Roseville City Council
October 7, 2026

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Street near the city’s southern boundary. North of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Foothills Boulevard generally consists of two lanes in each direction with a landscaped median, while south of Pleasant Grove, it expands to three lanes in each direction to accommodate higher traffic volumes. The posted speed limit is generally 45 mph.

There are Class II bicycle facilities and sidewalks present along both sides of Foothills Boulevard.  Washington Boulevard is a key north-south corridor that traverses through central Roseville and provides access to historic districts, downtown Roseville, and major employment centers. The roadway begins at Blue Oaks Boulevard in the north and extends southward through the city, where it intersects with key arterials such as Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Main Street, and Junction Boulevard. Washington Boulevard provides two lanes in each direction and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. There are Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Washington Boulevard between Blue Oaks Boulevard and Diamond Oaks Road. There are sidewalks along segments of both sides of this roadway.
 South Brewer Road is a north-south two-lane local roadway that intersects Phillip Road approximately 1,300 feet west of the project site. South Brewer Road is a local roadway in unincorporated Placer County. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities along South Brewer Road within 0.25 miles of the project site.

Truck Routes
Within the City of Roseville, there are two types of truck routes: Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) routes and local routes (Caltrans 2023). STAA routes allow large trucks to operate on the interstate freeway system and certain primary routes. These trucks, referred to as STAA trucks, are longer than California legal trucks. On surface streets, STAA routes are designated either as Terminal or Service Access routes. Terminal routes are approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the roadway to enable the truck to reach its ultimate destination. Service Access routes allow STAA trucks to exit the interstate onto a local road, for one mile only, for food, fuel, lodging, or repair. Santucci Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (between Santucci Boulevard and Fiddyment Road) are designated as existing California legal truck routes. The following roadways are classified as existing STAA truck routes and are shown in Figure 3.16-2:
 Blue Oaks Boulevard,
 Westbrook Boulevard,
 Baseline Road (west of Foothills Boulevard),
 Foothills Boulevard (north of Pleasant Grove
Boulevard and south of Baseline Road),
 Washington Boulevard (between Blue Oaks
Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard), and
 Pleasant Grove Boulevard (between Foothills
Boulevard and Washington Boulevard).

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Roseville Transit provides fixed-route local and commuter bus service, a public Dial-A-Ride reservation bus service, and complimentary Americans with Disabilities (ADA) paratransit service in the City of Roseville. Roseville Transit also collaborates with regional transit agencies, such as Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit to provide seamless regional travel options for commuters. Roseville Transit bus service currently operates along portions of Blue Oaks Boulevard east of the project site but does not extend to the project site. The project site is not adjacent to any existing public transit services. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site along Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Market Street and serves Route M (City of Roseville 2022).

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-13 Source: Image produced and provided by Kittleson & Associates in 2025, adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3.16-2 Truck Routes

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-15

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
The active transportation network in the City of Roseville is composed of shared-use paths, bikeways, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. The City Active Transportation Plan classifies bicycle facilities into the following types (City of Roseville 2025a: 51):
 Class I Shared-Use Paths/Multi-Use Trails: Paths completely separated from motor vehicle traffic for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Class I paths often follow natural amenities such as creeks, drainage, or utility line easements.  Class IA Paths: Parallel widened sidewalk routes along major roadways that are separated from the roadway by a landscape strip.
 Class II Bike Lanes: A restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles, prohibiting through-travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians but permitting crossflows by pedestrians and motorists.  Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes: Striped lanes for people biking with a striped “buffer” area of paint either between the bike lane and the travel lane, between the bike lane and parked cars, or both.  Class III Bike Routes: Streets with signs and/or permanent markings that indicate people biking share the travel lane with motor vehicles.
 Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevards: Signed routes for people biking on local neighborhood roadways, where lanes are shared with motorists. What separates bicycle boulevards from a Class III bike route is the inclusion of traffic calming features or other treatments to prioritize comfort for people biking and deliberately slow vehicles down or reduce vehicle volumes.
 Class IV Separated Bike Lanes: A separated bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a physical vertical barrier between the separated bikeway and motor vehicle lanes. The barrier may include bollards, flex posts, curbs, planted medians, or parked cars.

As of 2025, the City of Roseville bicycle system was comprised of approximately 51 miles of Class I multi-use trails, 111 miles of Class II bike lanes, and 12 miles of Class III bike routes (City of Roseville 2025a: 29). There are no existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities within 0.25 miles of the project site (Figure 3.16-3). The nearest bicycle/pedestrian facility is a Class I shared-use path that runs north of Whisper Ridge Drive approximately 1.7 miles east of the project site. Sidewalks and Class II bicycle lanes are also present along both sides of Blue Oaks Boulevard approximately 2.25 miles southeast of the project site.

COLLISION HISTORY
An analysis of collision history in the project area was conducted by Kittelson and was based on the most recent 5 years of data covering fatal and injury crashes in Placer County along Phillip Road near the project frontage. The crash data spans from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 and was obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which is maintained by the University of California, Berkeley (Kittelson & Associates 2025). Although 2024 data is available on the TIMs database, it is provisional and subject to change (UC Berkeley 2025). Therefore, only data included from 2019 to 2023 was used in this collision history analysis. TIMS only includes reports on fatal and injury collisions (severe injury other visible injury and complaint of pain) and excludes collisions that are property damage-only.

