project: The project, located at 3200 Pleasant Grove Blvd., is a request for a Design Review Permit to allow the construction of 223 multi-family residential units on a 12.16-acre High Density Residential parcel, with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The project consists of 4, 12-unit buildings; 12, 10-unit buildings, and 2, 9-unit buildings, as well as a building with a ground-floor community clubhouse and 25 residential units. The clubhouse consists of leasing offices, fitness studios, and a community lounge area as well as other features. Other site amenities include a pool with covered outdoor seating and cabana area with barbecue grills.
 Infrastructure: There is a reasonable likelihood that infrastructure expansion and updates may occur within the City. These projects typically include work within previously developed or disturbed habitat, roadways, and utility right of ways. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-3 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AESTHETICS
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Except as provided in PRC § 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), intends to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to scenic highways. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been designated. Cities and counties can nominate eligible scenic highways for official designation by identifying and defining the scenic corridor of the highway. The municipality must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes.

City of Roseville General Plan
Land Use Element
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-4 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Policy LU7.9: Control artificial lighting to avoid spill-over lighting onto adjacent properties. Use anti-reflective architectural materials and coatings to prevent glare.

Environmental Setting
As described in Section 2.0, the approximately 51-acre Project Site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Roseville in Placer County, California. The Project Site is bound by Westbrook Blvd. to the west, Pleasant Grove WWTP to the east, the REP to the northeast, and a residential development located approximately 120 feet directly west of the Project Site across Westbrook Blvd. The entire Project Site is undeveloped, with non-native annual grassland habitat dominating the Project Site. The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat, with elevation ranging from 90 to 100 feet amsl. A row of redwood and fire trees line the eastern border of the Project Site, partially providing a visual barrier of the Pleasant Grove WWTP.

The Proposed Project would include stadium lighting (installation of 37 poles) along the 10 sports fields for game play; each pole would be 70 feet in height. A light analysis is included as Attachment D.

Additionally, security lighting would be installed in the proposed parking lots and on accessory buildings such as restrooms and food stalls. Fencing along Westbrook Blvd. would be decorative and include a 22-foot tall net above the fence to catch stray soccer balls. Landscaping vegetation would be installed throughout the Project Site, with trees planted along the northern, western, and southern borders of the Project Site. The majority of existing trees along the eastern border of the Project Site would be retained. Figure 3-1 depicts a rendering of the Proposed Project from Westbrook Blvd. Additional details and renderings of the Proposed Project can be viewed in Attachments A, B, and C.

Scenic Resources
There is no comprehensive list of specific features that automatically qualify as scenic resources; however, certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination. The following is a partial list of visual qualities and conditions that if present, may indicate the presence of a scenic resource:
 a tree that displays outstanding features of form or age;  a landmark tree or a group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of attention;  an unusual planting that has historical value;
 a unique, massive rock formation;
 a historic building that is a rare example of its period, style, or design, or which has special architectural features and details of importance;
 a feature specifically identified in applicable planning documents as having a special scenic value;
 a unique focus or a feature integrated with its surroundings or overlapping other scenic elements to form a panorama; and/or,
 a vegetative or structural feature that has local, regional, or statewide importance.

Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 Figure 3-1
Proposed Views of the Project Site
SOURCE: Verde Design 04/04/2022; AES-Montrose, 6/14/2022 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH DOWN WESTBROOK BLVD. AT NORTH ENTRY
VIEW OF NORTH ENTRY LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM SOUTHBOUND LANE ON WESTBROOK BLVD. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-6 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration There are no unique scenic resources on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Furthermore, there are no State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest State Scenic Highway is U.S. Route 50, located approximately 30 miles east of the Project Site, which does not provide views of the Project Site (Caltrans, 2019b).

Nighttime Lighting Conditions
The Project Site experiences low nighttime ambient light levels, with light primarily sourcing from the residential development directly west of the Project Site and street lights along Westbrook Blvd.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. There are no direct views of scenic resources at ground level on the Project Site that would potentially be blocked due to construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic vistas and no new impact compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New Impact. As described above, the Project Site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway or other designated scenic corridor. The Project Site is undeveloped, with non-native annual grassland habitat dominating the Project Site, interspersed with stands of trees. Tree screen habitat occurs along the eastern boundary of the Project Site; these trees were previously planted for landscaping and sightline screen purposes to block views of the Pleasant Grove WWTP and transmission powerlines located to the east of the Project Site.

As shown on the Demolition Plans (Sheet L3.1 of Attachment B), existing trees on the Project Site would be protected to the extent feasible, with 24 trees being removed as part of the Proposed Project. This includes nine small-diameter interior live oaks to accommodate the North Lot component of the Proposed Project, six redwood and fir trees (part of the tree screen) on the eastern border of the Project Site to accommodate the north-south foot path component of the Proposed Project, and nine cottonwoods to accommodate the sports field component of the Proposed Project. Removal of trees on the Project Site as part of the Proposed Project would require the submittal and approval of a Tree Permit pursuant to City Municipal Code § 19.66.030 and any oak trees over 6 inches dbh would be mitigated for in accordance with the City’s tree preservation Ordinance (City Municipal Code §19.66).

While six of the trees within the tree screen would be removed as part of the Proposed Project, the majority of these trees would be retained and provide screening from the Project Site of the adjacent Pleasant Grove WWTP to the east. The removal of 24 trees would not substantially damage scenic resources and the development of the Project Site is planned for within the WRSP. Furthermore, a 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-7 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Landscaping Plan has been developed for the Proposed Project, which would enhance the visual character of the Project Site by adding additional trees and vegetation within and surrounding the Project Site (Sheet L9.1 of Attachment B). Therefore, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant and there would be no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question C
Would the project: In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact. The Project Site is undeveloped, with non-native annual grassland habitat dominating the Project Site, interspersed with stands of trees. Development on the Project Site is planned for within the WRSP and the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views. Furthermore, a Landscaping Plan has been developed for the Proposed Project, which would enhance the visual character of the Project Site by adding additional trees and vegetation within and surrounding the Project Site (Sheet L9.1 of Attachment B). The Proposed Project would provide a visual barrier between the existing residential development west of the Project Site and the Pleasant Grove WWTP, which would be an aesthetic improvement. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Design and Construction Standards (City, 2020b). Based on the reasons listed above, impacts to the visual character and quality of the Project Site and vicinity would be considered less than significant and there would be no new impact when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question D
Would the project: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. The WRSP EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.13-1(a) restricts high-watt light usage and hours for park facilities. Consistent with WRSP EIR MM 4.13-1(a), the Proposed Project would not use high-powered floodlights after 11 p.m., as the Proposed Project is located within 300 feet of residences.

The WRSP EIR MM 4.13-1(b) requires that sports fields located within 300 feet of residences include shielded lights that are designed to only provide the minimum amount of light necessary for field play.

The Proposed Project includes the installation of Musco Stadium lighting (37 poles), which is designed to direct and contain light onto the Project Site; each light fixture is designed to be downcast.

Lighting associated with the Proposed Project would constitute a new source of substantial light.

However, according to an analysis of light transmission based on the proposed stadium lighting (Attachment D), light related to the Proposed Project would not be detectable at the nearest sensitive receptor, the residential complex directly west of the Proposed Project. According to the light analysis, the average horizontal and vertical footcandles at the boundary of the residential complex (approximately 120 feet west of the Project Site boundary), was calculated to be 0.00 footcandles. This indicates that light would not substantially spill beyond the boundary of the Project Site and would therefore not adversely impact the residences. Additionally, the light analysis reviewed the average 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-8 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration candela (measure of luminous intensity) at the residential boundary. The light analysis concluded that the average candela at the residential boundary is 7.37 candela, with the max candela measurement being 165 candela. The City does not have adopted thresholds for the maximum candela allowed at an adjacent receptor. However, for reference, Fairfax County lighting performance requirements limits off-field lighting to a maximum of 6,000 candela (Fairfax County Park Authority, 2019). Similarly, the British Institute of Lighting Engineers, in its “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution,” has established a maximum standard of 7,500 candela for rural areas and 10,000 candela for suburban areas (ILP, 2011). As the Proposed Project would have a maximum 165 candela, it is assumed that light perceived at the residential units west of the Prosed Project would not be significant or disruptive.

The light analysis also evaluated the vertical extent of light transmission in order to assess the impact on the night sky. A horizontal blanket grid taken at 5 feet above the height of the 70-foot poles. A measurement of 0.00 footcandles was determined 5 feet above the poles, indicating that light from the poles would not transmit vertically and obscure the night sky (Attachment D). Refer to Attachment D for an aerial image of Musco stadium lighting used at an example field, with light being contained on site.

Lighting associated with security or accessory buildings would be shielded and cast downwards to reduce glare, and outdoor lighting would primarily be for the purposes of security and safety. None of the materials proposed for use of construction of the Proposed Project are reflective or would produce glare. Potential impacts to day and nighttime views associated with lighting on the Project Site would be considered less than significant and there would be no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impact
No New Impact. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site include growth within the City limits according to the build out projections in the City’s General and Specific Plans. The Proposed Project is planned for in the WRSP and would not change the general visual character of the Proposed Project area nor would new Proposed Project-related light sources negatively affect the ambient light in the area due to light reduction design strategies. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to aesthetic impacts, including new light sources, would not be cumulatively considerable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant aesthetic impact not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-9 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.3 AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? 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?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-10 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that federal programs are administered in a matter that is compatible with state and local units of government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland (7 U.S. Code [USC] § 4201).

State
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which monitors the conversion of the State's farmland to and from agricultural use, was established by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), under the Division of Land Resource Protection. The program maintains an inventory of State agricultural land and updates its "Important Farmland Series Maps" every two years.

Williamson Act
The Williamson Act is a State program that was implemented to preserve agricultural land. Under the provisions of the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act 1965, § 51200), landowners contract with the county to maintain agricultural or open space use of their lands in return for reduced property tax assessments (DOC, 2017).

Forestry Resources
Forestry resources are defined in PRC § 12220(g) as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of a species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” California Government Code § 51104(g) defines “timberland” as “privately owned land, or land acquired for State forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre.” Environmental Setting
According to the DOC FMMP, the entire Project Site and vicinity are classified as: Grazing Land. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance exists on or in the vicinity of the Project Site (DOC, 2018). Furthermore, the Project Site is not under a Williamson Act contract (DOC, 2017) and is not classified as forest land.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-11 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No New Impact. The Project Site is classified by the DOC FMMP as Grazing Land. The Project Site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC, 2018).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on agricultural resources, and no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The Project Site is not zoned for an agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract (DOC, 2017). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts on existing zoning for agricultural use, and no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question C
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No New Impact. The Project Site is not zoned Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Production.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause rezoning of forest land or timberland. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on forest land or timberland, and no new impacts when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question D
Would the project: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. The Project Site does not contain forest land. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on forest land, and no new impacts when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question E
Would the project: 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?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-12 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. The Project Site does not contain land classified as farmland or forest land (DOC, 2018).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on farmland conversion, and no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impact
No New Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of agriculture or forest land; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on farmland, and no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact on agricultural/forestry resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-13 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.4 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AIR QUALITY
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

SETTING
Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and under the jurisdiction of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The SVAB is bounded by the North Coast Ranges on the west and Northern Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east. Hot dry summers and mild rainy winters characterize the Mediterranean climate of the SVAB. During the year, the temperature may range from 20 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit, with summer highs usually in the 90s and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches, and the rainy season generally occurs from November through March. The prevailing winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist clean breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north. The mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants under certain meteorological conditions. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the autumn and early winter when large high-pressure cells cover the Sacramento Valley. The ozone season in the SVAB (May through October) is characterized by 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-14 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration stagnant morning air or light winds with the Delta sea breeze arriving from the southwest in the afternoon. The evening breeze usually transports the airborne pollutants to the north out of the SVAB.

Sensitive Receptors
Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality, because people usually stay home for extended periods of time increasing the potential exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.

The land surrounding the Project Site is primarily residential to the west, with public uses to the east, including the Pleasant Grove WWTP. The nearest residences are located immediately west of the Project Site. Orchard Ranch Elementary School is located approximately 1,400 feet west of the Project Site.

There are no hospitals in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Regulatory Context
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes maximum ambient concentrations for the six criteria air pollutants (CAP), known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The six CAPs are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns in size and smaller (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively).

The California CAA (CCAA) establishes maximum concentrations for the six CAPs, as well as four additional air pollutants in California (visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride). These maximum concentrations for the State are known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Concentrations above these time-averaged limits are anticipated to cause adverse health effects to sensitive receptors.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of the California EPA and has jurisdiction over local air districts. CARB has established their own standards and violation criteria for each CAP under the CAAQS.

Refer to Table 3-1 for the standards and violation criteria for the various averaging times for criteria pollutants of concern in the PCAPCD under the NAAQS and CAAQS.

NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Designations
As shown in Table 3-2, the PCAPCD has been designated nonattainment under the federal and State ozone standards. The PCAPCD has also been designated nonattainment under State PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The PCAPCD either meets the federal and California standards or is unclassifiable for all other CAPs.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-15 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE 3-1. NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND VIOLATION CRITERIA

POLLUTANT AVERAGING
TIME

STANDARD
(PARTS PER MILLION)

STANDARD
(MICROGRAM PER

CUBIC METER)

VIOLATION CRITERIA

CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS
Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 N/A 180 N/A If exceeded N/A
Ozone (O3) 8 hours 0.070 0.070 137 137 N/A
If exceeded
on more
than 3 days
in 3 years
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8 hours 9 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
arithmetic
mean

0.030 0.053 57 100 N/A If exceeded
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1 hour 0.18 0.100 470 188 If exceeded N/A
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
Annual
arithmetic
mean
N/A 0.030 N/A N/A N/A If exceeded
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
24 hours 0.04 0.14 105 N/A If exceeded
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
1 hour
(primary) 0.25 0.075 655 196 N/A N/A
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) 3 hours
(secondary) N/A 0.5 N/A N/A
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
arithmetic
mean
N/A N/A 20 N/A If exceeded If exceeded
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-16 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

POLLUTANT AVERAGING
TIME

STANDARD
(PARTS PER MILLION)

STANDARD
(MICROGRAM PER

CUBIC METER)

VIOLATION CRITERIA

CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 If exceeded
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Annual
arithmetic
mean
(primary)
N/A N/A 12 12 If exceeded If exceeded
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Annual
arithmetic
mean
(secondary)
N/A N/A N/A 15 If exceeded If exceeded
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 hours N/A N/A N/A 35 If exceeded
If exceeded
on more
than 1 day
per year
Lead (Pb) 30 day
Average N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A
Lead (Pb)
Rolling 3-
month
Average
N/A N/A N/A 0.15 N/A If exceeded
Note: N/A = not applicable
Source: CARB, 2016.

TABLE 3-2. PCAPCD ATTAINMENT STATUS

POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CAAQS NAAQS
Ozone (O3) 8 hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) 1 hour Nonattainment N/A
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hour Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour Attainment Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean Nonattainment N/A
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10) 24 Hour Nonattainment Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean Attainment Attainment 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-17 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 Hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) 30 Day Average Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter N/A Attainment
Note: CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; N/A = not applicable; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Source: CARB, 2020
California State Implementation Plan
California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) is comprised of the State’s overall air quality attainment plans to meet the NAAQS, as well as the individual air quality attainment plans of each air quality management district (AQMD) and air pollution control district (APCD). The items included in the California SIP are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F § 52.220.

The California SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), AQMD and APCD rules, State regulations, and federal controls for each air basin and California's overall air quality.

Due to the nonattainment designations, PCAPCD, along with the other air districts in the SVAB region, periodically prepare and update air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the NAAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions via regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies.

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the above-listed California CAPs, Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are another group of pollutants regulated under the CCAA. TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than the CAPs but are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are 244 chemicals listed by the State as TACs with varying degrees of toxicity.

Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), grading (asbestos), and diesel motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs. Instead, these pollutants are typically regulated through a technology-based approach for reducing TACs. This approach requires facilities to install Maximum Achievable Control Technology on emission sources. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-18 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Placer County Air Pollution Control District
The PCAPCD attains and maintains air quality conditions in Placer County through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of the PCAPCD includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption, and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution.

On August 12, 2021, the PCAPCD Board of Directors updated the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Policy – Review of Land Use Projects Under CEQA (PCAPCD, 2021). The policy establishes thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the review principles which serve as guidelines for PCAPCD staff when PCAPCD acts as a commenting agency to review and comment on the environmental documents prepared by CEQA lead agencies.

To evaluate air pollutant emissions from development projects, the PCAPCD has adopted the following significance thresholds for emissions of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and PM10, as shown in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3. PCAPCD RECOMMENDED THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

POLLUTANT

CONSTRUCTION

THRESHOLD
(LBS/DAY)

OPERATIONAL

THRESHOLD
(LBS/DAY)

CUMULATIVE

OPERATIONAL

THRESHOLD
(LBS/DAY)
ROG 82 55 55
NOx 82 55 55
PM10 82 82 82
Note: lbs = pounds; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 =- particulate matter 10 microns in size or smaller; ROG = reactive organic gas Source: PCAPCD, 2021

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Methodology
CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from all construction and operational-related sources.