Phillip Road had a total of two reported collisions between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2023. Both collisions were reported as other visible injury crashes and occurred with a fixed object. One collision had a primary crash factor of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the other collision involved unsafe speed. Neither collision involved a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist (Kittelson & Associates 2025).

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-17 Source: Image produced and provided by Kittleson & Associates in 2025, adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3.16-3 City of Roseville Parks, Trails & Bikeways

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-19

3.16.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the analysis techniques, assumptions, and results used to identify potential significant impacts of the project on the transportation system. Transportation and circulation impacts are described and assessed, and mitigation measures are recommended for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant.

METHODOLOGY
The analysis of environmental impacts on transportation focuses on the potential for substantial adverse effects on the circulation system including transit, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; VMT; transportation hazards; and emergency access. The following methodologies were used to evaluate the impacts of the project on the transportation system:

Roadway Analysis
Existing plans, guidelines, policies, and standards related to roadways were reviewed and the project construction and operation activities were evaluated against these sources to determine whether any conflicts related to roadway facilities would occur. The roadway analysis evaluates where the project would, either directly or indirectly, disrupt existing or planned roadway facilities, or create a transportation outcome that conflicts with applicable roadway plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis
The bicycle and pedestrian analyses evaluate if implementation of the project would, either directly or indirectly, disrupt existing bicycle or pedestrian programs or facilities; interfere with the implementation of a planned bicycle or pedestrian facility; or create a physical or operational transportation outcome that conflicts with applicable bicycle or pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Transit Analysis
The transit analysis evaluates whether implementation of the project would, directly or indirectly, disrupt existing transit services or facilities, interfere with the implementation of a planned transit facility, or create physical or operational transportation outcomes that conflict with desired conditions expressed in adopted policies and plans related to transit.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
For non-residential projects, the City of Roseville VMT guidelines recommend using VMT per service population, defined as the sum of the residents and jobs within the city. The City VMT guidelines determine that a project would have a significant impact if it were to exceed a threshold of 15 percent below VMT per service population. The City of Roseville VMT thresholds for non-residential projects are shown in Table 3.16-1.

As shown in Table 3.16-1, the project would result in a significant impact if the total VMT per service population under “existing-plus-project conditions” is greater than 24.5 (i.e., 15 percent below the Baseline VMT Metric). VMT for the project was calculated by multiplying the project’s average daily trips by the average trip length. The City of Roseville travel forecasting model for the year 2020 was used to reflect the most recent baseline year and model. The project site is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 848. In the base year 2020, TAZ 848 includes 5 single-family homes and 2 multi-family homes. The land use types in the travel model that are relevant to the project’s trip generation rate are office (for employee trips) and industrial (for truck trips). However, the office and industrial land uses in the model are represented in KSF, while the project’s trip generation is based on the number of employee and truck trips.

To ensure compatibility with the model’s land use inputs, the employee and truck trips are converted to KSF units, as shown in Table 3.16-2.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Table 3.16-2 Project Trip Generation in Units of Thousand Square Feet Project Weekday Daily
Vehicle Trips (2028)
Model Trip Generation Rates Project Trip Generation to
Use in the Model (KSF) Land Use Type Units Daily Vehicle Trip Rate 2318 (Employees) Office KSF 17.7 130.94
586 (Trucks) Industrial KSF 7.6 77.1
Notes: KSF = thousand square feet.

Source: Kittelson & Associates 2025.

The project trip generation is added to TAZ 848 to calculate the existing-plus-project VMT. The total VMT for TAZ 848 is the sum of VMT “from” and VMT “to” the TAZ (i.e., Total VMT = VMTfrom + VMTto). The model was then run to determine VMT under existing conditions and VMT with implementation of the project. The total VMT for TAZ 848 under existing conditions and existing-plus-project conditions is shown in Table 3.16-3. See Appendix E for a detailed description of VMT methodology.

Table 3.16-3 Total VMT for the Project TAZ (848)
Scenario VMT From VMT To Total VMT
Existing Conditions 289 289 578
Existing-Plus-Project Conditions 15,153 15,230 30,383
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled; TAZ = traffic analysis zone.

Source: Kittelson 2025.

The existing conditions TAZ 848 VMT is 578 and the existing-plus-project total TAZ 848 VMT is 30,383, as shown in Table 3.16-3. The change in VMT is then calculated as the difference in the project TAZ VMT for existing conditions and existing-plus-project scenarios (i.e., change in VMT = 30,383 – 578 = 29,805).

Transportation Hazards and Emergency Access Analysis
The analysis of transportation hazards and emergency access evaluates if the project would, directly or indirectly, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., regular use of large farm equipment); or result in inadequate emergency access. The analyses are based on an evaluation of the project impacts during construction and operation.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts on transportation under CEQA are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A transportation-related impact would be significant if implementation of the project would:
 conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
 conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);  substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
 result in inadequate emergency access.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All issues related to transportation are discussed in this analysis.