CalEEMod provides default values when site-specific inputs are not available. The default values are provided in Attachment E. The following site-specific inputs and assumptions were used for the purposes of air quality modeling:
 Emissions from construction were calculated based on all construction related activities, including but not limited to grading, use of construction equipment, material hauling, building, and site preparation.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-19 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Construction of Phase 1 would occur over a period of 19 months, starting in March 2023 and ending in October 2024. Construction of Phase 2 would occur over a period of 15 months, starting in March 2025 and ending in June 2026.
 Vehicle trips were based on the trip generation estimates provided in the Traffic Impact Study (Attachment H).
 The Proposed Project would comply with PCAPCD rules and regulations (i.e., low volatile organic compound cleaning supplies and paint).

The results of the CalEEMod modeling are discussed below and output files are provided in Attachment E. Resulting emission estimates are compared to applicable PCAPCD thresholds to evaluate the effects of construction activities on regional air quality.

Question A
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Construction
No New Impact. As stated above, the Project Site is under the jurisdiction of the PCAPCD. Emissions generated from grading and construction activities resulting from the Proposed Project would be short term, intermittent, and temporary in nature. Grading and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in the generation of ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions. PM10 is generally the direct result of site grading, excavation, road paving, and exhaust associated with construction equipment. PM10 emissions are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities. Emissions of NOx and ROG are generally associated with employee vehicle trips, delivery of materials, and construction equipment exhaust. Table 3-4 shows emissions from construction activities and compares these to PCAPCD thresholds to determine if the construction emissions of the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on regional air quality, thereby conflicting with or obstructing PCAPCD air quality plans.

TABLE 3-4. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
YEAR ROG (LBS/DAY) NOX (LBS/DAY) PM10 (LBS/DAY)
2023 – Phase 1 4 40 22
2024 – Phase 1 8 11 0.5
2025 – Phase 2 3 32 21
2026 – Phase 2 5 10 0.5
Highest Emission Year 8 40 22
PCAPCD Thresholds 82 82 82
Exceed PCAPCD Threshold No No No
Note: lbs = pounds; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 =- particulate matter 10 microns in size or smaller; ROG = reactive organic gas
Source: Attachment E
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-20 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration As shown in Table 3-4, construction emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 would not exceed the PCAPCD applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any CAP for which the Proposed Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. No new impact related to construction emissions would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Operation
No New Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. The primary operational emissions associated with new development projects include PM10, and ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) that are emitted as vehicle exhaust. All operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-5.

TABLE 3-5. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
SOURCE ROG (LBS/DAY) NOX (LBS/DAY) PM10 (LBS/DAY)
Phase 1 Operation 9 7 4
Phase 2 Operation 2 1 1
Total 11 8 5
PCAPCD Thresholds 55 55 82
Exceed PCAPCD Threshold No No No
Note: lbs = pounds; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 =- particulate matter 10 microns in size or smaller; ROG = reactive organic gas
Source: Attachment E
Table 3-5 shows that emissions from the Proposed Project would be below PCAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality and would not conflict with applicable air quality plans. No new impact related to operational emissions would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No New Impact. As discussed in Question A above, construction and operational emissions from the Proposed Project would be below PCAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality and no new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-21 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Question C
Would the project: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. Sensitive receptors are individuals or groups of people that are more affected by air pollution than others, including young children, the elderly, and individuals weakened by disease or illness. Locations that may contain high concentrations of sensitive receptors include residential areas, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. As stated above, the Proposed Project does not contain any components that would result in long-term stationary emissions.

The Proposed Project includes construction activities near existing single-family residences west of the Project Site. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would generate PM10 and other pollutants during construction. Although these emissions would cease with completion of construction work, sensitive uses adjacent to the construction area could be exposed to elevated dust levels and other pollutants.

This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce emissions from construction activities by controlling fugitive dust and limiting idling times for construction equipment.

Further, as discussed above, CAP emissions would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds.

Therefore, with mitigation, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Question D
Would the project: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not result in emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people because the Proposed Project does not include any components that would result in the generation of long-term odors or similar emissions. Construction activities that have the potential to emit odors and similar emissions include operation of diesel equipment, generation of fugitive dust, and paving (asphalt). Odors and similar emissions from construction are intermittent and temporary, and generally would not extend beyond the construction area. Due to the temporary and intermittent nature of construction odors, impacts during construction would be less than significant and no new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to a region’s air quality conditions on a cumulative basis; therefore, by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. If a project’s individual emissions contribute toward exceedance of the NAAQS or the CAAQS, then the project’s cumulative impact on air quality would be significant. In developing attainment designations for criteria pollutants, the USEPA considers the region’s past, present, and future emission levels.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-22 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration AQMDs determine suitable significance thresholds based on an area’s designated nonattainment status.

These thresholds provide a tool by which the districts can achieve attainment for a particular criteria pollutant that is designated as nonattainment. Therefore, the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds consider the region’s past, present, and future emissions levels.

Implementation of the Proposed Project combined with future development within the area of the Proposed Project could lead to cumulative impacts to air quality. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of CAPs that when combined with future growth within the area of the Proposed Project could lead to cumulative impacts to air quality. As discussed in detail above, emissions resulting from the Proposed Project would not exceed the PCAPCD’s thresholds, and construction would be in conformance with the applicable SIP developed to address cumulative emissions of CAPs in the SVAB. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on local and regional air quality and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-1 Construction Control Measures
The following control measures will be implemented during construction. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). d. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of the CCR).
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-23 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Information in this section is summarized from the Biological Memorandum dated June 2022 (Attachment F).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
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?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-24 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the CWA.

Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or waters of the U.S. The USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes impacts to a surface water resource that qualifies as a wetland or water of the U.S.

Projects impacting waters of the U.S. that require a CWA Section 404 permit additionally require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit. Authority to issue a Section 401 permit has been delegated by the USEPA to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Under the CWA, beneficial uses lost from impacts due to a project must be replaced by a mitigation project of at least equal function, value, and area. In instances where a surface water resource is not identified as a water of the U.S. but is identified as a water of the State by the RWQCB, jurisdiction falls to the Porter-Cologne Act discussed below.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with implementation of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC § 1531 et seq.).

Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 CFR Subsections 17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (direct or indirect harm), unless a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit is granted to an individual or a Section 7 Incidental Take Permit is granted to a federal lead agency for potential take occurring during otherwise lawful activities. The USFWS also designates species of concern. While species of concern are not afforded legal protection under the FESA, the USFWS may still recommend specific management actions or publish guiding documents for these species. Project-related impacts to such species, either as individuals or populations, would also be considered significant and require mitigation. Under the FESA, loss of habitat for listed species is considered a significant impact.

Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is defined under the FESA as specific geographic areas within a listed species range that contain features considered essential for the conservation of the listed species. Designated Critical Habitat for a given species supports habitat determined by the USFWS to be important for the recovery of the species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC §§ 703-712). The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 CFR § 10. This includes feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR § 21).
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-25 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Fish and Game Code
California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) §§ 1600-1616 regulate impacts to stream and lake beds, and adjacent riparian habitat. Section 1602 requires California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) notification before beginning any activity that may obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. CFGC § 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State.

In addition to protections for habitat, CFGC includes provisions that protect individuals of certain species. CFGC §§ 2582, 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 include provisions against the take of any CDFW Fully Protected Species without a permit. Prior to implementation of the FESA and California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) maintained a list of those species believed to be rare or in peril of extinction, classified as “Fully Protected.” While most species currently identified by CDFW as Fully Protected are listed under FESA and/or CESA, those species that are not formally listed, but are designated as Fully Protected, are still considered specialstatus species. Therefore, take of a Fully Protected Species is prohibited. CDFW additionally maintains a list of “Species of Special Concern,” which are similarly afforded protection under the CFGC and are evaluated under CEQA. Under the Code, “take” is defined as attempting to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt” to perform such an action. CFGC § 3503 also includes provisions against the needless destruction of eggs and nests of any bird.

California Endangered Species Act
The CESA of 1984 (CFGC § 2050 et seq., and CCR Title 14, §§ 670.2, 670.51) prohibits the take (interpreted to mean the direct killing of a species) of species listed under CESA (CFGC § 2080; 14 CCR §§ 670.2, 670.5). A CESA permit (Individual Take Permit) must be obtained if a project would result in the “take” of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project.

CFGC § 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: 1) the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the take will be minimized and fully mitigated; 3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and 4) authorization will not jeopardize continued existence of listed species (CFGC § 2081).

Under CESA, the CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under State law (CFGC § 2070). In addition to the list of threatened and endangered species, CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State-listed species may be present in the project area and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact upon such species.

Porter-Cologne Act
In instances where a surface water resource is not identified as a water of the U.S., the RWQCB may still classify the resource as a water of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act. Projects that impact waters of the State that do not meet the definition of waters of the U.S. general require a Waste Discharge 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-26 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Requirement (WDR) Permit from the RWQCB, or a waiver from this requirement. WDR Permits are required pursuant to California Water Code § 13260 for any persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste, including dredge or fill, that could affect the quality of the waters of the State. The WDR Permit is obtained through the RWQCB that has jurisdiction over the site on which impacts occur.

The Project Site falls within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB.

City of Roseville General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan identifies goals, policies, and actions related to biological resources. The following goals are policies identified in the General Plan related to biological resources and form the foundation for the City’s actions related to preservation and management of such resources:

Policy OS1.6 Take into account natural habitat areas when designating access to and preserving open space areas. Identify alternate locations and design for access where sensitive habitat areas have the potential to be adversely impacted.

Policy OS3.3 Ensure a buffer area between waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas.

Policy OS2.1 Incorporate existing trees into development projects with an emphasis on avoiding the removal of groupings or groves of trees. Where preservation is not feasible, continue to require mitigation for the loss of removed trees.

City of Roseville Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan In 2000, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with USFWS regarding the potential for development of the Pleasant Grove WWTP and subsequent development of its service area to impact special-status species. Pursuant to the MOU, and in consultation with USFWS, the City developed a standardized methodology to manage open space areas preserved as a result of development of the WWTP and anticipated development of the service area. The City has adopted the Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan as a guiding document for multiple other open space management areas, including the WRSP open space preserve land. According to the City of Roseville Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan, the Plan was designed to:

1. Provide a City-wide approach to open space management, maintenance, and monitoring.

2. Provide specific goals for open space management, maintenance, and monitoring.

3. Consolidate existing Open Space Preserve monitoring and reporting requirements to allow for more comprehensive data gathering and preparation of a single annual monitoring report.

4. Consolidate existing Operation and Management Plans and update the approved list of Open Space Preserve area allowed uses.

5. Eliminate the need for additional management plans when new open space is dedicated through the development process or habitat conservation efforts.

6. Gain approval of necessary open space management and maintenance tasks that might adversely affect federally listed species (threatened or endangered) protected by the Endangered Species Act.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-27 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

7. Reduce Agency and City staff workload by providing an agreed-upon method for corrective actions.

8. Provide a platform for grant funding.

City of Roseville Tree Protection Ordinance
Chapter 19.66 of the City’s Municipal Code provides preservation and permitting requirements for the removal of protected trees during land development. Protected trees are defined by the City as any “Native oak tree equal to or greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks.”
Environmental Setting
Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this assessment, special-status has been defined to include those species that are:
 listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed for, or candidates for, listing);
 listed as endangered or threatened under the CESA (or proposed for listing);  designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to CFGC § 1901;  designated as fully protected, pursuant to CFGC §§ 3511, 4700, or 5050;  designated as species of concern by the CDFW (CEQA Guidelines § 15380); or,  defined as rare or endangered under CEQA.

Methodology
As discussed in Section 2.0 of Attachment F, a biological resources survey was conducted on the Project Site on April 4, 2022. The survey was conducted by walking transects throughout the Project Site. Survey goals consisted of identifying habitat types, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the U.S., and special-status species. Binoculars were used to assist in surveying efforts and in identifying birds. Data was collected via a Trimble® TDC150 global positioning system receiver. In addition to the survey, biological information was obtained from the following sources:
 Aerial photographs of the Project Site and surrounding area;  USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation list;  California Natural Diversity Database list;
 California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants list;  USFWS National Wetlands Inventory map of wetland features; and  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) custom soils report.

Copies of database searches are included in Attachment A and B of Attachment F. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-28 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Habitats
The Project Site consists of non-native annual grassland and a tree screen. These habitat types are summarized below and are explained in greater detail within Attachment F. A stockpond, seasonal wetland, and seasonal wetland swale were observed on APN 017-101-017 outside of the Project Site’s northern boundary. A portion of the seasonal wetland swale crosses APN 496-020-032, also outside of the Project Site boundary. A habitat map is included as Figure 3-2. During creation of the WRSP EIR, it was determined that the Project Site was predominantly grasslands, but that scattered vernal pools were present. These vernal pools were not observed during the current survey.

Non-Native Annual Grasslands
The majority of the Project Site is comprised of non-native annual grasslands. Weedy forbs and non-native grasses are the dominant ground cover of this habitat type. These species include bromes (Bromus sp.), filaree (Erodium sp.), prickly sowthistle (Sonchus asper), and lesser hop trefoil (Trifolium dubium). Sparse living and deceased interior live oaks (Quercus wislizeni) were observed in this habitat.

Tree Screen
A mixture of Coast redwood (Sequioa sempirvirens) and true firs (Abies sp.) were planted along the eastern border of the Project Site to act as a tree screen for the adjacent Pleasant Grove WWTP.

Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and interior live oak are variably and infrequently present within this habitat type.

Special-Status Species
Regionally occurring special-status species and their potential to occur within the Project Site are identified in Section 3.3 of Attachment F. As discussed in Attachment F, the Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plants but does contains limited foraging habitat for whitetailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). White tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk may forage over the non-native annual grasslands, but suitable nesting habitat is not present within the Project Site.

Critical and Essential Fish Habitat
No USFWS designated or proposed Critical Habitat occurs on the Project Site (refer to Attachment A of Attachment F). Additionally, no Essential Fish Habitat occurs on the Project Site.

W
e
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Figure 3-2
Habitat Types
SOURCE: Placer County Parcels, 2018; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
City Parcels
Habitat Types
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Tree Screen
Stockpond
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal Wetland Swale
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-30 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: 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 CDFW or the USFWS?
Less Than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation.

Special-Status Species
As described in Attachment F, there is limited potential for white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk to forage over the non-native annual grasslands within the Project Site. However, the Project Site was anticipated to be developed within the WRSP and the WRSP EIR accordingly provides for the preservation of grasslands developed in consultation with CDFW to address impacts due to loss of grassland foraging habitat (refer to WRSP EIR MM 4.7-8). MM 4.7-8 confirms that loss of habitat within a 10-mile radius of a known Swainson’s hawk nest would require mitigation. As the entirety of the WRSP area is within 10 miles of a known nest site (WRSP EIR at page 4.7-48), MM 4.7-8 states that mitigation for loss of Swainson’s hawk grassland foraging habitat would concurrently mitigate for loss of foraging habitat for other bird species, including white-tailed kite. MM 4.7-8 identified up to 2,204.4 acres of impacts to grassland habitat, including the Project Site, and identified 1,968.7 acres of mitigation acres to be preserved. As potential grassland foraging habitat was already mitigated for in the WRSP EIR, there would be no new impact as it relates to special-status species.

Migratory Birds
Suitable habitat for nesting birds protected under the CFGC, as well as the MBTA occurs on and within 500 feet of the Project Site. Nesting migratory birds and raptors could be affected if vegetation removal or loud noise-producing activities associated with construction commence during the general nesting season (February 15 through September 15). Disturbance of an active nest would constitute a significant impact. The WRSP EIR identified the potential for construction within the WRSP Area to generate a significant impact and included MM 4.7-6 Avoid Nesting Sites and MM 4.7-7 Nest Protection Policies.

However, these mitigation measures required a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be completed within 30 days of construction and on and within 350 feet of impact areas. Updated agency guidance on pre-construction nesting bird surveys suggests that a nest could establish within 30 days, and that impacts to nests could occur beyond 350 feet. Therefore, even with mitigation included in the WRSP EIR, there is still the potential for significant impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires the pre-construction survey to occur within 5 days of construction and increases the survey area to within 500 feet of the Project Site, as accessible. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact with additional mitigation.

Question B
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW and the USFWS? 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-31 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. Sensitive habitat is not present on the Project Site (Attachment F). There is, however, a stockpond with associated seasonal wetlands and a seasonal wetland swale located directly north of the Project Site. However, no direct impacts to these habitats would occur, as a SWPPP would be implemented throughout construction to ensure off-site habitats are not significantly impacted (refer to Section 3.11). Additionally, the Proposed Project design includes vegetated bioswales to capture and treat runoff during operation. As sensitive habitats would not be impacted by the Proposed Project, no new impact would occur.

Question C
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. There are no aquatic habitats on the Project Site, and direct impacts to aquatic habitat would not occur. There is a stockpond, seasonal wetland, and seasonal wetland swale located directly north of the Project Site. As discussed in Section 3.11, the Proposed Project has been designed to avoid these aquatic features, reduce potential runoff, and include the development of 25,926-sf of bioremediation (bioswales) planted with filtering vegetation throughout the Project Site, as seen on Figure 2-4. Construction runoff would be monitored through a SWPPP, as discussed in Sections 2.4 and

3.11. There would be no new impact.

Question D
Would the project: 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?
No new impact. As discussed in Attachment F, the Project Site does not contain wildlife movement corridors and would not impact off-site corridors and undeveloped land. No nursery sites were observed on the Project Site during the survey. No new impact would occur.

Question E
Would the project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No New Impact. The City has a tree protection ordinance. Up to 24 trees would be removed by the Proposed Project, as described in Section 4.1 of Attachment F. Of these, nine are interior live oaks.