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.16-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities Phase 1
Construction activities associated with Phase 1 would be temporary and traffic control measures would be implemented to provide for the safe movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians during construction. There are no existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or services within 0.25 miles of the project site. In addition, the project would not interfere with the implementation of any such facilities. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities and Services
There are no existing transit facilities or services located within 0.25 miles of the project site. In addition, the PCTPA Short-Range Transit Plan does not propose any transit facilities or services within the vicinity of the project site.

Therefore, project construction and operation would not damage or adversely affect any existing or planned transit facilities. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 1 would not conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing transit facilities and services.

Roadway Facilities
The project would include the construction of a new public driveway along Phillip Road and an internal vehicular circulation system that would provide access to a surface parking lot. All modified and newly constructed roads would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Design and Construction Standards, which include requirements for site access and driveway locations, adequate sight distance, and street design (e.g., roadway width, turning radius). For example, Section 7-14 of the City Design and Construction Standards requires that all new driveways for office/commercial/industrial land uses have a minimum throat width of 35 feet unless the driveway provides secondary access or is restricted to right turn movements (City of Roseville 2023a). In addition, the project would be subject to review by City staff to ensure that applicable design and safety standards are met. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plans or policies related to the roadway network.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Implementation of Phase 1 of the project would include roadway improvements and implementation of off-site utilities along Phillip Road. However, on-site construction and off-site improvements would not modify any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities, as there are no such facilities along Phillip Road or the surrounding roadway network (i.e., South Brewer Road, Pettigrew Road). Furthermore, in accordance with the City Construction Standards, the project contractor would prepare and implement a traffic control plan to facilitate the safe movement of all travelers throughout the project area, including people walking and bicycling (City of Roseville 2023c). Implementation of Phase 1 would not preclude implementation of recommended facilities identified in the Active Transportation Plan and, thus, would not conflict with any applicable plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Summary
Implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not require permanent modification of any existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. In accordance with the City Design and Construction Standards, the construction contractor would be required to implement traffic control measures to provide for the safe movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians during construction. For these reasons, the project would not adversely affect an existing roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facility. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-22 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Phase 2
Similar to Phase 1, construction activities associated with Phase 2 would be temporary and traffic control measures would be implemented to provide for the safe movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians during construction.

The project would not interfere with any existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian, roadway, or transit facilities. For these reasons, Phase 2 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities and Services
There are no existing or planned transit facilities or services within 0.25 miles of the project site. Implementation of Phase 2 would not permanently alter the physical transportation network external to the project site such that existing or planned transit facilities would be adversely affected. Therefore, implementation of Phase 2 would not conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing transit facilities and services.

Roadway Facilities
Phase 2 of the project would include the development of the RRTO facility and potential construction of the organics processing facility, all of which would be located within the boundaries of the project site and would not include improvements to Phillip Road (which would be constructed as part of Phase 1). All modified internal roadways would be designed and constructed in accordance with City design guidelines and standard specifications such as Sections 4 through 7 of the City Design and Construction Standards, which contain specific requirements (e.g., roadway width, sight lines from street view) intended to provide safe movement for all roadway users. In addition, the project would be subject to review by City staff ensuring applicable design and safety standards are met. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not conflict with any plans or policies related to the roadway network.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not permanently alter the physical transportation network or adversely affect the implementation of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities. In addition, implementation of the project would not preclude the implementation of any recommended facilities included in adopted plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In accordance with the City Construction Standards, the construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a traffic control plan to facilitate the safe movement of all travelers throughout the project area, including people walking and bicycling (City of Roseville 2023c). For these reasons, implementation of the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with programs, plans, policies, or ordinances related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Summary
Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not require permanent modification of any existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. In accordance with Section 6-2 of the City Design and Construction Standards, during Phase 2 construction activities, the construction contractor would be required to implement traffic control measures to provide for the safe movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. For these reasons, Phase 2 of the project would not adversely affect an existing or planned roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facility during construction.

Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not preclude the implementation of any recommended bicycle, pedestrian, transit, or roadway facilities and would not conflict or be inconsistent with adopted programs, plans, ordinances or policies related to such facilities. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-23 Impact 3.16-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
Phase 1
The project would generate additional VMT, associated with additional trucks and passenger vehicles travelling to the site each day. The project would have an average VMT per service population under existing-plus-project conditions of 44.1, which exceeds the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. Because the project would exceed the City’s VMT per service population threshold, which is a 15 percent reduction from the citywide average, this impact would be significant.

As discussed in the “Methodology” section above, the City uses VMT per service population to determine VMT impacts associated with non-residential projects. The threshold of significance for the project’s direct impact is a total VMT per service population rate that is 15 percent below existing citywide VMT per service population. As described previously and presented in Table 3.16-1, the t1hreshold of significance for non-residential projects is 24.5 VMT per service population (i.e., 15 percent below 29 2016 citywide VMT per service population).

Table 3.16-4 shows the citywide VMT per service population from the base year (2020) travel demand model and the project TAZ VMT per service population.