Removal of living native oaks exceeding 6 inches dbh would require a tree removal permit. Oaks proposed to be removed do not exceed 10 inches dbh and are in various stages of health. As required by the City’s Municipal Code, a tree inventory report would be prepared and the appropriate tree permits acquired. Impact 4.7-8 of the WRSP EIR evaluated the potential for removal of oaks greater than 6 inches dbh to result in a significant impact. Because precise development plans for the WRSP were not available at the time of the EIR analysis, the WRSP EIR assumed that any oaks outside of the floodplain 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-32 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration may be removed. The WRSP EIR acknowledged that initial impacts from oak tree removal would be significant and unavoidable in the short term, but that adherence to the tree protection ordinance would reduce the long-term potential impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring replacement of removed trees. Additionally, the WRSP EIR identified 685 acres of open space in the WRSP area to be preserved (WRSP EIR at 4.7-55), which targeted preservation of areas with significant oak woodland, including areas adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseberg Creek, and woodland on Fiddyment Ranch. A total of 45.6 acres of land were identified for oak tree mitigation areas for the necessary replanting of oaks removed pursuant to a tree removal permit (Figure 4.7-7 of the WRSP EIR). It was determined that the mitigation area would be planted with 6,840 oak trees to replace trees removed during development or the WRSP EIR. Because the Proposed Project would adhere to the tree protection ordinance, and because the WRSP EIR identified suitable mitigation options consistent with the tree protection ordinance, no new impact would occur.

The City’s Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan was prepared in order to standardize the City’s management of open space areas. This Plan was prepared following completion of the WRSP EIR and acknowledges the preservation of open space pursuant to the WRSP EIR in addition to other Citymanaged open space areas. This Plan does not designate new open space areas, rather, it provides guidance on the process of acquiring open space and management of open space to standardize monitoring and maintenance activities throughout the City’s open space areas over time. Because proposed development areas and open space areas were already identified in the WRSP EIR prior to creation of the Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan, the Project Site is not identified as an open space area. The Proposed Project would not impede open space preserve areas and would not conflict with this plan.

The City’s General Plan contains several policies related to biological resources, including avoidance of sensitive habitat impacts, use of a buffer between development and aquatic/riparian habitat, and minimizing tree removal. The Project Site has been defined in the development stage to exclude potentially sensitive habitat by providing a buffer between development and the off-site aquatic habitat.

Up to nine protected trees would be removed as part of the Proposed Project. As discussed above, protected trees would be removed pursuant to a tree removal permit, which would require inch for inch replacement of removed trees. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan. The Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances. Therefore, no new impact would occur.

Question F
Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No New Impact. The County has adopted the Placer County Conservation Program, which includes a Habitat Conservation Plan. However, the City is a non-participating city and is not subject to the Placer County Conservation Program. There are no other Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other conservation plans that include the Project Site. As the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing conservation plans, no new impacts would occur. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-33 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. As discussed under Question A, the Proposed Project would not introduce a new impact compared to the WRSP EIR, however, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to address updates to agency guidelines on nesting bird surveys. Impacts would be limited to a small portion of grasslands that may support white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk foraging, and potential impacts to nesting birds. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would avoid impacts to nesting birds and would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Further, although the Proposed Project would impact a relatively insignificant amount of white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, mitigation contained within the WRSP EIR already provides for preservation of grasslands developed in consultation with CDFW to address impacts due to loss of grassland foraging habitat to ensure a cumulatively significant loss of grasslands would not occur.

As discussed above in Questions B and C, there are no sensitive habitats on the Project Site, including wetlands or waters of the U.S. or State. No direct impacts would occur and potential indirect impacts to off-site habitat would be reduced through implementation of a SWPPP during construction and use of vegetated bioswales during operation. Additionally, as discussed in Questions D and F, there are no wildlife corridors or nursery sites on the Project Site, and no habitat conservation plans that would apply to the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to the cumulative impact environment related to these resources, and no new impact would occur compared to the cumulative impact analysis present in the WRSP EIR.

Finally, as discussed under Question E, the Proposed Project would comply with local policies and regulations, both those considered in the WRSP EIR, and those developed or updated since completion of the WRSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts related to local policies or ordinances.

Based on the above, the cumulative impacts that could be generated by the Proposed Project are within the scope of those addressed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new impact would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO-1 Nesting Birds
If construction activities (e.g., building, grading, ground disturbance, removal of vegetation) are scheduled to occur during the general nesting season (February 15—August 30), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist throughout areas of suitable habitat on and within 500 feet of proposed construction activity. The survey shall occur no more than 5 days prior to the scheduled onset of construction. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 5 days, another pre-construction survey for nesting bird species shall be conducted. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.

If nesting bird species are observed within 500 feet of construction areas during the survey, appropriate “no construction” buffers shall be established. The size and scale of nesting bird buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be dependent upon the species observed and the location of the nest. Buffers shall be established around active nest locations. The nesting bird buffers shall be 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-34 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration completely avoided during construction activities. The buffers may be removed when the qualified wildlife biologist confirms that the nest(s) is no longer occupied and all birds have fledged. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-35 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Information in this section is summarized from a Cultural Resources Letter Report prepared for the Proposed Project (Confidential Attachment G).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
with Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

SETTING
Cultural Context
Prehistoric Setting
The region in which the Project Site exists is known to contain numerous traces of past human activity ranging from early Native American sites and artifacts to the remains of historic-era agricultural and mining activities.

Late Pleistocene Period (>10,000 B.P. [Before Present]) Evidence of the earliest human occupation in the foothill and eastern Sacramento Valley is practically nonexistent. Although tools for grinding foodstuffs are occasionally found on sites dating to this period, archaeological evidence indicates that the gathering of plant material may have been only a small part of their subsistence strategy.

Early Holocene Period (ca. 10,000–7000 B.P.)
During this broad time frame, people adapted to lake, marsh, and grassland environments that were prevalent around 11,000 B.P.; however, the tradition slowly disappeared by ca. 7000 B.P. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-36 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Archaic Pattern and Period (ca. 7000–3200 B.P.)
As the central California climate became warmer and dryer, milling stones become abundant, suggesting an emphasis on the exploitation of plant resources and a lesser focus on hunting. Flaked stone tools are primarily formed from locally procured materials. Connections between the Great Basin and Central Valley appear to have been established at least by 4000 B.P., and possibly as early as 7000 B.P., as evidenced by the exchange of marine shell beads and other artifacts for obsidian from the east side of the Sierran crest.

Early-Middle Sierran Pattern (ca. 3200–600 B.P.)
This broad time period exhibits an increased use of obsidian, which may indicate an expansion in regional land use, and the regular use of certain locales. This pattern begins with a return to cool/moist climatic conditions, where forays into the Sierra may have been made by groups with resident populations in the western Sierran foothills, Central Valley, and/or Great Basin.

Late Sierran (ca. 600–150 B.P.)
Regionally, this period is characterized by continued intensive use of the western slope of the Sierra, including a significant use of acorns, but with less of a focus on seeds, exploitation of fauna, including deer and rabbits, year-round occupation of sites below 3,000–3,500 feet, and short-term seasonal occupation of mid- to high-elevation Sierran sites.

Ethnographic Setting
Ethnographically, the Project Site is in territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Nisenan Indians.

Their territory included the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American rivers, as well as the lower Feather River.

Politically, the Nisenan were divided into tribelets, made up of a primary village and a series of outlying hamlets, presided over by a hereditary chief. Villages typically included family dwellings, acorn granaries, a sweathouse, and a dance house. Subsistence activities centered on the gathering of acorns, seeds, and other plant resources, as well as hunting game and fishing. Large predators, such as mountain lions were hunted for their meat and skins, and bears were hunted ceremonially. Although acorns were a staple of the Nisenan diet, they also harvested roots like wild onion and “Indian potato,” which were eaten raw, steamed, baked, or dried and processed into flour cakes to be stored for winter use. Deer hunting often took the form of communal drives, involving several villages, with killing done by the best marksmen from each village. Snares, deadfalls, and decoys were used as well. Fish were caught by a variety of methods including use of hooks, harpoons, nets, weirs, traps, poisoning, and by hand (Levy, 1978; Wilson and Towne, 1978).

The Spanish arrived on the central California coast in 1769 and by 1808, Gabriel Moraga had crossed Nisenan territory. In 1833, an epidemic—probably malaria—raged through the Sacramento Valley, killing an estimated 75% of the native population. The discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutter’s Mill, near the Nisenan village of Koloma (now Coloma) on the South Fork of the American River, drew thousands of miners into the area, and led to widespread killing and the virtual destruction of traditional Nisenan culture (Wilson and Towne, 1978).
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-37 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Historic Setting
The 1848 discovery of gold at Coloma in El Dorado County led to a massive influx of would-be miners, swelling California’s population from 20,000 non-native people in 1848 to 100,000 in 1849 and over 200,000 by 1852. These new residents flocked first to gateway cities such as Stockton, Sacramento, and Marysville for supplies before pushing east into the gold country, a region along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains stretching from Plumas, in the north, to Fresno County in the south (Hoover et al., 2002).

Three months after Marshall’s gold discovery, Claude Chana discovered gold in Placer County’s Auburn Ravine. Word of the rich placer gold deposits soon spread and became the basis for the county name.

Mining towns sprang up all across the county, with names like Beale’s Bar, Condemned, Rattlesnake Bar, and Ophir. Most of these towns were gone as soon as the easily accessed deposits were exhausted.

Others towns like Auburn, Rocklin, Roseville, and Lincoln were able to adapt and grew beyond their gold rush beginnings. By 1864, rail lines linked the towns, industrial and agricultural concerns including granite quarries around Rocklin, Rocklin, Penryn, and Newcastle. As early as 1880, western Placer County was noted for its agricultural productivity. Crops produced in the 1850s through 1870s included wheat, barley, wine grapes, hay, and orchard crops. Ranchers raised poultry, sheep, beef, and dairy cattle (Hoover et al, 2002).

The Fiddyment family has owned and operated a ranch adjacent to the Project Site since the mid-19th century. In 1854, Elizabeth Fiddyment, a widow with a son, settled in the Elk Grove area; Elizabeth met a local farmer, George Hill, and after they married they moved to the Pleasant Grove District in Roseville in 1856 to live and work with her sister’s family on their farming operation. Over time, the property grew to over 13,000 acres and was worked by successive generations of the family to the present day (PAR Environmental Services [PAR], 2001).

Record Search
In 2001, PAR Environmental Services completed a survey of the Fiddyment Ranch property and surrounding areas which included the Project Site (PAR, 2001). No cultural resources were identified.

A record search was completed on March 24, 2022 at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) at Sacramento State University (NCIC File No.: PLA-22-30). The NCIC search included the Project Site and a

0.5-mile buffer zone. This record search included, but was not necessarily restricted to, a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), historical marker listings, Placer County resource listings, and historic maps.

No resources have been recorded within the Project Site, though nine have been identified within the buffer area: a prehistoric lithic scatter and resources associated with the Fiddyment Ranch. Five surveys have been completed that include areas within the southern portion of the Project Site and another nine within 0.5 miles of the Proposed Project (Attachment G). 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-38 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Field Survey
Montrose Environmental Solutions’ Senior Archaeologist, Charlane Gross, RPA, conducted a cultural resources field survey of the Project Site on April 4, 2022 using pedestrian transects spaced approximately 30 meters apart; ground surface visibility varied, but averaged approximately 40% in the majority of the Project Site. The northern portion of the Project Site was more heavily covered with thick seasonal grasses and ground surface visibility averaged less than 2%.

The Project Site was bounded by a roadway to the west, a tree row to the east, and open ground to the north and south, with a small access road near the north; a number of internal fence lines separated individual fields. There was copious evidence of earth moving activities in the form of small and large soil stockpiles, tire ruts, and small excavations, as well as a substantially raised area to the north. No cultural or paleontological resources were identified (Attachment G).

Regulatory Context
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that, for projects financed by or requiring the discretionary approval of public agencies in California, the effects that a project has on historical and unique archaeological resources be considered (PRC § 21083.2). Historical resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance (PRC § 50201). The CEQA Guidelines (§ 15064.5) define three cases in which a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA review.
 The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR.  The resource is included in a local register of historic resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey that meets the requirements of PRC § 5024.1(g) (unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant).
 The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC §§ 5020.1(j), 5024.1, or significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Section 5024.1 defines eligibility requirements and states that a resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Resources must retain integrity to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. Resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (PRC § 5024.1(d)(1)). 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-39 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration PRC § 21083.2 governs the treatment of a unique archaeological resource, which is defined as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated” that it meets any of the following criteria:
 It contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
 It has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type.
 It is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No New Impact. As described above, the records search revealed that no historical resources have been recorded within the Project Site and no CRHR-eligible resources were identified during the field survey.

No new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No New Impact. Based on the results of the records search, literature review, Native American consultation, and field survey, there are no known cultural resources within the Project Site, and the potential for unknown CRHR-eligible resources within the area of the Proposed Project is considered to be low. There is always the potential, however remote, that previously unknown archaeological resources could be encountered during subsurface construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact. However, MM 4.8-1 of the WRSP EIR includes protocols regarding inadvertent resource discovery, with work halting within 100 feet of any find of bone, shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains during subsurface development activities. Implementation of WRSP MM 4.8-1 would ensure that inadvertently discovered resources that may be eligible for the NHRP or CRHR would be investigated and evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP and CRHR. No new impacts would occur requiring additional mitigation measures.

Question C
Would the project: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-40 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. There is always the potential, however remote, that previously unknown human remains could be encountered during subsurface construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact. However, MM 4.8-2 of the WRSP EIR includes policies and procedures for the proper handling of cultural resources, including human remains. Implementation of WRSP MM 4.8-2 would ensure the proper handling of human remains. No new impacts would occur requiring additional mitigation measures.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impacts. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project area have the potential to impact cultural resources. Archaeological and historic resources are afforded special legal protections designed to reduce the cumulative effects of development. Potential cumulative projects and the Proposed Project would be subject to the protection of cultural resources afforded by CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 and related provisions of the PRC. Given the non-renewable nature of cultural resources, any impact to protected sites could be considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, no known protected archaeological or historic resources were identified within the Proposed Project’s development footprint. Mitigation measures within the WRSP EIR provide for the protection of unanticipated finds made during ground disturbing activities. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, there would be no new impact from the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact on cultural resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-41 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.7 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENERGY
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1974 Warren-Alquist Act (PRC § 25000 et seq.) established the California Energy Commission (CEC) and created a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Legislature continues to amend the Act to address pressing energy needs and issues, and the CEC publishes an updated version of the Act each year. The 2019 edition of the Warren-Alquist Act was published in February of 2019.

State of California Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 requires the CEC to adopt an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. The IEPR contains an assessment of major energy trends and issues facing the electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors within California. The IEPR provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the economy of California; and protect public health and safety.

The IEPR calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the IEPR identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-42 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Draft 2019 IEPR was submitted for public comment on November 8, 2019 and covers a broad range of topics including decarbonizing buildings, integrating renewables, energy efficiency, energy equity, electricity reliability, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, a natural gas assessment, a transportation energy demand forecast, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. The 2019 IEPR provides the results of the CEC assessments on a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, clean energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs.

California Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (California Building Energy Efficiency Standards) specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in California. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The most recent standards were adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020 (for building permit applications submitted on or after that date). These standards are updated every three years. The new standards require better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Non-Residential buildings are expected to use about 30% less energy compared to the 2016 Energy Efficiency Standards, primarily due to lighting upgrades.

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), specified in CCR, Title 24, Part 11, is a State-wide regulatory code for all buildings, residential and commercial included. The regulations are intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low-pollution emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment. The standards require that all new residential and non-residential development implement various energy conservation measures, including ceiling, wall, and concrete slab insulation; weather stripping on doors and windows; closeable doors on fireplaces; insulated heating and cooling ducts; water heater insulation blankets; and certified energy efficient appliances. CALGreen is updated periodically and the latest update, CALGreen 2019, became effective on January 1, 2020.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program was established in 2002 by SB 1078 and requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide a certain percentage of their supply from renewable sources. The initial requirement was that at least 20% of electricity retail sales had to be served by renewable resources by 2017. The RPS program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 that mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, increasing the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requiring all electricity in California to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-43 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Assembly Bill 1007 (Pavley)-Alternative Fuel Standards
AB 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a State-wide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California; therefore, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other local, State, and federal agencies. The final State Alternative Fuels Plan, published in December 2007, attempts to achieve an 80% reduction in GHG emissions associated with personal transportation, even as the population of California increases.

Environmental Setting
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, which is generated by the federal government’s Central Valley Project and produces 100% hydroelectric energy sources from a system of dams, reservoirs, and power plants within central and northern California. In addition, up to 50% of the City’s power is generated at the City-owned 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, which is used for peaking energy. The City’s electric power mix varies from year-to-year, but according to the most recent City-wide energy analysis, 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) (see City of Roseville General Plan EIR Section 4.15.2).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction
No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would consume energy primarily from fuel consumed by construction vehicles and equipment. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, paving, and building. Fuel consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on available fuel. There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State.