Table 3.16-4 Project Traffic Analysis Zone 848 VMT and Citywide Baseline VMT Measure Existing (2020) Citywide Conditions1 Project-Generated TAZ (848) VMT Total VMT Produced2 7,172,610 29,805
Number of Residents3,4 140,629 18
Number of Employees5 80,350 696
Service Population 220,979 714
2020 Base Year VMT Metric (VMT per service population) 32.5 41.7 VMT per service population threshold
(15% below 2016 Base Year Metric)

24.5 Exceeds the threshold of 24.5
Notes: TAZ = traffic analysis zone; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; service population = the sum of residents and employees. 1 Obtained using the City of Roseville travel forecasting model for the year 2020. 2 Reported VMT is the sum of “VMT From” and “VMT To” from the Project TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone). The VMT produced for the project TAZ includes the VMT from employees and existing residents in the TAZ. The project VMT is calculated as the difference in the project TAZ VMT for existing conditions and existing-plus-project conditions (i.e., Project VMT = 30,383 – 578 = 29,805). 3 The City uses VMT per service population as an efficiency metric to determine VMT impacts for non-residential projects. The service population is the sum of residents and employees. The number of residents shown in Table 3.16-4 is the number of existing residents included in the model and is included as the service population is the sum of residents and employees. The project does not propose any residential development. 4 The 2020 land use in the model includes 5 single family and 2 multi-family homes for the project TAZ. As provided in Table VMT-1, Section 4 Traffic Impact Studies of the City of Roseville’s Design Standards, the number of residents per dwelling unit in the project TAZ is calculated based on the conversion factor of 2.68 for single-family homes and 2.32 for multi-family homes. 5 The number of employees is based on the trip generation for full buildout of the project.

Source: Kittelson & Associates 2025.

As shown in Table 3.16-4, the VMT per service population with the project is greater than the citywide VMT per service population threshold of 24.5 for non-residential projects. In addition, the project TAZ VMT is greater than the existing (2020) VMT per service population of 32.5. In accordance with Section 11.33.020 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, the Environmental Utilities Department would prepare a TSM Plan and designate a TSM coordinator for the project in accordance with the requirements for the City TSM program. As detailed in Section 3.16.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the purposes and intent of the TSM program include reducing VMT in the City by expanding mobility options and encouraging viable nonautomotive means of transportation in and through the city.

Requirements include bicycle parking, end-of-trip facilities (e.g., showers and lockers), and the designation of a TSM

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-24 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR coordinator. The TSM Plan for the project would be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission. In addition, fees generated by the project would go toward the City’s transit service agency, which could help extend network coverage and hours in the city, including potential service to the project area. Although implementation of a TSM plan and contribution to the implementation of extended transit network coverage could help reduce VMT, because implementation of the project would result in an exceedance of the City VMT per service population threshold of 24.5, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (Handbook) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the transport sector. Several measures quantified in the CAPCOA Handbook aim to reduce VMT and encourage mode shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to shared (e.g., transit) or active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling) (CAPCOA 2021). However, not all transportation measures are applicable or feasible given the nature of the project, implementation scale, and/or the limited jurisdictional authority of the City to implement particular measures. It should be noted that the total project VMT includes discretionary VMT (commute VMT from employees) and mandatory VMT (truck trips). The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce project-generated VMT based on their feasibility and applicability.

Mitigation Measure 3.16-2a: Develop and Implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall develop and submit a Commute Trip Reduction Program for review and approval by the City’s Transportation Commission. The Commute Trip Reduction Program shall be consistent with other trip reduction strategies established in the City Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Handbook.

Mitigation Measure 3.16-2b: Develop and Implement an Employee Sponsored Vanpool Program The City shall consider the development and implementation of an employee-sponsored vanpool program. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall develop and submit the Vanpool Program for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department.

Significance after Mitigation
A description of the individual effects of each mitigation measure’s effect on project VMT is provided below.

Although the information on the potential reduction in VMT from each measure is provided, it should be noted that the VMT-reducing benefits of implementing each measure are considered the maximum VMT benefit and are not additive when multiple measures are applied. There may be diminishing returns when certain measures are implemented together to reduce VMT. For each measure applied, it is likely that a lesser effect would be observed (CAPCOA 2021: 36).

Commute Trip Reduction programs (as required by Mitigation Measure 3.16-2a) discourage single occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. Commute Trip Reduction programs can have overlapping elements to the City’s TSM program, which is described in Section 3.16.1, “Regulatory Setting.” TSM plans often include providing on-site bicycle facilities, showers, and lockers, preferential carpool parking, and identification of a TSM coordinator whose responsibilities include posting TSM information regarding public transit including schedules, rates, procedures for obtaining transit passes, routes of public transit service, bicycle route maps, commuter rideshare match listing, emergency ride home program, vanpool program, telecommuting, transit pass subsidy program, and flexible work hours. TSM plans are submitted by an applicant (or in this case, the City) and approved by the City pursuant to Chapter 11.33 of the City’s Municipal Code. The implementation of a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees is estimated to result in up to a 4 percent employee VMT reduction (CAPCOA 2021).

Vanpooling (as required by Mitigation Measure 3.16-2b) is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. Implementation of an employee sponsored vanpool program could reduce VMT up to 20.4 percent (CAPCOA 2021).

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-25 Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project generated VMT from employee trips for the reasons described above, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project would generate additional VMT, associated with additional trucks and passenger vehicles travelling to the site each day. As described for Phase 1, the project would have an average VMT per service population under existing-plus-project conditions of 41.7, which exceeds the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. Because the project would exceed the City’s VMT per service population threshold, which is a 15 percent reduction from the citywide average, this impact would be significant.

As described above for Phase 1 and as shown in Table 3.16-4, the VMT per service population with the project is greater than the citywide VMT per service population threshold of 24.5 for non-residential projects. In accordance with the City TSM program, the purposes of which include reducing VMT in the city, the City would be required to submit a TSM plan, including the designation of a TSM coordinator, during the development review stage of the planning process. Although implementation of a TSM plan could help reduce VMT, because implementation of the project would result in an exceedance of the City VMT per service population threshold of 24.5, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b, described above.

Significance after Mitigation
Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project generated VMT from employee trips for the same reasons described for Phase 1, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.16-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Phase 1
The construction contractor would be required to obtain encroachment permits for any work within the public rightof-way. The City encroachment permit application requires construction contractors to implement traffic control measures to minimize transportation hazards and ensure the safety of the traveling public. In addition, Phase 1 of the project would be required to comply with the City construction and design standards, which are intended to reduce transportation hazards. Furthermore, the Phase 1 project site plans would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met once the project is operational. For these reasons, Phase 1 of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction
As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” to provide access to the project site, Phillip Road would be improved from its current condition along the frontage of the project site and east to the westerly terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard.

Phase 1 construction would also include the off-site construction of new utilities (e.g., water supply line, sewer line).

Phase 1 construction activities would require the hauling of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, graders, excavators) to the project site and the operation of large trucks on the surrounding roadway network. The project site is surrounded

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-26 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR by agricultural land uses. Many of the existing paved and unpaved roads in the project area that would be used to access the project site are currently used by agricultural vehicles and equipment during field preparation, planting, maintenance, and harvesting. Thus, construction of Phase 1 would not introduce incompatible uses from the use of heavy-trucks or construction equipment on the surrounding roadway.

The construction contractor would be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction work that would occur within the public right-of-way pursuant to Section 13.28.010 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with the provisions set forth in the City Design and Construction Standards. Project construction could require temporary lane closures along Phillip Road adjacent to the project site to the western terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard. Lane closures would be implemented in accordance with the City Design and Construction Standards, which contain specific requirements that are intended to provide safe access to property. Section 12 of the Construction Standards establishes requirements for construction area traffic control (e.g., traffic control hours, changeable message signs) including that traffic control within the public right-of-way (including pedestrian and bicyclist pathways) requires an encroachment permit (City of Roseville 2023c). The general conditions placed on an encroachment permit include that traffic control must be implemented in accordance with the latest version of the CA MUTCD (City of Roseville 2025d). The CA MUTCD identifies the necessary traffic-control devices (e.g., signs, barricades, object markers, pavement and curb markings, pedestrian control signs, and flagger control) in and near construction work areas on public streets to minimize transportation hazards. Preparation of a traffic control plan that complies with the CA MUTCD would ensure the safety of roadway users and would allow for the safe and efficient movement of all modes of travel. In addition, the traffic control plan would be subject to review by City engineering and land development staff to ensure that safety during construction activities within the public right-of-way is maintained. For these reasons, Phase 1 construction would not substantially increase transportation hazards.

Operation
As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” primary access to the project site would be provided via new driveways from Phillip Road. Phase 1 of the project would include the construction of an internal circulation road to provide access to the on-site parking lot and ingress/egress driveways from Phillip Road to the project site. Pursuant to Section 13.08.060 of the City Municipal Code, all new roadways, access driveways, and roadway improvements would be subject to and designed in accordance with the City Design Standards, which set forth requirements for roadway design (e.g., appropriate roadway width based on the land use, adequate sight distance) to allow for the safe movement of all modes of transportation.

Specifically, the proposed ingress/egress access driveways would adhere to applicable City Design Standards in Section 5-4, which requires the evaluation of project sites. Consistent with the requirements of Section 5-4, the local transportation analysis prepared for the project determined that the Phillip Road passenger vehicle driveway should include two outbound lanes (one left-turn and one right-turn) for outbound traffic and a single inbound lane that can be accessed from both directions via a shared westbound through-right lane and an eastbound left-turn lane (Kittelson & Associates 2025: 91). The local transportation analysis also determined that the truck driveway should include a single outbound lane and a single inbound lane that can be accessed from both directions via a shared westbound through-right lane and an eastbound left-turn lane (Kittelson & Associates 2025: 91). Pursuant to City requirements, the new driveways would be designed to adhere to the above standards.

The project plans would be subject to review by the City, which would ensure that the project design, including that of off-site improvements, would comply with applicable design standards and regulations related to transportation safety and that implementation of the project would not result in transportation hazards during operations.