Additionally, mitigation measures would provide fuel and energy reduction during construction. Overall fuel and energy reductions are difficult to quantify; however, certain air quality emission reduction measures would also reduce fuel and electricity use during construction of the Proposed Project.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce energy consumption by requiring the contractor to minimize equipment idling time. Additionally, all diesel-fueled construction vehicles would be required to meet the latest emissions standards. These measures would further reduce fuel and energy use during all stages of construction and avoid the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel energy.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-44 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration consumption of fuel energy as it would comply with relevant standards and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Operation
No New Impact. Energy would be required for powering the stadium lighting, parking lot lighting, accessory structure lighting, security systems, and EV charging stations (approximately 191 EV charging stations). The estimated maximum energy load calculations for the Proposed Project are approximately 2,480 kw of energy (i.e., full use of all 10 sports fields, all power outlets, and all EV charging stations). It should be noted that it is unlikely that the full energy load would be utilized at one given time. Refer to Sheet E0.1 of Attachment B for detailed Electrical Plans. As described in Section 2.3.4, solar panels would be constructed on the roofs of shade structures within the parking lot. During Phase 1, approximately 77,760 sf of solar panels are expected to be installed, with approximately 51,120 sf of solar panels anticipated in Phase 2. Solar energy would not power the Proposed Project; however, the solar energy would be placed back into the Roseville Electric grid, which would offset some of the energy consumed by the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be designed and constructed to comply with the applicable requirements of the California Building Code and CALGreen.

Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New Impact. As described above, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable State and local energy standards, such as the California Building Code, CALGreen, and the City Community Design Guidelines. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. With regard to energy usage, the California Public Utilities Commissions’ Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceedings were established to ensure a safe, reliable, and cost-effective electricity supply in California. A major component of the LTPP proceeding addresses the overall long-term need for new system reliability resources, including the adoption of system resource plans.

These resource plans allow the California Public Utilities Commission to comprehensively assess the impacts of energy policies for the State based on the need for new resources. As discussed above, several aspects of the Proposed Project, such as compliance with CALGreen and the use of solar panels, would help manage the amount and efficiency of energy consumption and would ensure that the related consumption is not inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, or place a significant demand on regional energy supplies. Therefore, impacts to energy resources resulting from the Proposed Project, combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulative impact to which the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-45 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact regarding energy resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-46 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.8 GEOLOGY/SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

GEOLOGY/SOILS
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
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?
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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-47 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1997, the U.S. Congress passed the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction (NEHR) Act to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was significantly amended in November 1990 by the NEHR Act, which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.

The mission of NEHRP includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities, improvement of building codes and land use practices, risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education, development and improvement of design and construction techniques, improvement of mitigation capacity, and accelerated application of research results. The NEHR Act designates Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other NEHR Act agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed by the California Legislature to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Study Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC §§ 2690–2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
The SWRCB administers regulations and permitting for the USEPA (55 CFR 47990) for pollution generated from stormwater under the NPDES. There are nine RWQCBs that implement the SWRCB’s jurisdiction and require that an operator of any construction activities with ground disturbances of

1.0 acre or more obtain a Construction General Permit through the NPDES Stormwater Program. The Project Site is within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB. The Construction General Permit requires that the implementation of best management practices (BMP) be employed to reduce sedimentation into 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-48 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration surface waters and control erosion. The preparation of a SWPPP addresses control of water pollution that includes the effects of sediments in the water during construction activities. These elements are further explained within Section 3.11.

California Building Standards Code
The State provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBC) (CCR Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The CBC also applies to building design and construction in the State and is based on the International Building Code used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with numerous more detailed and/or more stringent regulations.

Roseville General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:

Safety Element
Goal SAFE 1.1 Minimize injury and property damage due to seismic activity and geologic hazards.

Policy SAFE 1.2 Continue to mitigate the potential impacts of geologic hazards through building plan review.

Policy SAFE 1.3 Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation through suitable building placement, maximum lot coverage standards, context-sensitive designs, and appropriate construction techniques.

Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The Project Site is located in the Great Valley geomorphic province (Province) of California (DOC, 2002).

The Province lies between the Coastal Ranges and Sierra Nevada provinces in California and stretches from Redding to the north and continues south to Bakersfield. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain that is approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long where sediment has been deposited almost continually for roughly 160 million years. The major topographic feature in the Sacramento Valley is a volcanic remnant, the Sutter Buttes, rising approximately 1,980 feet above the surrounding valley floor. The Sutter Buttes are located approximately 42 miles north of the City. Other significant features are the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coast Mountain Range to the west.

Site Topography
The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat, with elevation ranging from approximately 90 feet to 100 feet amsl. According to CGS’s Geologic Map of California, the dominant rock type in the vicinity of the Project Site is Type QPc, which is a Pliocene-Pleistocene period type characterized by Pliocene and/or Pleistocene sandstone, shale, and gravel deposits (DOC, 2015a). In addition, there are no mapped landslides or landslide features on the Project Site (DOC, 2015b). 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-49 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Seismicity and Fault Zones
The Project Site is located in a relatively moderate seismic hazard area (USGS, 2018). The Alquist-Priolo Act defines active faults as those that have shown seismic activity during the Holocene period, approximately the past 11,000 years, while potentially active faults are those that have shown activity within the Quaternary period, or the past 1.8 million years. The closest faults to the Project Site are a complex of faults near Auburn, California approximately 20 miles east of the Project Site, which include the Deadmand Fault, Maidu Fault, and Bearn Mountain Fault Zone (DOC, 2015c).

Soils
Soil types on the Project Site primarily consist of Cometa-Fiddyment complex and Cometa-Ramona sandy loams which are soil types typical of areas with low slopes and are well-drained (Figure 3-3; NRCS, 2022). A soil type’s potential to induce electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete is known as “risk of corrosion.” The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Both soil types on the Project Site have a low corrosion rating.

Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength caused by seismic forces acting on water-saturated, granular soil, leading to a “quicksand” condition generating various types of ground failure. Soils comprised of sand and sandy loams that are in areas with high groundwater tables or high rainfall are subject to liquefaction. Soils on the Project Site are well drained and the groundwater table is deep; therefore, there is a low risk of liquefaction at the Project Site (NRCS, 2022). Expansive soils normally have a high clay and water content, and a high shrink-swell potential, with a plasticity index of 15 or greater. The primary soils on the Project Site have a plasticity index of 9.1% or less, which suggests that the soils are not susceptive to expansion (NRCS, 2022).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ((i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides?
No New Impact. Although the Project Site is located in an area that may be subject to seismic ground shaking in the future, there are no mapped surface faults on the Project Site that would have the potential to rupture (DOC, 2021a). The closest faults to the Project Site are a complex of faults near Auburn, California approximately 20 miles east of the Project Site, which include the Deadmand Fault, Maidu Fault, and Bearn Mountain Fault Zone (DOC, 2015c). Although seismic ground shaking could occur, as noted in the WRSP EIR (refer to Section 4.6 of the WRSP EIR), compliance with the CBC would require seismic design response spectrum to be established and incorporated into the design of all new structures. Any new structures and utilities would be designed to withstand seismic forces per CBC W
e
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
141
142
182
182
195
195
141
147 147
Figure 3-3
Soil Types
SOURCE: USDA NRCS Soil Survey of Placer County, updated 9/3/2021; Placer County Parcels, 2018; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022
LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent IS/MND / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H Project Site
City Parcels

SOIL TYPES
141 Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1
to 5 percent slopes
142 Cometa-Ramona sandy loams,
1 to 5 percent slopes
147 Fiddyment-Kaseberg loams, 2
to 9 percent slopes
182 San Joaquin-Cometa sandy
loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes
195 Xerofluvents, hardpan
substratum
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-51 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration requirements. Therefore, these construction standards would minimize the seismic ground shaking effects on developed structures to a less-than-significant level. The WRSP EIR discussed the potential for impacts to geology and soils and concluded that the WRSP would not result in any significant impacts to geology and soils, and therefore no mitigation was required. The WRSP EIR indicated that compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements would be sufficient to avoid impacts related to these issues. This conclusion remains appropriate for the Proposed Project because there is no new information indicating that geologic conditions are different than previously understood. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would involve grading and earth moving activities, as well as construction of various components. Construction would result in the temporary disturbance of soil and would expose disturbed areas to potential storm events, which could generate accelerated runoff, localized erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could exacerbate soil erosion and result in the loss of topsoil; this is a potentially significant impact. However, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare a SWPPP, as discussed in Section 3.11. This includes limiting ground disturbance areas, restoring disturbed areas to pre-construction contours, installing erosion control measures, and revegetating. Coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP would ensure that potential impacts resulting from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which ensures that the Proposed Project would implement and incorporate City’s BMPs related to erosion (refer to Sheet L2.1 of Attachment B). Additionally, the Proposed Project is a less intensive footprint and use than originally proposed under the WRSP EIR and represents a smaller project site area (approximately 51 acres as opposed to 75.15 acres). No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question C
Would the project: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact. As described above, soils on the Project Site are well-drained and the groundwater table is deep; therefore, there is a low risk of liquefaction at the Project Site. Furthermore, the Project Site is not located on an unstable geologic unit or soil (NRCS, 2022). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from liquefaction, landslides, or unstable geologic units or soils; no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question D
Would the project: 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? 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-52 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. Expansive soils normally have a plasticity index of 15 or greater. The primary soils on the Project Site have a plasticity index of 9.1% or less, which suggests that the soils are not susceptive to expansion (NRCS, 2022). Additionally, development of any structures on the Project Site would be required to comply with the CBC, which would ensure risks related to potentially expansive soils are reduced. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property due to expansive soils; no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question E
Would the project: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. The Proposed Project does not include the installation of septic tanks but would rather connect to the City sewer system. No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question F
Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact. As described in Section 3.6, no paleontological resources were observed within the Project Site. However, there is always the potential, however remote, that previously unknown unique paleontological resources or sites could be encountered during subsurface construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact. In the event that paleontological resources or sites are found, MM 4.8-1, MM 4.8-2, MM 4.8-10, and MM 4.8-11 of the WRSP EIR would ensure that the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or human remains.

Furthermore, no unique geological features are present on the Project Site. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. No new impacts would occur that would require additional mitigation.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant impact with Additional Mitigation. Implementation of the Proposed Project and other potential cumulative projects in the region could result in increased erosion and soil hazards, expose additional structures and people to seismic hazards, and potentially damage unique paleontological resources or sites. These impacts are mitigatable with implementation of construction-period erosion control programs, standard seismic safety measures incorporated in building design, and procedures for inadvertent paleontological discoveries. The Proposed Project would incorporate WRSP EIR MM 4.8-1, MM 4.8-2, MM 4.8-10, and MM 4.8-11 to ensure a less than significant effect; therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-53 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to geological resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-54 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.9 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
with Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs?

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
The following regulatory background gives context to the issues of climate change and importance to reducing GHGs in California.

State and Local
Assembly Bill 1493
Signed by the California Governor in 2002, AB 1493 requires that CARB adopt regulations requiring a reduction in GHG emissions emitted by cars in the State. AB 1493 is intended to apply to 2009 and newer vehicles. On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted a necessary CAA waiver for California to implement AB 1493.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by the California Governor on June 1, 2005 and established the following State-wide emission reduction targets:
 Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010.
 Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
 Reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

EO S-3-05 created a Climate Action Team (CAT) headed by the California Environmental Protection Agency that included several other State agencies. The CAT is tasked by EO S-3-05 with outlining the effects of climate change on California and recommending an adaptation plan, as well as creating a strategy to meet the emission reduction targets.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-55 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) Signed by the California Governor on September 27, 2006, AB 32 codifies a key requirement of EO S-3-05, specifically the requirement to reduce GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 tasks CARB with monitoring State sources of GHGs and designing emission reduction measures to comply with emission reduction requirements. However, AB 32 also continues the efforts of the CAT to meet the requirements of EO S-3-05 and states that the CAT should coordinate overall State climate policy.

To accelerate the implementation of emission reduction strategies, AB 32 requires that CARB identify a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented relatively quickly. In October 2007, CARB published a list of early action measures that it estimated could be implemented and would serve to meet about 25% of the required 2020 emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). To assist CARB in identifying early action measures, the CAT published a report in April 2007 that updated their 2006 report and identified strategies for reducing GHG emissions (USEPA, 2007). In its October 2007 report, CARB cited the CAT strategies and other existing strategies that can be utilized to achieve the remainder of the emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). AB 32 requires that CARB prepare a comprehensive “scoping plan” that identifies all strategies necessary to fully achieve the required 2020 emissions reductions.

Consequently, in December 2008, CARB released its scoping plan to the public; the plan was approved by CARB on December 12, 2008. An update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan occurred on May 22, 2014 and included new strategies and recommendations to ensure reduction goals of nearterm 2020 are met with consideration of current climate science.

A second update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update addresses the 2030 target established by SB 32, as discussed below, and establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet a 40% reduction in GHG by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The key programs that the 2017 Scoping Plan Update builds on include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, an increase in the use of renewable energy in the State, and a reduction of methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes (CARB, 2017).

Executive Order S-01-07
EO S-01-07 was signed by the California Governor on January 18, 2007. It mandates a State-wide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. This target reduction was identified by CARB as one of the AB 32 early action measures in the October 2007 report (CARB, 2007).

Senate Bill 375
SB 375 was approved by the California Governor on September 30, 2008. SB 375 provides for the creation of a new regional planning document called a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS). An SCS is a blueprint for regional transportation infrastructure and development that is designed to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks to target levels set by CARB for 18 regions throughout California. Each of the various metropolitan planning organizations must prepare an SCS that is included in their respective regional transportation plan. An SCS influences transportation, housing, and land use planning. CARB then determines whether the SCS will achieve regional GHG emissions reduction goals. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-56 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Senate Bill 605
On September 21, 2014, the California Governor signed SB 605 that requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the State no later than January 1, 2016. As defined in the statute, short-lived climate pollutant means "an agent that has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, from a few days to a few decades, and a warming influence on the climate that is more potent than that of carbon dioxide." SB 605, however, does not prescribe specific compounds as short-lived climate pollutants or add to the list of GHGs regulated under AB 32. In developing the strategy, CARB completed an inventory of sources and emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the State based on available data, identified research needs to address any data gaps, identified existing and potential new control measures to reduce emissions, and prioritized the development of new measures for short-lived climate pollutants that offer co-benefits by improving water quality or reducing other air pollutants that impact community health and benefit disadvantaged communities.

The final strategy released by CARB in March 2017 focuses on methane (CH4), black carbon, and fluorinated gases, particularly hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), as important short-lived climate pollutants.

The final strategy recognizes emission reduction efforts implemented under AB 32 (e.g., refrigerant management programs) and other regulatory programs (e.g., in-use diesel engines and solid waste diversion). The measures identified in the final strategy and their expected emission reductions will feed into the update to the CARB Scoping Plan.

Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 was signed by the California Governor on April 29, 2015. It sets interim GHG targets of 40% below 1990 by 2030, to ensure California will meet its 2050 targets set by EO S-3-05. It also directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2030 Target Scoping Plan Concept Paper was released on June 17, 2016.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350 codifies the GHG targets for 2030 set by EO B-30-15. To meet these goals, SB 350 also raises the California RPS from 33% renewable generation by 2020 to 50% renewable generation by December 31, 2030.

Senate Bill 32
Additionally, SB 32, signed in 2016, further strengthens AB 32 with goals of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Based on GHG emissions inventory data compiled by CARB through 2017 and the emission limit of 431 million metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) established in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, California emission reduction goals for near-term 2020 will be met.

California Renewable Portfolio Standards - SB 1078, SB 350, and SB 100 The California RPS Program was established in 2002 by SB 1078 and requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide a certain percentage of their supply from renewable sources. The initial requirement was for at least 20% of electricity retail sales to be served by renewable resources by 2017. The RPS program was accelerated in 2015 with 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-57 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SB 350 which mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increased the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all electricity in the State to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CCR Title 20, contain standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. The regulations are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current standards were adopted by the CEC in 2018. The standards outlined in the regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California. More than 23 different categories of appliances are regulated, including refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings.

California Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)
The State regulates energy consumption under Title 24 Building Standards Code, Part 6 of the CCR (also known as the CEC). The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were developed by the CEC and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The CEC is updated every three years, with the most recent iteration (2016) effective as of January 1, 2017, and the next version (2019) planned to go into effect on January 1, 2020. The CEC’s long-term vision is that future updates to the CEC will support zero-net energy for all new single-family and low-rise residential buildings by 2020 and new high-rise residential and non-residential buildings by 2030.

California Green Building Standards Code
Title 24 Building Standards Code, Part 11 of the CCR is referred to as the CALGreen Code. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 1) planning and design; 2) energy efficiency; 3) water efficiency and conservation; 4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and 5) environmental air quality. Refer to Section 3.7 for additional information on Title 24 requirements.

CEQA Guidelines
To evaluate the impacts of projects on global climate change, the PCAPCD has established significance thresholds for GHG emissions. Significance thresholds used in this analysis are from the PCAPCD document Placer County Air Pollution Control District Policy – Review of Land Use Projects Under CEQA (PCAPCD, 2021). The PCAPCD GHG emissions thresholds are shown in Table 3-6. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-58 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE 3-6. PCAPCD CEQA GHG THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

BRIGHT-LINE THRESHOLD
10,000 MT CO2e/yr

EFFICIENCY MATRIX
Residential Non-Residential
Urban Rural Urban Rural
MT CO2e/capita MT CO2e/1,000 sf

4.5 5.5 26.5 27.3

DE MINIMIS LEVEL
1,100 MT CO2e/yr
Note: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MT = metric ton; sf = square foot
Source: PCAPCD, 2021
The PCAPCD Policy notes the following in describing how each of the thresholds should be applied:

1. Bright‐line threshold of 10,000 MT of CO2e per year for the construction and operational phases of land use projects as well as the stationary source projects,

2. De minimis level for the operational phases of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year, and

3. Efficiency matrix for the operational phase of land use development projects when emissions exceed the de minimis level.