Implementation of the project would not result in increased transportation hazards, as trucks currently operate along the city roadway network (e.g., near existing residences, schools, and other sensitive locations) as part of existing operations. In addition, the project would operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and policies. For example, Chapter 11.26 of the City Municipal Code specifies the weight and length limitations of trucks that can access roadways other than designated truck routes. The project would comply with Chapter 11.26 of the City Municipal Code, thus ensuring that operational activities associated with the project would not result in increased transportation hazards. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-27 Summary
The project would be subject to and comply with all City design standards and safety regulations that are intended to reduce transportation hazards during construction and operations. The City would be required to prepare and submit a traffic control plan to ensure that potential safety impacts are minimized during construction in the public right-ofway. Roadway improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with City design standards to reduce the potential for transportation hazards during operation. In addition, site plans would be subject to review by City staff to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met to minimize transportation hazards during operations. For these reasons, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Phase 2
The construction contractor would be required to obtain encroachment permits for any work within the public rightof-way. The City encroachment permit application requires construction contractors to implement traffic control measures to minimize transportation hazards and ensure the safety of the traveling public. In addition, Phase 1 of the project would be required to comply with the City construction and design standards which are intended to reduce transportation hazards. In addition, the Phase 2 project site plans would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met once the project is operational. For these reasons, Phase 2 of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction
Phase 2 of the project would include continued construction of the RRTO facility and potential construction of the Future Organics Processing Facility, all of which would be located within the boundaries of the project site and would not include improvements to Phillip Road (which would be constructed as part of Phase 1). Similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 construction activities would require the hauling of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, graders, excavators) to the project site and the operation of large trucks on the surrounding roadway network. However, construction of Phase 2 would not introduce incompatible uses from the use of heavy-trucks or construction equipment on the surrounding roadways because they are already used by agricultural vehicles and equipment. In addition, and similar to Phase 1, the construction contractor would be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction work that would occur within the public right-of-way pursuant to Section 13.28.010 of the City Municipal Code and prepare a traffic control plan designed in accordance with the CA-MUTCD to ensure that construction activities would not substantially increase transportation hazards. Furthermore, applications for encroachment permits, including traffic control plans, would be reviewed by City engineering and land development staff (City of Roseville 2025d). For these reasons, Phase 2 of the project is not anticipated to substantially increase transportation-related hazards during construction.

Operation
All roadway modifications and improvements within City right-of-way would be subject to and comply with the City design and construction standards in accordance with Section 13.08.060 of the City Municipal Code. These standards include minimum requirements for roadway width, turning radii, and sight distance to reduce the potential for transportation hazards. With adherence to these standards, project roadway improvements and modifications would be designed and constructed to allow for the safe and efficient movement of all modes of travel. In addition, the project plans would be subject to review by the City to ensure that applicable design standards and regulations are met to minimize transportation hazards during project operations. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.

Summary
The project would be subject to and comply with all city design standards and safety regulations that are intended to reduce transportation hazards during construction and operations. The City would be required to prepare and submit

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-28 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR a traffic control plan to ensure that potential safety impacts are minimized during construction in the public right-ofway. Roadway improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with City design standards and would alleviate the potential for transportation hazards during operation. In addition, site plans would be subject to review by City staff to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met to minimize transportation hazards during operations. For these reasons, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.16-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Phase 1
Phase 1 of the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and regulations identified in the California Fire Code as adopted in Chapter 16.16 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, including provisions related to maintaining emergency access during construction and operations. In addition, the Phase 1 project plans would be subject to review by the City and Roseville Fire Department to ensure that the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access standards. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Construction
The project would be required to comply with the most recent version of the California Fire Code, as adopted by reference in Section 16.16.020 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code outlines general safety precautions during construction to prompt responses to fire emergencies. In addition, the City has established additional fire safety requirements, including Section 3311.1, which requires approved vehicle access for firefighting to be provided to all construction and demolition sites, surface type requirements, and maintenance throughout the construction process. Further, as detailed under Impact 3.16-3, pursuant to Section 13.28.010 of the City Municipal Code, the construction contractor would be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction work that would occur within the public right-of-way. Applications for encroachment permits, including traffic control plans, would be required to be reviewed by City engineering and land development staff to ensure that construction within the public right-of-way would not result in inadequate emergency access. In accordance with the general provisions for an encroachment permit, if construction requires the closure of traffic lanes, and if such closures are approved by the City Engineer, the City is required to notify the City Fire Department at least 48 hours in advance of roadway closure (City of Roseville 2025d). The project would be required to adhere to these regulations as well as other applicable emergency access requirements included in the City Code. For these reasons, construction of Phase 1 of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction.

Potential conflicts with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans are addressed in Section 3.10, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”
Operations
Phase 1 of the project would include the construction of an internal circulation network and ingress/egress access driveways along Phillip Road. The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City design standards and the California Fire Code as adopted by reference in Section 16.16.020 of the Municipal Code. The California Fire Code includes design standards for fire apparatus access (e.g., turning radii, minimum widths) and other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Sections 5 through 7 of the City Design and Construction Standards contain specific requirements to provide emergency access to properties.

In addition, pursuant to the Roseville Fire Department Life and Safety Standards, emergency access plans are required to be submitted for review as part of the civil improvement package (City of Roseville 2023b). The Fire Department would review compliance with City standards related to emergency access, such as turning radii requirements and minimum roadway width, ensuring that the project would provide emergency access. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access during operations.