Environmental Setting
“Global warming” and “climate change” are common terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century. Natural processes and human actions have been identified as impacting climate. The IPCC has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. Since the 19th century however, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other activities are believed to be a major factor in climate change. GHGs in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space—a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary to keep the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have trapped solar radiation and decreased the amount that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature.

CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), HFC, perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed historical concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is intensified. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing, natural gas leaks from pipelines and industrial processes, and 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-59 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration incomplete combustion associated with agricultural practices, landfills, energy providers, and other industrial facilities. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2 and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change and is the GHG emitted in the highest volume. The effect that each GHG has on global warming is the product of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. For example, CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of approximately 30 and approximately 275 times that of CO2, which has a GWP of 1.

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported as MT of CO2e. CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted by a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in higher quantities and accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from commercial developments and human activity.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Given the global nature of climate change impacts, individual project impacts are most appropriately addressed in terms of the incremental contribution to global cumulative impacts. This approach is consistent with the view articulated by the IPCC Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014).

Therefore, this analysis is of the cumulative impacts related to climate change.

The 2004 WRSP EIR did not address climate change or GHG emissions because CEQA did not require such analysis at the time the WRSP EIR was certified and the WRSP was approved. However, potential impacts to GHG emissions do not constitute “new information of substantial importance” as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15162, as GHG emissions were known as potential environmental issues before 2004, when the original WRSP EIR was certified. Nonetheless, a Proposed Project-specific analysis using CalEEMod was performed, with results informing the CEQA analysis below.

Methodology
The Proposed Project’s construction-related and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. CalEEMod is a State-wide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The site-specific inputs and assumptions used for the purposes of GHG emissions modeling are listed in Section 3.4.3.

If Proposed Project-related GHG emissions exceed the thresholds listed in Table 3-6 above, the Proposed Project is considered to have a significant impact on GHG emissions, and measures to reduce or offset the GHG emissions should be considered. Measures that reduce the amount of GHG emissions to less than the thresholds are considered to reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-60 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Questions A and B
Would the project: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Construction
No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would emit GHG emissions primarily from the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy equipment. As shown in Table 3-7 below, GHG emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project are estimated to be a maximum of 307 MT CO2e/year. GHG emissions generated by construction of the Proposed Project would be less than the Bright‐line Threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year adopted by the PCAPCD (refer to Table 3-6). Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. No new impact related to construction GHG emissions would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

TABLE 3-7. CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS

SOURCE GHG
MT OF CO2E
2023 – Phase 1 Construction 307
2024 – Phase 1 Construction 187
2025 – Phase 2 Construction 284
2026 – Phase 2 Construction 100
Highest GHG Emission Year 307
PCAPCD Thresholds 10,000
Exceeds PCAPCD Threshold? No
Note: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric ton; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Source: Attachment E
Operation
No New Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in GHG emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. As shown in Table 3-8, the Proposed Project would result in approximately 2,221 MT of CO2e per year.

TABLE 3-8. OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS

SOURCE GHG
Phase 1 Operation 1,792 MT CO2e/year
Phase 2 Operation 429 MT CO2e/year
Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 2,221 MT CO2e/year
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-61 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration PCAPCD de minimis Threshold 1,100 MT CO2e/year
Exceed PCAPCD De Minimis Threshold? Yes
Total Project Area1 800 ksf
Total Project GHG Efficiency 2.8 (MT CO2e/ksf)
PCAPCD GHG Efficiency Threshold 26.5 (MT CO2e/ksf)
Exceed PCAPCD GHG Efficiency Threshold No
Notes: 1Estimated square footage of soccer fields in thousand square feet (ksf).

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric ton; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Source: Attachment E
GHG emissions generated by operation of the Proposed Project would be greater than the 1,100 MT CO2e per year de minimis level significance threshold adopted by PCACPD. However, as described in the PCAPCD CEQA Handbook, a land use project with GHG operational emissions between 1,100 MT and 10,000 MT of CO2e per year can still be found less than cumulatively considerable when the results of the project’s related efficiency analysis meet one of conditions in the efficiency matrix for that applicable land use setting and land use type. As described above, the PCAPCD efficiency threshold for non-residential urban projects is 26.5 MT of CO2e per 1,000 sf. As shown in Table 3-8, using the estimated square footage of the soccer fields, which represents a conservative analysis of the total GHG efficiency compared to the larger Project Site, the Proposed Project has a GHG efficiency of 2.8 MT of CO2e per 1,000 sf. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative effects associated with climate change is considered less than significant, and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Under CEQA, GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts because no single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in climate (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b). Therefore, the evaluation of GHG impacts presented above evaluates whether the Proposed Project would make a considerable contribution to cumulative climate change effects. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact regarding GHG emissions not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-62 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
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?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-63 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Definition of Hazardous Material
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the CCR as:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (CCR, Title 22, Section 66260.10).

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the State Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose “cradle-to-grave” regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in the State. Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, as detailed in Title 8 of the CCR, include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations that contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. The hazard communication program requires that Safety Data Sheets be available to employees and that employee information and training programs be documented.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB and RWQCBs also regulate hazardous substances, materials, and wastes through a variety of State statutes including, for example, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, CA Water Code § 13000 et seq., and the underground storage tank cleanup laws (CA Health and Safety Code §§ 25280-25299.8). RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. Any person proposing to discharge waste within any region must file a report of 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-64 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration waste discharge with the appropriate regional board. The Proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB.

City of Roseville General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:

Safety Element
Policy SAFE5.1 Require the disclosure, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to comply with local, state, and federal safety standards.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would require site preparation activities, such as excavation and grading at the Project Site. During construction, oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid hazardous materials could be used. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment or human health. This is a potentially significant impact. However, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the current NPDES Construction General Permit for construction activities and implement the listed BMPs in a SWPPP during construction, which addresses potential leaks and spills from vehicles and construction equipment. With coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant.

Once operational, the Proposed Project would not utilize or store large qualities of hazardous materials.

Small amounts of pesticides related to landscaping or diesel fuel to power maintenance equipment may be stored onsite. All operation activities would be required to adhere to local standards set forth by the City, as well as State and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize risk to the public from hazardous materials, such as Cal/OSHA requirements and the California Health and Safety Code. Compliance with these regulations in conjunction with implementation of a SWPPP, would reduce potential exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials associated with the Proposed Project to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-65 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. As discussed above, construction of the Proposed Project could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. This is a potentially significant impact. However, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the current NPDES Construction General Permit for construction activities and implement the listed BMPs in a SWPPP during construction, which would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials. Operation of the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public. With coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant. No new impacts would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question C
Would the project: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. Orchard Ranch Elementary School is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the Project Site. As discussed above, construction of the Proposed Project could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. This is a potentially significant impact. However, coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials. Operation of the Proposed Project would not require the use of a substantial amount of hazardous materials. No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question D
Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites (DTSC, 2022). The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning tool used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The Cortese List is prepared in accordance with California Government Code § 65962.5. The List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC EnviroStor and the SWRCB GeoTracker databases were reviewed to locate "Cortese List" sites (GeoTracker, 2022). These databases did not indicate any sites located on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Proposed Project is not located on a site included on a hazardous materials list and therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-66 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Question 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? No New Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use compatibility zone. No public airports are located within 2 miles of the Project Site. The nearest airports are approximately 8 miles away: McClellan Airport located south of the Project Site and Lincoln Regional Airport is located to the northeast. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question F
Would the project: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. As described in Section 3.18.3, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Project Site has been proposed for development since 2004 and has been considered in the City’s emergency preparedness planning since that time. Furthermore, the City received confirmation from Mr. Robert Baquera of Roseville Police Department, confirming that the Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan (Baquera, 2022).

Construction of the Proposed Project could result in temporary lane closures. Lane closures, if not properly regulated, could potentially interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

This would be a potentially significant impact. However, in accordance with the City’s Construction and Design Standards, the City would require the construction contractor to implement a Traffic Management Plan prior to initiation of construction activities. The Traffic Management Plan would identify general methods by which construction activities would be managed to minimize traffic delay or impact emergency response routes. Therefore, with implementation of the City’s required Traffic Management Plan, the Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in place through the State, County, or City. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question G
Would the project: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact. The Project Site is not located within a designated fire hazard severity zone. The closest land designated as a moderate/high fire hazard severity zone is in the rural area east of Rocklin approximately 10 miles east of the Project Site (Calfire, 2022). Furthermore, the Project Site does not involve unique slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-67 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Hazard-related impacts are site specific (i.e., have the potential to affect only a limited area). Various existing and proposed development infrastructure, including residential, industrial, and public facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site would all involve the storage, use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials to varying degrees during construction and operations; hazardous materials utilized during construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be minimal and limited to the existing Project Site.

Construction of the Proposed Project could potentially have adverse impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. However, coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Reduction of on-site hazardous related impacts, as discussed above, would ensure that construction activities would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, implementation of a Traffic Management Plan through the City’s Construction and Design Standards would ensure that the Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute to the interference of such plans.

Operation of the Proposed Project and cumulative projects could result in a cumulative impact if these projects were to result in potential exposure of hazardous materials to sensitive individuals or the general public-at-large, or if additional projects in the vicinity were to include the use or storage of hazardous materials. Because substantial amounts of hazardous materials are not anticipated to be utilized or stored on the Project Site, operation of the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable hazardous impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact involving hazards or hazardous materials not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-68 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.11 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-69 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 USC §§ 1251-1376), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important sections of the Act are as follows:
 Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the USEPA publishes a list every two years of impaired bodies of water for which water quality objectives are not attained. Total Maximum Daily Loads are established for contaminants of concern in order to ensure contamination levels decrease over time.
 Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity, which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the Act.  Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the SWRCB and is discussed in detail below.
 Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. This permit program is jointly administered by USACE and the USEPA.

Federal Anti-Degradation Policy
The federal Anti-Degradation Policy is part of the CWA (Section 303(d)) and is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a state-wide policy that includes the following primary provisions: 1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected; 2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development; and 3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-70 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Public Law 93-523), passed in 1974, the USEPA has responsibility of monitoring contaminants of concern in domestic water supplies. Contaminants of concern relevant to domestic water supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are regulated by USEPA primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). MCLs and the process for setting these standards are reviewed triennially. Amendments to the SDWA enacted in 1986 established an accelerated schedule for setting drinking water MCLs.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Under Section 402(p) of the CWA, the USEPA established the NPDES to enforce discharge standards from a variety of sources. Both point source and non-point-source pollution is covered under the NPDES.

Dischargers in both categories can apply for individual discharge permits or apply for coverage under the General Permits that cover certain qualified dischargers. Point source discharges come from “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,” including municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and municipal separated storm sewer systems. NPDES permits impose limits on the pollutants discharged based on minimum performance standards or the quality of the receiving water, whichever type is more stringent in a given situation.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000 et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The Act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the State. The RWQCB implements WDRs identified in the Report.

State Non-Degradation Policy
In 1968, as required under the federal Anti-Degradation Policy described previously, the SWRCB adopted a Non-Degradation Policy aimed at maintaining high quality for waters in California. The Non-Degradation Policy states that the disposal of wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State and to promote the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State. The policy provides as follows:

1. Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained until it has been demonstrated that any change would be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State and would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.

2. Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet WDRs that would ensure 1) pollution or nuisance would not occur and 2) the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State would be maintained. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-71 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Roseville General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:

Open Space and Conservation Element
Policy OS3.1 Utilize cost-effective urban run-off controls, including Best Management Practices, such as low impact development and naturalized stormwater management features, to reduce the rate of stormwater runoff and limit urban pollutants from entering the watercourses.

Policy OS3.6 Where feasible, locate stormwater retention ponds in areas where subsoil is suitable for groundwater recharge.

West Roseville Specific Plan
The Resource Management section of the WRSP states that the overall goal of the WRSP mitigation program is no net loss of wetland functions, habitat, and values. To achieve this goal, the WRSP EIR implemented a no net loss mitigation program that would require projects to fully mitigate for impacts to wetlands, and to acquire the appropriate permitting prior to impacting any water of the U.S. or State.

Regional Hydrology
Watershed
The Project Site is partially within the Pleasant Grove Creek watershed and partially within the Curry Creek watershed (City, 2018). There are no surface waterbodies on the Project Site. A freshwater pond and its associated seasonal wetland and seasonal wetland swale occur north of the northern boundary of the Project Site and flow to the north when drained. These aquatic resources are intended to be avoided as part of project design. Runoff from the Project Site is collected into the City’s storm drain system.

Floodplain
FEMA oversees the delineation of flood zones and the provision of federal disaster assistance. FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program and publishes the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, that show the expected frequency and severity of flooding by area, typically for the existing land use and type of drainage/flood control facilities present. The Project Site is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Hazard Zone (FEMA, 2021).

Groundwater
The Project Site is located in the Sacramento Valley Basin within the Sacramento Valley – North American Sub-basin (CDWR, 2019). This sub-basin drains an area of 548 square miles. A Groundwater Impact Report was drafted to support the WRSP EIR analysis (Appendix M of the WRSP EIR). As stated in Chapter 4 of the WRSP, groundwater is part of the City’s water supply planning, but is only used as short-term emergency supply during dry years.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-72 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project could potentially violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, as construction equipment and materials have the potential to result in accidental discharge of pollutants into water resources. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Potential pollutants include particulate matter, sediment, oils and greases, concrete, and adhesives.

However, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit prior to initiation of construction activities. The SWRCB requires that construction sites have adequate control measures to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to streams to ensure compliance with Section 303 of the CWA. Furthermore, a SWPPP would be developed and approved prior to construction. The SWPPP would include a detailed, site-specific listing of the potential sources of stormwater pollution; pollution prevention measures (erosion and sediment control measures and measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous spills) including a description of the type and location of erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented at the Project Site; and a BMP monitoring and maintenance schedule to determine the amount of pollutants leaving the Project Site.

The requirement for planned development within the WRSP to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit is detailed in Section 4.12.3 of the WRSP EIR. With coverage under the Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP, no new impacts would occur.

Operation of the Proposed Project could potentially introduce contaminants into water resources from stormwater runoff, as parking lots often contain contaminants such as vehicle oil and gasoline. As identified in Attachment F, a seasonal wetland and wetland swale are located directly north of the northern Project Site boundary. However, the Proposed Project has been designed to avoid these aquatic features, reduce potential runoff, and includes the development of 25,926 sf of bioremediation (bioswales) planted with filtering vegetation throughout the Project Site, as seen on Figure 2-4. The bioremediation areas would provide preliminary filtration of contaminated stormwater runoff before stormwater reaches the water table. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which ensures that the Proposed Project would implement and incorporate City BMPs related to erosion, particularly in the vicinity of the nearby wetland area (refer to Sheet L2.1 of Attachment B). With coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, adherence to a SWPPP, and the Proposed Project’s design elements, impacts related to water quality standards would be less than significant.

Question B
Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact. Water supply for the Proposed Project would be supplied by the City’s municipal services and required for general landscaping, restrooms, water fountains, and misting devices. Artificial 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-73 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration turf would be installed; therefore, watering of grass would not be required. Groundwater wells would not be utilized. The Proposed Project is expected to consume approximately 48,360,457 gallons of water per year. Water use for the Proposed Project, including potential groundwater use within the WRSP area, was planned for within the WRSP. Therefore, the Project Site is accounted for in City water planning projections and is not expected to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or use an excessive amount of groundwater over current projections in the WRSP. The City’s Environmental Utilities – Engineering Department has confirmed that adequate water supplies exist to serve the demands of the Proposed Project (Hanson, 2022). Furthermore, the Proposed Project includes the development of 25,926 sf of bioremediation areas planted with filtering vegetation, as well as landscaping within the parking lots and throughout the Project Site, which would allow the recharge of groundwater supplies. Refer to Sheet L9.1 of Attachment B for a Planting Plan. No new impacts would occur to the groundwater supply or recharge.

Question C
Would the project: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. No surface water resources occur on the Project Site; a seasonal wetland and wetland swale are located directly north of the northern Project Site boundary. Grading, cut and fill activities, impervious surfaces, and earth-moving activities associated with construction of the Proposed Project have the potential to result in erosion, siltation, temporary changes to drainage patterns, and contamination of stormwater. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit prior to initiation of construction activities. Furthermore, a SWPPP would be developed and approved prior to construction.

Coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP would include implementation of BMPs during construction to reduce the potential for impacts associated with erosion and exceeding water quality thresholds. Implementation of BMPs such as fiber rolls, hay bales, and silt fencing, would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. The Construction General Permit also includes post-construction performance standards to protect the physical and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. With coverage under the Construction General Permit and adherence to a SWPPP, no new impacts would occur.

Additionally, a Drainage Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes stormwater retention bioremediation areas and connections to the City’s storm drain system, which would filter potentially polluted runoff and control stormwater so as to not result in flooding on- or offsite (refer to Sheet L5.1 of Attachment B). The Proposed Project also includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-74 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which ensures that the Proposed Project would implement and incorporate the City’s BMPs related to erosion (refer to Sheet L2.1 of Attachment B).