Ascent Transportation and Circulation
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.16-29 Summary
The project would be required to follow all applicable Roseville Fire Department, City, and State standards and regulations to ensure that emergency access is provided during construction and operations. Phase 1 project plans would be subject to review by the Fire Department and City staff to ensure that applicable design standards would be met and that adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided. Therefore, implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project would be required to meet the standards and regulations identified in the most recent California Fire Code as adopted by reference in the City of Roseville Municipal Code, including provisions related to maintaining emergency access during construction and operation. In addition, the project plans for Phase 2 would be subject to review by the City and Roseville Fire Department, thus, ensuring that the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access standards. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not result in inadequate access. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Development associated with Phase 2 of the project would be required to comply with the same regulations pertaining to emergency access as described above for Phase 1. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided during construction and operation of Phase 2. As described above, Roseville Fire Department Life and Safety Standards, the City would be required to submit emergency access plans for review as part of the civil improvement package (City of Roseville 2023b). Review by the Roseville Fire Department and City would ensure that adequate emergency access to the project area would be provided during Phase 2 construction and operations. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 2 of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent
City of Roseville

3.16-30 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Wildfire
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.17-1

3.17 WILDFIRE
This section describes existing wildfire conditions in the project area and evaluates the potential impacts of the project related to wildfire and wildfire-related risks. The evaluation provided in this section is based on a review of available documents and fire hazard maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in 2025 (CAL FIRE 2025).

For a discussion of the project’s impacts on emergency response, such as fire and police protection, see Section 3.14, “Public Services.” For a discussion of the project’s impacts on implementation of adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, including those within areas of identified wildfire hazard risk, see Section 3.10, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”
One comment letter regarding wildfire was received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix A). The Placer County Environmental Health Department requested that the EIR include a wildfire analysis.

3.17.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations that apply to wildfire.

STATE
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of the state’s privately-owned wildlands. Public Resource Code (PRC) Sections 4125-4137 establish that CAL FIRE has the primary financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires in the State Responsibility Area (SRA). PRC Section 4290 states that CAL FIRE also has responsibility for enforcement of Fire Safe Standards including road standards for fire equipment access; standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings; minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use; fuel breaks and greenbelts. PRC Section 4291 gives CAL FIRE the authority to enforce 100 feet of defensible space around all buildings and structures on non-federal SRA lands, or non-federal forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or any land that is covered with flammable material.

Additionally, CAL FIRE is responsible for a broad range of programs that guide forest policy and planning within California, such as the 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California discussed below, and for implementing the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). FRAP assesses the amount and extent of California's forests and rangelands, analyzes their conditions, and identifies alternative management and policy guidelines. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) for community planning are developed under FRAP and identify areas with very high fire hazards in both the SRA and local responsibility area (LRA).
2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California
The 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California lays out central goals for reducing and preventing the impacts of fire in the state (CAL FIRE 2024). The goals are meant to establish, through local, state, federal, and private partnerships, a natural environment that is more resilient and human-made assets that are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire.

Public Resources Code
PRC Section 4427 includes fire safety statutes that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment with internal combustion engines; specify

Wildfire Ascent
City of Roseville

3.17-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on site for various types of work in fire-prone areas.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9, California Code of Regulations [CFC]) establishes minimum requirements to safeguard public health from hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency situations. The CFC specifies fire resistant ratings for building materials and finishes, installation of sprinklers, use and storage of hazardous or flammable materials, and means of egress. Many local jurisdictions have adopted the CFC as part of their local codes.

LOCAL
City of Roseville General Plan
The Safety Element of the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan (2020) contains the following policies that may be applicable to the project:
 Policy SAFE 4.1: Continue to pursue and promote fire prevention programs and standards.  Policy SAFE 4.2: Continue to follow service level response times, as listed in the City’s Standards of Cover document.
 Policy SAFE 4.5: Provide highly trained personnel to ensure effective suppression of fires and safety for firefighters.
 Policy SAFE 4.7: Phase the timing of the construction of fire stations to be available to serve the surrounding service area.

City of Roseville 2025 Design and Construction Standards Section 8 of the Roseville design standards require a minimum flow of water for fire protection in accordance with the California Fire Code, as adopted by the Roseville Fire Department. For single-family detached houses, water mains must provide a flow of 1,500 gallons per minute. The required fire flow for multi-family, commercial, business, industrial, and school areas is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Roseville Fire Department, but may not exceed 4,000 gallons per minute, provided the buildings are fully sprinklered. For buildings that are not sprinklered, project applicants must contact the Roseville Fire Department.

Fire hydrants shall be placed at street intersections wherever possible. Fire hydrants and blow-offs not located at intersections shall be installed on property lines between lots. Fire hydrants and blow-offs shall have a maximum spacing of 500 feet measured along the street frontage in residential areas and a maximum spacing of 350 feet in all other areas. Hydrants shall be required within a cul-de-sac or dead-end street measuring more than 250 feet as measured from the curb return of the intersecting street and the end of the bulb or street.

Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Roseville design standards contain requirements that are intended to provide safe access to property and on streets throughout the City for motorists and emergency vehicles including driveways, turn lanes, streets, and traffic lights.

City of Roseville Fire Department
Fire suppression services for the City of Roseville, including the project site, are provided by local fire stations operated by the Roseville Fire Department. The City of Roseville Fire Department has a Fire & Life Safety Division that manages a comprehensive inspection program that includes annual fire inspections, Certified Unified Protection Agency inspections, and construction inspections.