Question D
Would the project: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact. As described above, the Project Site is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Hazard Zone (FEMA, 2021). The Project Site is relatively flat and is not within a tsunami or seiche zone (DOC, 2021b). No new impact would occur.

Question E
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact. Section 4.12 of the WRSP EIR details relevant water quality and groundwater policies and regulations, such as the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program (2004). The Proposed Project, as part of the WRSP, was designed to adhere to relevant policies and plans. The Placer County Water Agency is the lead agency for the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), which includes the City of Roseville. The Placer County Board of Supervisors approved the GSP in January 2022.

The Proposed Project was included in City’s groundwater use projections within the WRSP and would not conflict with the GSP. No new impacts would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. The Proposed Project and potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare SWPPPs, which are intended to reduce the potential for cumulative impacts to water quality during construction.

Therefore, impacts on cumulative construction-related water quality effects would be less than significant after compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would result in minimal new hardscape that would not be cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project has been designed to control stormwater through stormwater detention and connection to the City’s stormwater infrastructure. Because the Proposed Project would not increase flood risks, would not deplete a groundwater basin, and would not place people or structures within an area prone to tsunami or seiche, the Proposed Project would not contribute to these cumulatively considered impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to hydrology or water resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-75 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.12 LAND USE/PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

LAND USE/PLANNING
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
City of Roseville General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:

Parks and Recreation Element
Goal PR1.1 Provide adequate parkland, recreational facilities, and a wide variety of programs, activities, and educational opportunities using public and private resources.

Goal PR1.2 Maximize the use of dedicated parklands and open space areas to provide residents with both active/formal/programmable and passive/informal/nonprogrammed recreation opportunities.

Land Use Element
Policy LU1.3 Continue to provide a full range of public services and maintain high levels of service for public facilities, services, transportation, open space, and parks and recreation.

Environmental Setting
Project Site Land Uses
The 51-acre Project Site partially spans across four parcels: City APNs 496-020-034-000 (WRSP Parcel W-60B), 496-020-033-000 (WRSP Parcel W-60A), 496-020-032-000 (WRSP Parcel W-50E), 017-101-017-000. Three of the four parcels are located within the WRSP land use plan. The Project Site includes all of APN 496-020-033-000 (25.20 acres – zoned Park and Recreation), all of APN 496-020-032-000 (3.10 acres – zoned Park and Recreation), the southern portion of APN 017-101-017-000 (3.0 acres – zoned Park and Recreation), and the northern portion of 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-76 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APN 496-020-034-000 (20.2 acres – zoned Light Industrial/Special Area) (Figure 2-2). All parcels are currently undeveloped and located within City limits.

Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses are comprised of residential, industrial, commercial, and public uses. Lands to the north of the Project Site are zoned Community Commercial (CC). Lands to the west of the Project Site are zoned Low and High Density Residential. Lands to the south of the Project Site are zoned Light Industrial (M1). Lands to the east are zoned Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and contain the Pleasant Grove WWTP and REP.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community typically include new freeways and highways, major arterials streets, and railroad lines. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur, and no new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact. As described above, the Project Site is currently zoned Park and Recreation and Light Industrial/Special Area. The City Zoning Code permits the development of a sports complex within this zoning designation. The Proposed Project would not require a Zoning or General Plan amendment. The Proposed Project was planned and anticipated for within the WRSP. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. The Proposed Project is consistent with applicable goals and policies in the City’s General Plan; specifically, Goals PR1.1 and PR1.2 listed earlier in this IS, to provide adequate parkland and recreational facilities, and to provide the public with recreation opportunities. The Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, as discussed in each individual environmental impact area analyzed within this Subsequent IS. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur, and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be developed in accordance with local and regional planning documents. As described above, the Proposed Project would comply with all zoning requirements and would reflect current land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site. Thus, cumulative impacts associated with land use compatibility are expected to be less 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-77 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration than significant. Additionally, as discussed above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, goals, and policies, and thus would not contribute to the potential for adverse cumulative land use effects.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to land use/planning issues not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-78 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.13 MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Mineral Resources
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Pursuant to the mandate of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the State Mining and Geology Board designates mineral deposits that have regional, multi-community, or State-wide economic significance. SMARA allows the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) to designate and classify lands containing mineral deposits of regional or State-wide significance. Classification of minerals is completed by the State Geologist in accordance with the SMGB’s priority list, into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). Lands classified as MRZ-1 are areas where geologic information indicates no signification mineral deposits are present; MRZ-2 indicates areas that contain identified mineral resources; MRZ-3 indicates areas of undetermined mineral resources significance; MRZ-4 indicates areas of unknown mineral resource potential (DOC, 2019).

Environmental Setting
As described in the County’s General Plan, Open Space and Conservation element, mineral resources, consisting of sand and gravel, are limited and no mineral extraction operations exist or are anticipated in the future. The WRSP EIR states that there are no known mineral resources within the WRSP area (refer to Section 4.7 of the WRSP EIR).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-79 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No New Impact. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System, there are no known mineral resources located on the Project Site (USGS, 2020). Additionally, the WRSP EIR states that there are no known mineral resources within the WRSP area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resources that could be of value to the region. No new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No New Impact. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the area (USGS, 2020). No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to mineral resources not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-80 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.14 NOISE
Information in this section is summarized from an Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Saxelby Acoustics for the Proposed Project (Attachment I).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NOISE
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
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?

SETTING
Background Information on Noise
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound.

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-81 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour).

The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (also referred to as Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-dB weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours.

The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 3-9 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-82 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE 3-9. TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL
(DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES
110 Rock Band
Jet Fly-Over at 300 meters (1,000 ft.) 100
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 meter (3 ft.) 90
Diesel Truck at 15 meters (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hour (50 mph) 80 Food Blender at 1 meter (3 ft.)Garbage Disposal at 1 meter (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3 meters (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 meters (300 ft.) 60 Normal Speech at 1 meter (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
10 Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Attachment I; (Caltrans, 2013a)
Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
 subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction,  interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning, and  physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-83 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived.  Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected.
 A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise—including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles— attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (e.g., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

Existing Noise and Vibration Environments – Analysis Methods Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the Project Site, Saxelby Acoustics conducted a continuous (24‐hr.) noise level measurement at two locations near sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project Site over four days. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2 of Attachment I. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 3-10 below. Appendix B of Attachment I contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

TABLE 3-10. SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA

LOCATION DATE LDN

DAYTIME
LEQ

DAYTIME
L50

DAYTIME
LMAX

NIGHTTIME
LEQ

NIGHTTIME
L50

NIGHTTIME
LMAX
LT‐1: 75 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/23/2022 62 62 53 83 52 46 68
LT‐1: 75 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/24/2022 61 62 51 84 51 43 69
LT‐1: 75 ft. to
CL of
04/25/2022 62 61 53 83 53 46 72
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-84 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Westbrook
Blvd.

LT‐1: 75 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/26/2022 62 62 53 85 53 45 72
LT‐2: 115 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/23/2022 57 57 50 80 48 44 69
LT‐2: 115 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/24/2022 60 61 50 82 48 44 65
LT‐2: 115 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/25/2022 60 58 53 78 52 44 71
LT‐2: 115 ft. to
CL of
Westbrook
Blvd.
04/26/2022 60 58 53 78 52 44 71
The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all of the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL 200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Ambient Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
To accurately assess the effect of the Proposed Project on surrounding sensitive uses, Saxelby Acoustics determined the existing ambient noise levels in the backyard areas of the nearby residences directly west of the Project Site which are shielded by existing concrete masonry sound walls located along Westbrook Blvd. Using the data collected during the long‐term noise level survey, Saxelby Acoustics modeled noise levels emanating from Westbrook Blvd. at the existing noise‐sensitive receptor backyards. Westbrook Blvd. was noted as the primary daytime noise source. However, contributions to 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-85 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ambient noise from the REP or the Pleasant Grove WWTP are also included in the collected ambient noise readings.

Inputs to the model included sound power levels for Westbrook Blvd., existing sound walls, buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 9613‐2:1996 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). ISO 9613 is the most commonly used method for calculating exterior noise propagation. The results of this analysis are shown graphically on Figure 3 of Attachment I, in terms of the average (Leq) daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise levels.

Evaluation of Operational Noise at Residential Receptors The primary noise sources associated with a sports field are loud conversation amongst players and coaches on the field, referee whistles, and crowd noise. Secondary noise sources associated with the Proposed Project include a playground on the northern portion of the Project Site. This Noise Assessment considered each of these noise sources along with vehicle circulation on the Project Site.

The following is a list of assumptions used for the noise modeling. The data used is based upon Saxelby Acoustics data from similar facilities and predicted project trip generation volumes from the Transportation Impact Study (Attachment H).
 On‐Site Circulation: The proposed soccer complex is predicted to generate up to 480 peak hour trips during a typical weekday and up to 1,074 peak hour trips during tournaments (Attachment H). Parking lot movements are predicted to generate a sound exposure level (SEL) of 71 dBA SEL at 50 feet for cars. Nighttime traffic outside of the AM or PM peak hour is not expected to occur.
 Soccer Field: Based upon measurements taken at various facilities, soccer games varied in noise level from 52 to 55 dBA Leq at 200 feet as measured from the center of the field to sidelines opposite of spectators. It was assumed that half of the fields would operate at 52 dBA Leq at 200 feet and half would operate at 55 dBA Leq at 200 feet. Maximum (Lmax) noise levels for a typical soccer game were found to be 73 dBA at 200 feet.  Playground Area: Recreational activity in center of playground area at 55 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax at 100 feet. Daytime use only.

Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise prediction model. Inputs to the model included sound power levels for the proposed soccer fields, parking lots, and playground, existing and proposed buildings, existing sound walls, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with the ISO 9613 method. The results of this analysis are shown graphically on Figure 4 of Attachment I.

Regulatory Setting
City of Roseville General Plan
The City’s General Plan Noise Element (Table 1X‐3) establishes an acceptable exterior noise level of 50 dBA Leq for daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) for stationary noise sources. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-86 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Roseville Municipal Code
Per the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities are exempt assuming that they occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order.

Per the City’s Municipal Code noise ordinance, an increase in ambient noise levels exceeding 3 dBA would be considered significant.

City of Roseville Noise Ordinance
The City’s Municipal Code outlines the following sound limits for sensitive receptors:

1. 9.24.100 SOUND LIMITS FOR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS: It is unlawful for any person at any location to create any sound, or to allow the creation of any sound, on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the exterior sound level when measured at the property line of any affected sensitive receptor to exceed the ambient sound level by three dBA or exceed the sound level standards as set forth in Table 3-11, by three dBA, whichever is greater.

TABLE 3-11. SOUND LEVEL STANDARDS (FOR NON-TRANPSORTATION OR FIXED SOUND SOURCES)

SOUND LEVEL

DESCRIPTOR

DAYTIME
(7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.)

NIGHTTIME
(10:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M.)
Hourly leq, dB 50 45
Maximum level, dB 70 65
Note: dB = decibel; leq = average or equivalent sound level a. Each of the sound level standards specified in Table 3-11 shall be reduced by 5 dB for simple tone noises, consisting of speech and music. However, in no case shall the sound level standard be lower than the ambient sound level plus 3 dB.
b. If the intruding sound source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient sound level can be measured, the sound level measured while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the sound level standards of Table 3-11. (Ord. 3638 § 1, 2001.)

2. 9.24.130 SOUND LIMITS FOR EVENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.24.100, sound sources associated with outside activities on public property (e.g., athletic events, sporting events, fairs, and entertainment events) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-87 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11:00 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, and city‐recognized holidays, shall not exceed 80 dBA, Lmax at the property line of the property on which the event is being held. (Ord. 3638 § 1, 2001.)

3. 9.24.030 EXEMPTIONS: Sound or noise emanating from the following sources and activities are exempt from the provisions of this title:

4. Sound sources typically associated with residential uses (e.g., children at play, air conditioning and similar equipment, but not including barking dogs);

5. Sound sources associated with property maintenance (e.g., lawn mowers, edgers, blowers, pool pumps, power tools, etc.) provided such activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.;

6. Safety, warning and alarm devices, including house and car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare, provided such devices are not negligently maintained or operated;

7. The normal operation of public and private schools typically consisting of classes and other school‐sponsored activities;

8. Maintenance (e.g., lawn mowers, edgers, aerators, blowers, etc.) of golf courses, provided such activities take place between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. May through September, and 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. October through April;

9. Emergencies involving the execution of the duties of duly authorized governmental personnel and others providing emergency response to the general public, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel, utility personnel, and the operation of emergency response vehicles and equipment;

10. Private construction (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair activities) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Ord. 3638 § 1, 2001.) Criteria for Acceptable Vibration
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measuresin terms of peak particle velocitiesin inches persecond. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Human and structural response to different vibration levelsisinfluenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 3-12, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-88 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.

Table 3-12 indicatesthat the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec peak particle velocity (ppv). A threshold of 0.2 in/sec ppv is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short‐term construction projects.

TABLE 3-12. EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY

HUMAN REACTION EFFECT ON BUILDINGS

MM/SECOND IN/SECOND

0.15‐0.30 0.006‐0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage
of any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and subjected
to relative short periods of
vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling ‐ houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of walls, flexible
ceiling treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural” damage
10‐15 0.4‐0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” dam age
and possibly minorstructural
damage
Source: Attachment I: (Caltrans, 2013b)

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project result in: 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? Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
No New Impact. Based upon the Transportation Impact Study prepared for the Proposed Project (Attachment H), the Proposed Project is predicted to result in a reduction of 382 daily vehicle trips as 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-89 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration compared to the planned vehicle trips assumed for the underlying land use assumed in the WRSP.

Therefore, there would be no new impacts when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Operational Noise at Sensitive Receptors
Project Noise Exposure
No New Impact. As shown in Figure 3 of the Environmental Noise Assessment (Attachment I), the ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project Site were found to range from 56 to 58 dBA Leq during daytime hours due primarily to existing traffic noise, the REP, and the Pleasant Grove WWTP. This level of noise already exceeds the City’s 50 dBA Leq daytime noise standard, established in Table IX-3 of the City’s 2035 General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, the Noise Assessment examined whether the Proposed Project would cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels. Figure 4 of Attachment I shows that Project noise levels at the nearest backyards along Westbrook Blvd. range from 47 to 55 dBA Leq, causing ambient noise increases ranging from 0 to 2 dBA Leq. This is less than the 3 dBA standard established in the City Municipal Code Moise Ordinance Section 9.24.100.

It should also be noted that the maximum property line noise level at the Project Site is predicted to be 62 dBA Leq. Maximum (Lmax) noise levels from typical soccer activity was measured to be 18 dBA higher than average (Leq) values. Therefore, the property line maximum noise level is predicted to be 80 dBA Lmax. This complies with the City Municipal Code noise ordinance requirement that sound sources associated with outside activities on public property not exceed 80 dBA Lmax at the property line on which the event is being held. Therefore, operational noise from the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Construction Noise
No New Impact. During the construction phases of the Proposed Project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. As indicated in Table 3-13 below, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Most of the construction would occur at distances of 200 feet or greater from the nearest residences. Additionally, construction noise would be shielded by existing masonry sound walls located along Westbrook Blvd. At 200 feet, maximum noise levels from the loudest pieces of equipment would be approximately 73 dBA Lmax in the nearest residential backyards.

Existing maximum noise levels are estimated to be approximately 76 to 78 dBA Lmax in the nearest residential backyards. Therefore, t construction of the Proposed Project is not predicted to increase existing noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

TABLE 3-13. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT MAXIMUM LEVEL, DBA AT
50 FEET
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-90 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Attachment I; Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA‐HEP‐05‐054. January 2006.

Construction noise associated with parking lot paving would be similar to noise that would be associated with public works projects, such as a roadway widening or street paving projects. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and occur during normal daytime working hours. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A Proposed Project‐generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur primarily during daytime hours.

The City exempts construction noise from the Noise Ordinance provisions if construction activity is limited to daytime hours. These exemptions are typical of City and County noise ordinances and reflect the recognition that construction‐related noise is temporary in character, is generally acceptable when limited to daylight hours, and is part of what residents of urban areas expect as part of a typical urban noise environment (along with sirens, etc.). Impacts related to construction would be less than significant and no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the project result in: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Data in Table 3-14 below indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the Proposed Project are less than the

0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 26 feet, or further, from typical construction activities. At these distances, construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. No new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-91 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE 3-14. VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT

PEAK PARTICLE
VELOCITY AT 25 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)

PEAK PARTICLE
VELOCITY AT 50 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)

PEAK PARTICLE
VELOCITY AT 100 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 (Less than 0.20 at
26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Attachment I; Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

Question 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? No New Impact. The Project Site is not located near an existing airport or private airstrip and is not within an area covered by an existing airport land use plan. No new impact would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. As stated above, operation of the Proposed Project would not cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels. Additionally, the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from traffic noise sources associated with buildout of the WRSP was accessed in the WRSP EIR and mitigation was incorporated where necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact is considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact resulting from noise not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-92 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.15 POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

POPULATION AND HOUSING
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
LessThanSignificant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
City of Roseville General Plan
The Land Use and Housing Elements of the City’s General Plan provides detailed information related to the City’s housing needs and standards, as well as population growth management. Applicable goals and policies include, but are not limited to:

Goal LU-8.1 Proactively manage and plan for growth.

Goal LU-8.3 Growth shall mitigate its impacts through consistency with the General Plan goals and policies and shall provide a positive benefit to the community.

Policy LU-8.5 The City shall use the specific plan process to ensure a comprehensive, logical growth process for new development areas (e.g., annexations) or any areas where significant land use changes are considered.

Environmental Setting
Population
As of July 1, 2021, the population of the City was estimated at 151,901 people (US Census, 2021). The Public Services element of the WRSP (2004) estimated that the WRSP would generate an estimated population of 25,964 persons.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-93 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: 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)?
No New Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve the development of any homes or businesses that could lead to population growth. Additionally, the development of the Proposed Project is anticipated and planned for within the WRSP. The Proposed Project would not directly induce population growth and would have a less-than-significant impact on population growth. There would be no new impacts compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B
Would the Project: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. The Proposed Project would not displace existing housing or people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing. There would be no new impacts when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. The Proposed Project is planned for within the WRSP and is not expected to significantly increase unplanned growth; therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with growth. No new impact would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact related to population and housing not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-94 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.16 PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PUBLIC SERVICES
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?

SETTING
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Service
Fire protection and emergency medical services within the City are provided by the Roseville Fire Department (RFD). The RFD serves the WRSP area. The City operates eight fire stations and one training facility (City, 2022b). The Project Site is located in District 9, with the closest Fire Station being Station 9, located approximately 0.7 miles east of the Project Site at 2451 Hayden Parkway in Roseville. At the time the WRSP EIR was prepared, Station 9 was proposed to accommodate growth associated with the WRSP; Station 9 has since been built and is operational. The WRSP EIR included mitigation measures to maintain the City’s response time standard for emergencies (refer to Section 4.10 Public Services of the WRSP EIR, MM 4.10-4 and MM 4.10-5).

Law Enforcement
The Roseville Police Department (RPD) serves the WRSP area. The RPD provides all operations and patrols out of its central station located at 1051 Junction Blvd. in Roseville, located approximately 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-95 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 miles southeast of the Project Site. The WRSP EIR included mitigation measures to maintain adequate police staffing in response to buildout of the WRSP (refer to Section 4.10 Public Services of the WRSP EIR, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2).

Schools
The Project Site is within the boundaries of the Roseville City School District (RCSD) and Roseville Joint Union High School District (RJUHSD). The RCSD services the City’s primary schools and includes 16 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 1 virtual academy, and 1 preschool. The RJUHSD services secondary schools within the City and includes eight high schools and one adult school. The closest school is Orchard Ranch Elementary School located approximately one quarter mile from the Project Site.

Parks
As described in Section 3.17.2, the City’s park and recreation facilities are operated by the City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department. The Department is responsible for the development and maintenance of the City’s various recreational facilities, including community centers/libraries, parks, public golf courses, public swimming pools, and open space areas (City, 2020a). The closest community parks to the Project Site is Astill Family Park, located approximately 350 feet west of the Project Site and Sierra Crossing Park, located approximately 1,260 feet west of the Project Site.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A – Fire Protection
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection?
No New Impact. The Project Site is located in the RFD service area; Vacaville Fire Station 9 is located approximately 0.7 miles east of the Project Site. As described in Section 3.21 below, the Proposed Project is not located in a very high fire hazard severity zone and does not involve unique slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. While the Proposed Project could be expected to marginally increase demand for fire protection and emergency services compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would not create the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities because the Proposed Project is anticipated for within the WRSP. The WRSP EIR included mitigation measures to maintain the City’s response time standard for fire services with addition of the Proposed Project (refer to Section 4.10 Public Services of the WRSP EIR, MM 4.10-4 and MM 4.10-5).

Additionally, all building design and construction would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, which includes construction techniques that minimize fire risk. The RFD would conduct a plan check prior to approval of the building permit, which would ensure that appropriate steps are taken to 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-96 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration minimize the risk of fire, by requiring that recommendations of the RFD are implemented, reducing the potential for a fire on the Project Site. No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question B – Police Protection
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: police protection?
No New Impacts. Law enforcement services within the City are provided by the RPD. The Project Site is within the RPD service area. While the Proposed Project could be expected to marginally increase demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would not create the need for new or expanded police protection facilities because the Proposed Project is anticipated for within the WRSP. The WRSP EIR included mitigation measures to maintain adequate police staffing in response to buildout of the WRSP, which includes the Proposed Project (refer to Section 4.10 Public Services of the WRSP EIR, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2). No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Question C – Schools
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: schools? No New Impact. The Proposed Project does not include elements, such as the development of housing, that could potentially increase the population size and put a higher demand on school services. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse impact to schools. No new impact would occur.

Questions D – Parks
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: parks? No New Impact. As described in Section 3.17.3 below, the Proposed Project involves the construction of a regional sports complex, to include 10 sports fields, a universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, as attendees would largely be visiting the Project Site specifically for the purpose of attending a scheduled game. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect City parks. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-97 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Question E – Public Facilities
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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: other public facilities?
No New Impact. As described in Section 3.17.3, impacts to existing recreations facilities would be less than significant, with no new impacts occurring compared to the WRSP EIR. The Proposed Project would draw attendees to the Project Site for the main purpose of attending a scheduled game. This use is not anticipated to affect other public facilities. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. As described above, the Proposed Project could potentially increase the demand for fire and police services. However, the Proposed Project would create a negligible demand on these services and is expected and planned for in the WRSP. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to public services not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-98 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.17 RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

RECREATION
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
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?

SETTING
The City’s park and recreation facilities are operated by the City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department. The Department is responsible for the development and maintenance of the City’s various recreational facilities, including community centers/libraries, parks, public golf courses, public swimming pools, and open space areas (City, 2020a). The closest community parks to the Project Site is Astill Family Park, located approximately 350 feet west of the Project Site and Sierra Crossing Park, located approximately 1,260 feet west of the Project Site.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No New Impact. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a regional sports complex, to include 10 sports fields, a universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. The Proposed Project would primarily function to serve pre-rented local and regional sports tournaments and would not serve free-play for the general public. The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, as attendees would largely be vising the site specifically for the purpose of attending a scheduled game. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the capacity or physical conditions of local parks and recreation facilities.

Impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreations facilities would be less than significant. No new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-99 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Question 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? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. The Proposed Project would provide a new recreational facility to the public through the creation of a regional sports complex, playground, and picnic facilities. The construction of this facility has been analyzed throughout this Subsequent Initial Study and potential impacts to the environment have been reduced to less-than-significant levels through appropriate mitigation measures detailed throughout this Subsequent IS.

Cumulative Impacts
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. The Proposed Project includes construction of a recreational facility. Potential environmental impacts related to the Proposed Project have been mitigated to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures detailed within this Subsequent IS.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of all new mitigation measures listed throughout this Subsequent Initial Study. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-100 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.18 TRANSPORTATION
Information in this section is summarized from a Transportation Impact Study prepared by Fehr & Peers for the Proposed Project (Attachment H).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

TRANSPORTATION
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

SETTING
Roadway System
The Project Site is located within the WRSP area, which is actively being developed. As a result, the current roadway network is partially built but not fully connected. The following key roadways would serve the Project Site.
 Westbrook Blvd. is a north-south arterial that currently begins a short distance north of Blue Oaks Blvd. and extends for a distance of 2.2 miles to its existing southern terminus south of Pleasant Grove Blvd. The constructed portion of the roadway has two lanes in each direction, separated by a landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Westbrook Blvd. is planned for widening to six lanes and will ultimately extend from Baseline Road on the south to Sunset Blvd. West on the north (within unincorporated Placer County).  Blue Oaks Blvd. is an east-west major arterial that connects the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. It begins a short distance west of Westbrook Blvd. in west Roseville and extends 6.5 miles, terminating at Sunset Blvd. in Rocklin. West of Fiddyment Road, it has one lane in each direction 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-101 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration separated by a striped median. Posted speed limits on this segment range from 45 to 50 mph.

East of Fiddyment Road, it is a six-lane median-divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The State Route (SR) 65/Blue Oaks Blvd. interchange is situated about 5 miles east of the Project Site. From this interchange, SR-65 extends north towards the City of Lincoln and south towards I-80. Near the Project Site, Blue Oaks Blvd. is planned for widening to six lanes.  Pleasant Grove Blvd. is an east-west minor arterial that connects the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. It begins a short distance west of Westbrook Blvd. in west Roseville and extends east into Rocklin, where it transitions into Park Avenue at the city limits east of Highland Park Drive.

Near the Project Site, it is a four-lane median-divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
 Phillip Road is a two-lane roadway that begins at Westpark Drive and extends west into unincorporated Placer County. Phillip Road extends east-west between the Project Site and Westpark Drive and north-south between the Project Site and Westbrook Blvd. The north-south segment of Phillip Road parallels Westbrook Blvd. and measures approximately 14 feet wide.

The east-west segment of Phillip Road measures approximately 20 feet wide and primarily serves the Pleasant Grove WWTP and the REP. Near the Project Site, Phillip Road has unpaved shoulders and lacks sidewalks. Phillip Road is discontinuous where it approaches the Blue Oaks Blvd./Westbrook Blvd. intersection.

Bikeways, Pedestrian Facilities, Public Transportation System Bicycle facilities are typically categorized in the following classifications:
 Class I Multi-Use Off-Street Paths (also known as shared-use paths) are paved trails that are separated from roadways and allow for shared use by both cyclists and pedestrians.  Class II On-Street Bike Lanes are designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs.
 Class III On-Street Bike Routes are designated by signage for shared bicycle use with vehicles but do not necessarily include any additional pavement width for bicyclists.  Class IV Separated Bikeways (also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks) are separated bikeways improve upon buffered bike lanes by providing vertical separation between bike lanes and the adjacent travel lanes. Vertical separation can be provided with concrete curb and gutter, bollards, or on-street parking.

Class II bike lanes are present on Westbrook Blvd. (including along the Westbrook Blvd. Project Site frontage), Blue Oaks Blvd., and Pleasant Grove Blvd. A Class I shared-use path connects the Brookstone neighborhood west of the Project Site with neighborhoods to the south, Nichols Park, and Chilton Middle School.

At present, given that the Project Site area is partially built out, the existing pedestrian network is intermittent. Generally, sidewalks are present along roadway frontages on which development has occurred, including the westerly Westbrook Blvd. frontage from Octave Drive north to approximately 1,000 feet south of Blue Oaks Blvd. as well as on internal roadways within the Brookstone neighborhood.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-102 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Currently, sidewalks are not present along the Project Site Westbrook Blvd. frontage, with the exception of the easterly side of both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive intersections.

Additionally, sidewalks are not present on either side of Phillip Road between Westbrook Blvd. and Westpark Drive or on the southerly side of Blue Oaks Blvd. between Westbrook Blvd. and Hayden Parkway.

Blue Oaks Blvd. between Westbrook Blvd. and Fiddyment Road is a planned six-lane arterial. As of April 2022, the southerly half section has been constructed from Fiddyment Road westerly to beyond Hayden Parkway. From there, only the northerly half section has been constructed. This explains the lack of continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street (i.e., as they would be “throw-away” if built on the south side of the street west of Westpark Drive, for instance). Marked crosswalks are present on the north, south, and west legs of both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive all-way stop-controlled intersections.

Roseville Transit, operated by the City, provides fixed route bus, dial-a-ride, and paratransit services throughout the City. Fixed-route bus service is not currently provided within the vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest bus stop is located on Pleasant Grove Blvd. at Market Street (Route M), which is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project Site. Roadways within the Project Site area have been designed with bus turnouts to accommodate future fixed-route bus service. Farside bus turnouts are currently present on both northbound and southbound Westbrook Blvd. at Brookstone Drive South.

Roseville Transit dial-a-ride service provides point-to-point service to locations within Roseville City limits, including the Project Site. The service is available to the general public. A single-ride fare for the general public is $3.75. Passengers may also purchase 10-ride passes or discount fares for eligible passengers. Rides can be reserved between 1 and 14 days in advance of the ride.

Parking Demand and Supply
The Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment H) indicates that the Proposed Project would have a peak parking demand of about 800 parking spaces. Since over 950 on-site parking spaces would be provided, the supply of parking appears adequate to meet the projected demand during weekend soccer tournaments.

Project Assumptions
Project programming and operations would be as follows:
 During weekdays, the Proposed Project would be used for practices that run from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. According to the City, it is anticipated that the complex would operate with up to five

1.5-hour practice timeslots beginning at 3:00 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. Additionally, the City anticipates that each practice timeslot would accommodate up to two teams per field, which would result in up to 20 teams utilizing the Complex during each practice timeslot. A total of 100 teams could practice at the facility in a single weekday.  During weekends, the Complex would be used for tournaments and league play. The tournaments would include both regional/national draws and local draws. Games would run 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-103 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The City anticipates that parking fees would be collected from teams as part of the tournament registration process and not on-site during tournaments. This is important for two reasons. First, the lack of on-site parking payment would reduce the likelihood that people would park off-site to avoid parking costs. Second, the lack of on-site parking payment transactions would eliminate delays incurred to entering vehicles typically associated with payment transactions via cash, credit card, etc.

Vehicular access to and from the Project Site would be provided via Westbrook Blvd. For the North Lot, the Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive North intersection would provide ingress and egress and Phillip Road would provide egress only. For the South Lot, the Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive South intersection would provide ingress and egress. The North and South Lots would not be connected via an internal roadway or drive aisle.

The Proposed Project would include the following modifications to both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive intersections:
 Construction of a new east leg. The westbound approach would include two lanes – a shared through-left lane and a right-turn lane.
 Construction of a northbound right-turn pocket with a storage length of approximately 220 feet.

The Proposed Project does not propose to modify the existing all-way stop sign-control or marked crosswalks at either the northerly or southerly Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive intersection. The Proposed Project would construct new sidewalks along the Westbrook Blvd. Project Site frontage, as well as a new north-south pedestrian path through the center of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would include bus parking within the on-site parking lots. The Project Site would occupy a portion of the existing Phillip Road alignment. With the implementation of the Proposed Project, the east-west segment of Phillip Road would have a new westerly terminus at the Project’s northerly parking lot (i.e., this segment of Phillip Road would extend between Westpark Drive and the Project Site). The north-south segment of Phillip Road would not provide access to the Project Site.

Traffic Impact Study – Methods
Fehr & Peers conducted Saturday traffic counts and field observations at two representative local soccer tournaments. Detailed information on representative tournaments is found in Section 4 of Attachment H. The Traffic Impact Study assumed full use of the Complex to avoid underestimating the trip generation potential of the Proposed Project.

Existing weekday PM peak period traffic volume data indicates that the peak hour of adjacent street traffic is 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The weekday PM peak hour project trip generation represents departure activity for the first practice timeslot at 3:00 p.m. and arrival activity for the practice timeslot at 4:30 p.m.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-104 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Estimated Project Trip Generation and Distribution
Table 3-15 displays the Saturday daily and AM peak hour trip generation of each type of sports tournament, as well as the weekday daily and PM peak hour trip generation during a typical weekday with practices held at the complex.

TABLE 3-15. VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION

ANALYSIS SCENARIO OCCUPIED

FIELDS DAILY
PEAK HOUR1

IN OUT TOTAL
Weekday2 10 4,800 480 480 960
Saturday (Tournament)3 10 8,000 537 537 1,074
Note:
1 Peak hours defined as 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for weekdays and 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. for Saturday tournaments. 2 Weekday estimates derived based on the following parameters:

Weekday practices would utilize all 10 fields during each of three practice timeslots at 3:00 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m., and 9:00 p.m.

Each field would accommodate two teams per field during each practice timeslot.

Each team would have an average of 16 players and 2 coaches present at practice, for a total of 18 personnel per team.

Two-thirds of the players would be picked-up/dropped-off and one-third of the players would be drive/park.

Average vehicle occupancy would be 1.2 for players and 1.1 for coaches. 3 Estimates derived from observations recorded at the Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park on Saturday, August 15, 2015.

Figure 4 of Attachment H displays the expected distribution of trips for a local/semi-regional soccer tournament. Figure 5 of Attachment H shows the expected distribution of weekday soccer practices.

Based on the Project Description, it is anticipated that the majority of attendees would come from local residential areas (i.e., from within the South Placer area or portions of unincorporated Sacramento County).

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The Project Site would be situated within the WRSP area on parcels WB-50E, WB-60E, and WB-60B, which have Park, Park (Sports Complex), and Light Industrial land use designations, respectively. VMT associated with these planned uses were included in the VMT impact analysis presented in the Final Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update.

Total daily weekday VMT that would be generated by the Project Site was estimated for two scenarios.

The first scenario assumes that the Project Site would develop with the planned uses identified in the WRSP. The second scenario assumes that the Project Site would develop as proposed by the Proposed Project. Because this analysis focuses on VMT that would be generated by the Project Site on a typical weekday, this analysis considers vehicle travel activity associated with evening practices that would occur on a typical weekday at the Complex.

Daily vehicle trips were estimated using trip generation rates presented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (for the planned Light Industrial uses), the City Travel Demand model (for the 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-105 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration planned Park uses), and based on the anticipated users of the Complex (which would be comprised of six fields based on the planned Park Sports Complex uses or 10 fields based on the Proposed Project).

Total daily weekday VMT was then estimated by multiplying the total daily vehicle trips by the average trip length for each component.

Average trip lengths for the planned Light Industrial uses were estimated using data presented in the Roseville Industrial Park Project Administrative Draft EIR. This document estimated average trip lengths for the planned industrial park uses that would be present at the Roseville Industrial Park project site, which is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project Site. Therefore, these average trip lengths are comparable to those that would be expected of vehicle trips generated by the currently planned Light Industrial uses at the Project Site.

Average trip lengths for users of the Complex uses were estimated based on the geographic distribution of residents aged 5 to 17 years old within the Roseville and north Sacramento County areas according to block group-level data presented in the American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates. This method was selected because this demographic would represent the primary users and vehicle trip generators associated with the Complex uses.

Information provided by the City indicates that while the Complex would primarily serve local teams, it would also be utilized by the Placer United Soccer Club, which draws from greater Placer County and northern Sacramento County areas. According to the City, the Placer United Soccer Club would utilize up to three fields for weekday evening practices. Accordingly, for the currently planned six-field sports complex, it is assumed that three fields would be utilized by the Placer United Soccer Club and three fields would be utilized by local teams. Moreover, for the proposed 10-field sports complex, it is assumed that three fields would be utilized by the Placer United Soccer Club and seven fields would be utilized by local teams. Average trip lengths for trips associated with the Placer United Soccer Club practices were derived based on the geographic distribution of residents aged 5 to 17 years old in Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Granite Bay, Antelope, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Fair Oaks, Carmichael, North Highlands, Rio Linda, and Elverta and their respective travel distances to/from the Project Site. Average trip lengths for trips associated with local teams were derived based on the geographic distribution of residents aged 5 to 17 years old in Roseville only and their respective travel distances to/from the Project Site.

Significance Criteria
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate impacts from the Proposed Project to the roadway system (via its VMT contribution) as well as to the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems.

These thresholds are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and various plans published by the City.

Impacts to the transportation system would be significant if the Proposed Project would:
 Roadway System
• Exceed the applicable VMT threshold.
 Bicycle Facilities
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-106 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle facilities.  Pedestrian Facilities
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pedestrian facilities.  Transit Service and Facilities
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit facilities or service.  Hazards
• Substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access.

Regulatory Setting
State
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Highway System (SHS). Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the SHS would need to be approved by Caltrans. The following Caltrans planning documents emphasize the State’s focus on transportation infrastructure that supports mobility choice through multimodal options, smart growth, and efficient development.  Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade (Caltrans, 2010a).  Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan (Caltrans, 2010b).  California Transportation Plan 2040 (Caltrans, 2016).  Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020—2019 Update (Caltrans, 2019a).

Caltrans’ Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program (LD-IGR) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (Caltrans, 2020a) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. This study guide provides guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants based on changes to the agency’s review process for transportation analysis of land use projects and plans under the updated CEQA Guidelines.

The guide outlines how Caltrans reviews land use projects with a focus on supporting State land use goals, State planning priorities, and GHG emission reduction goals. It also identifies the possible transportation impacts on the SHS and potential non-capacity increasing mitigation measures for land use projects. The guide also emphasizes that VMT analysis is the primary review focus of Caltrans and references the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory as a basis for its guidance, referencing screening thresholds that would identify projects presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Notably, it recommends use of the thresholds in the Technical Advisory for land use projects. Caltrans supports streamlining for projects that meet these screening thresholds because they help achieve VMT reduction and mode shift goals.

The Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans, 2020b) provides updated guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, developers, and 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-107 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration consultants conducting safety review for proposed land use projects and plans that would affect the SHS. The interim guidance recommends that safety analyses include a review of three primary elements related to transportation safety—design standard compliance, collision history, and collision risk (consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s Systemic Approach to Safety). The interim guidance does not establish specific analysis methods or significance thresholds for determining safety impacts under CEQA. Additionally, Caltrans notes that local agencies may use the interim guidance at their own discretion as a guide for review of local facilities. Finally, the interim guidance states that Caltrans District traffic safety staff will use available data to determine if the proposed project may influence or contribute to significant impacts to the SHS.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the California Governor’s OPR to develop new guidelines that address transportation metrics under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC § 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the OPR to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.”
Subdivision (b)(2) of PRC § 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.”
OPR published its proposal for the comprehensive updates to the CEQA Guidelines in November 2017 which included proposed updates related to analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743. The updated CEQA Guidelines were adopted on December 28, 2018; and according to the new CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, VMT replaced congestion as the metric for determining transportation impacts.

The Guidelines state that “lead agencies may elect to be governed by these provisions of this section immediately. Beginning July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” To provide guidance to agencies implementing the new CEQA requirements, OPR published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory describes considerations agencies may use in selecting VMT metrics, calculation methodologies, and significance thresholds. The Technical Advisory does not mandate the use of specific metrics, methodologies or significance thresholds, because agencies have discretion to select those that are appropriate for the local land use and transportation context. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-108 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Local
City of Roseville 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan (2020) are applicable to the Proposed Project.
 Policy CIRC1.4: Maintain a system of truck routes to provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods and to avoid impacting residential neighborhoods.  Policy CIRC3.1: Promote transit service that is convenient, cost-effective, and responsive to the challenges and opportunities of serving Roseville and surrounding communities, and explore opportunities for transit innovation and service improvements.  Policy CIRC3.5: Consider access to health care, community services and employment, and the needs of persons who may be transit-dependent when making decisions regarding transit service.
 Policy CIRC3.7: Pursue transit routes that optimize ridership.  Policy CIRC4.1: The City will review and condition projects as appropriate, to reduce travel demand per capita and per employee by promoting increased density near transit, improving the quality of non-vehicular transportation options, providing incentives for non-vehicular travel, encouraging the mixing of complementary land uses in proximity to one another, and using other feasible methods.
 Policy CIRC4.3: Specific Plan Amendments and land use development projects not included in a Specific Plan shall be evaluated for consistency with the City’s VMT Impact Standards.  Policy CIRC4.4: If the evaluation required by CIRC4.3 finds a Specific Plan Amendment or land use development project not included in an adopted Specific Plan is inconsistent with thresholds established within the City’s VMT Impact Standards, on-site land use, transportation, and urban design-related VMT-reducing features should be prioritized to demonstrate consistency. If feasible on-site features cannot achieve the VMT threshold, Specific Plan Amendments and land use development projects outside Specific Plan Areas may demonstrate equivalent consistency through off-site actions or fair-share fee contributions, or if consistency cannot be achieved, shall implement all feasible measures.
 Policy CIRC5.1: Develop a comprehensive and safe system of recreational and commuter bicycle routes and trails that provides connections between the City's major destinations (including employment) and housing areas and between its existing and planned bikeways.  Policy CIRC6.1: Establish and maintain a safe and continuous pedestrian network that provides connections between residential areas and commercial retail and services, employment, public services, parks, and public transit.
 Policy CIRC6.3: Enhance pedestrian-friendly street environments and design public spaces and destinations in a way that encourages walking.
 Policy CIRC6.4: Sidewalks shall be required in all new Specific Plan Areas, with new roadway construction, and with roadway expansion.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-109 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Policy CIRC6.5: In reviewing proposed development projects and implementing public projects, the City will incorporate standards designed to protect the security of pedestrians and minimize the potential for collisions involving pedestrians.

It should be noted that Policy CIRC2.1 of the City’s General Plan requires that the City maintain a Level of Service (LOS) C standard at a minimum of 70% of all signalized intersections and roadway segments in the City during the AM and PM peak hours. However, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, LOS is no longer an impact under CEQA and is not required to be evaluated under the Proposed Project.

West Roseville Specific Plan
Figure 7-1 of the WRSP illustrates the planned roadway system within the WRSP area. At buildout, the WRSP identifies the following major roadway facilities within the vicinity of the Project Site.  Blue Oaks Blvd. is planned for a six-lane arterial.
 Westbrook Blvd. (previously referred to as West Side Drive) is planned for a six-lane arterial.  Pleasant Grove Blvd. is planned for a four-lane arterial.  New traffic signals are planned for the intersections of Blue Oaks Blvd./Westbrook Blvd., Blue Oaks Blvd./Westpark Drive, Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive North, and Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive South.

The WRSP requires the provision of sidewalks on all WRSP area roadways. Planned bikeways include Class II bike lanes on all arterial and collector roadways (including Westbrook Blvd., Pleasant Grove Blvd., and Blue Oaks Blvd.) and a network of off-street Class I shared-use paths.

Traffic Impact Fee Programs
The City currently participates in four traffic mitigation fee programs to fund capital projects in the City and in south Placer County. Within the City, traffic impact fees are used to fund improvements contained in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The funding for those improvements is nexus-based and is designed to fund improvements. The fee structure considers both the number and length of trips generated by new land developments. As such, it is considered a type of VMT-based fee program. The traffic mitigation fees are collected by the participating agencies at building permit issuance. The payment of City impact fees in lieu of improvements has typically been determined to be acceptable mitigation for transportation impacts caused by a project.

City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan (2008) includes the following policies that are relevant to the project:
 Support facilities that encourage bicycling should, to the extent feasible, be made a standard component of all new public and private projects.
 Provide short-term bike parking (bike racks) conveniently located at businesses entrances and safe, secure long-term covered bike parking (lockers, cages, rooms) at employment sites.  Where construction operations occur near Class II or III bikeways, the developer/contractor will be responsible for maintaining clear and clean paths of travel. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-110 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Street maintenance overlay projects and other construction projects within the public right-ofway and along designated bikeways shall be reviewed for conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan. Where existing facilities are not in conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan and current City standards, the facilities may be brought up to standards where determined feasible by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

Figure 5 of the Bicycle Master Plan illustrates future proposed bicycle facilities throughout the City.

Within the Project Site vicinity, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies new Class II bike lanes and a new Class I shared-use path on Westpark Drive. Additionally, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies a new Class I shared-use path along Kaseberg Creek (generally traversing east-west along the northerly side of Blue Oaks Blvd.).

City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan (2011) was adopted by the City Council to establish policies, projects, and programs that improve the pedestrian system in the City and increase walking for transportation, recreation, and health. The Pedestrian Master Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation measures for pedestrian improvements and programs; a recommended pedestrian network; and a CIP that establishes a 20-year framework for improvements to the pedestrian environment. The Pedestrian Master Plan includes the following policies that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Provide continuous and direct pedestrian connections between residential areas, schools, shopping areas, public services, employment centers, parks, and public transit stops.  Include sidewalks in the planning and design of all new, reconstructed or widened streets.

Sidewalks should be installed on both sides of the street, unless circumstances call for an exception.
 Sidewalks and street crossings should provide access for all people, regardless of physical abilities, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADA Transition Plan.

Figure 8 of the Pedestrian Master Plan illustrates ranked sidewalk gap closure projects throughout the City. The Pedestrian Master Plan does not identify ranked sidewalk gap closure projects within the vicinity of the Project Site.

City of Roseville Final Short-Range Transit Plan 2018–2025 The City of Roseville Final Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) 2018-2025 (LSC, 2018) provides a detailed business plan to guide transit improvements in the City. The plan reviews demographics and transit needs, evaluates effectiveness and efficiency of existing services, analyzes a wide range of system options, and provides operational, capital and institutional plans, including an implementation plan. The City’s plan was prepared jointly with the development of parallel SRTPs for Placer County Transit, Auburn Transit, and the Western Placer Consolidated Transit Service Agency. The plan acknowledges there are many large development projects in West Roseville that could increase transit demand in the area by 2025. To this end, Figure 25 of the SRTP shows three concept bus routes that would operate on Blue Oaks Blvd., Pleasant Grove Blvd., or Vista Grande Blvd. west of Fiddyment Road. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-111 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The SRTP recommends a detailed transit master planning process for West Roseville. As noted on page 170 of the SRTP, “While general land uses and policies have been defined for these areas (including the need for transit services and the provision of funding strategies for transit), specific routes, stops and schedules will depend on more detailed planning to be developed over the next several years. Once this detail is available, transit master planning for these areas should be conducted. An additional route into the area along the Blue Oaks Blvd. corridor will ultimately be warranted.” City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards
Section 4 of the 2021 Amendments to City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards provides guidance for how to analyze VMT impacts of proposed land developments within the City. The following guidance and recommendations are contained in that document (TS16 through TS22):
 A project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it meets any of nine distinct screening criteria.
 A quantitative study of VMT analysis is generally required if the project does not meet any of the conditions for screening. For non-residential projects, analysis should be based on VMT per service population, where service population consists of the total number of residents and employees. The service population methodology includes home-based production VMT and VMT from all other sources, including trips attracted from homes outside of the area into the area for work, shopping, or other purposes and trips with neither end at the home (such as from work to shopping). VMT is based on the full length of each trip, including distance outside of the City. VMT estimates are to be produced using the City of Roseville travel demand model.  An alternative metric (e.g., VMT/employee) may be applied if it relies on the data and analysis of the current citywide VMT analysis and is reviewed and approved by the City.  Factors to convert Roseville travel forecasting model inputs (i.e., square footage) to employment (as used in development of the General Plan) are presented in Table VMT-1 of the General Plan.
 The analysis conducted for VMT studies shall be documented in a report for review by the City, with supporting tables and figures. It shall be the intent of the VMT study to evaluate the reasonable worst-case impacts for the proposed development allowed by zoning unless a specific use/user is identified by the applicant.
 A project would have a significant impact if it exceeded a threshold of which is 15% below existing Citywide development VMT (baseline VMT per service population for non-residential projects).
 If a proposed project can be shown to result in a net overall decrease in total City VMT when compared to baseline VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.
 If screening is not used, explanation should be provided on how VMT was calculated. This should include a description of metrics, models and tools, inputs for the analysis, and thresholds used.
 If it is concluded that the project would exceed the significance threshold, a list of feasible mitigation measures which would either reduce impacts to below the threshold, or reduce 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-112 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration impacts to the extent feasible shall be provided, beginning with on-site measures. The VMTreducing effects of each measure shall be quantified to the extent feasible.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New Impact.

Transit Facilities: As described previously, fixed-route bus service is not currently provided within the vicinity of the Project Site. Roseville Transit Dial-a-Ride service provides on-demand transit service to the Project Site. Farside bus turnouts are currently present on both northbound and southbound Westbrook Blvd. at Brookstone Drive South to accommodate future bus service. Moreover, the Proposed Project would include the provision of bus parking within the on-site parking lots to accommodate buses and shuttle associated with tournaments and other events. The Proposed Project would not cause a physical disruption to existing transit service or facilities. The Proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of planned transit service or facilities identified in the City’s General Plan, the WRSP, or the City’s SRTP. No new Impacts would occur related to transit.

Roadway Facilities: Impacts to the roadway system would be significant if VMT thresholds were exceeded. As described in Question B below, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease of 11,275 total daily weekday VMT when compared to the VMT that would be generated by the Project Site if it were developed with its planned land uses. Therefore, impacts to VMT would be less than significant and no new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.

Bicycle Facilities: As shown on Figure 3 of Attachment H, a continuous set of on-street and/or off-street bicycle facilities are present to connect the Project Site with surrounding neighborhoods. The Proposed Project would not modify these existing bicycle facilities or implement new bicycle facilities. A bicyclist could ride on Class II bike lanes continuously from the Project Site along Westbrook Blvd. to Blue Oaks Blvd., Pleasant Grove Blvd., and beyond. Similarly, bicyclists could ride on the existing Class I shared-use path along Curry Creek to access the Project Site from various nearby residential communities such as Westpark. While the Project Site does not have continuous access to the City’s Class I off-street path system, City policies related to biking do not mandate this be present to achieve consistency with policies because continuous Class II bike lanes are provided to accommodate bicycle travel. The Proposed Project would not cause a physical disruption to existing bicycle facilities. Moreover, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of planned bicycle facilities identified in the City’s General Plan, West Roseville Specific Plan, or Bicycle Master Plan. No new impacts would occur related to bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities: The Proposed Project would not cause a physical disruption to existing pedestrian facilities. Moreover, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of planned pedestrian facilities identified in the City’s General Plan, WRSP, or Pedestrian Master Plan. As shown on Figure 3 of Attachment H, continuous pedestrian facilities are currently lacking on Westbrook Blvd. near 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-113 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the Project Site. In addition to constructing new pedestrian pathways internal to the Project Site, the Proposed Project would include the construction of new sidewalks on the easterly side of Westbrook Blvd. along the Project Site frontage. The Transportation Impact Study (Attachment H) noted that sidewalk gaps would remain that would discourage people from walking to and from the Project Site, which would be inconsistent with City General Plan Policies CIRC 6.1, CIRC 6.3, and CIRC 6.5, which call for establishing and maintaining a safe and continuous pedestrian network that encourages walking.

However, sidewalk improvements connecting remaining sidewalk gaps on the easterly side of Westbrook Blvd. between Blue Oaks Blvd. and Payson Avenue would be constructed as a condition of development of the adjacent parcels, as required by City Design and Improvement Standards, and the Roseville Municipal Code Section 13.08.020 (Streets and Sidewalks). No new impacts would occur related to pedestrian facilities.

Construction of the Proposed Project would result in temporary lane closures. Lane closures, if not properly regulated, could potentially conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with City Construction and Design Standards would require the preparation and approval of a Traffic Management Plan prior to the start of construction activities. The Traffic Management Plan would describe the locations and duration of anticipated lane closures and would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to all land uses adjacent to construction activities. Therefore, based on the above, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and no new impacts would occur.

Question B
Would the project: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New Impact. Section 15064.3 was recently added to the CEQA Guidelines and describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section 15064.3(b) establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the use of LOS analysis that evaluates a project’s impacts on traffic conditions at nearby roadways and intersections.

Page 4 ends

Roseville City CouncilAugust 17, 2022

Roseville City Council
August 17, 2022