Ascent Wildfire
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.17-3

3.17.2 Environmental Setting

WILDFIRE BEHAVIOR AND CONTROLLING FACTORS
Wildfire behavior is a product of several variables, primarily climate, vegetation, topography, and human influences that intermix to produce local and regional fire regimes that affect how, when, and where fires burn. The fire regime in any area is defined by several factors, including fire frequency, intensity, severity, and area burned. Each of these are important for an understanding of how the variables that affect fire behavior produce fire risks. Fire frequency refers to the number of fires that occur in a given area over a given period of time; fire intensity refers to the speed at which fire travels and the heat that it produces; fire severity involves the extent to which ecosystems and existing conditions are affected or changed by a fire; and area burned is the size of the area burned by wildfire.

Human influence on wildfire is broad and can be substantial. It includes direct influences such as the ignition and suppression of fires, and indirect influences such as through alterations in land use patterns that support modified vegetative regimes and increased development in the Wildland-Urban Interface.

Wildfires are a significant threat in California, particularly in recent years as the landscape responds to climate change and decades of fire suppression. As climate change persists, it is anticipated to produce increasing temperatures and drier conditions that would generate abundant dry fuels. All wildfires (those initiated by both natural and manmade sources) tend to be larger under drier atmospheric conditions and when fed by drier fuel sources (Balch et al. 2017).

Additionally, climate change has led to exacerbation of wildfire conditions during a longer period of the year as the spring season has warmed—driving an earlier spring snowmelt, and as winter precipitation has decreased overall (Westerling et al. 2006). Further, wildfire activity is closely related to temperature and drought conditions, and in recent decades, increasing drought frequency and warming temperatures have led to an increase in wildfire activity (Westerling et al. 2006; Schoennagel et al. 2017). In particular, the western US, including California, has seen increases in wildfire activity in terms of area burned, number of large fires, and fire season length (Westerling et al. 2006, Abatzoglou and Williams 2016).

WILDFIRE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
As discussed in Section 3.17.1, “Regulatory Setting,” CAL FIRE maintains FHSZ maps for the LRA and SRA. These areas are mapped based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. According to the City of Roseville General Plan (2020), and consistent with the FHSZ map database available from CAL FIRE, the city is designated as LRA, and there are no "Very High" FHSZ within the city (CAL FIRE 2025). The closest area designated as "Very High" FHSZ within the LRA is located south of Baseline Road, over 4 miles south of the project site (see Figure 3.17-1).

The closest SRA to the city of Roseville is located east and northeast of the cities of Rocklin and Loomis, respectively.

The closest areas designated as "Very High" FHSZs within the SRA are located in Granite Bay and Loomis, which are

15.45 and 16.9 miles from the project site, respectively (CAL FIRE 2025).

WILDFIRE ENVIRONMENT AT THE PROJECT SITE
The project site is undeveloped and is predominantly agricultural in use and is leased for rice and hay farming. The project site is predominantly flat with low hills due to previous grading and agricultural operations. Pleasant Grove Creek travels along the northernmost boundary of the project site. The project site is located within the LRA, and as shown in Figure 3.17-1, portions of the project site are located within a moderate FHSZ. The majority of the project site is designated as “Non Wildland” (City of Roseville 2025a).

The project site is within Roseville Fire Department Fire District 9 and is currently served by Fire Station #9 located approximately 3.03 miles southeast of the project site at 2451 Hayden Parkway (City of Roseville 2025b). Additionally, construction of a new fire station has been approved and will be located in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area, approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the project site.

Wildfire Ascent
City of Roseville

3.17-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Sources: Downloaded from CAL FIRE in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3.17-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Project Site

Ascent Wildfire
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.17-5

3.17.3 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The analysis of environmental impacts on wildfire risk focuses on the potential for new or increased project-related risks associated with wildfire, including impairment of an emergency response plan, exposing people or structures to uncontrolled fire, and post-fire risks such as slope instability or debris-flows. Information used in this section was obtained from the City of Roseville General Plan, CAL FIRE’s FHSZ map database, relevant fire and emergency-related plans, scientific journals, and relevant reports.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would cause a significant impact related to wildfire if the project is located in or near SRAs or lands classified as Very High FSHZs and would do any of the following:
 due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;  require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
 expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
The project site is not located within an SRA or a FHSZ. The closest SRA to the city of Roseville is located east and northeast of the cities of Rocklin and Loomis, respectively. The closest areas designated as "Very High" FHSZs within the SRA are located in the cities of Granite Bay and Loomis, which are 15.45 and 16.9 miles from the project site, respectively (CAL FIRE 2025). The flat topography of the project site and its proximity to water do not exacerbate wildfire risk. Because the location and topography of the project do not exacerbate wildfire risk, factors such as slope and prevailing wind would not further exacerbate the wildfire risk because the risk is already minimal; therefore, the potential to expose project occupants or workers to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors is not discussed further. In addition, due to the relatively flat character of the site, the potential for the project to expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes is not discussed further.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.17-1: Exacerbate Wildfire Risk as a Result of Project Construction and Operations Phase 1
Phase 1 would include construction of buildings and associated infrastructure as part of the RRTO Facility, Corporation Yard, and the Vendor Lease Area. Project construction would also require extensions of utility service infrastructure. Infrastructure would be installed in compliance with state and local regulations; however, there would still be the potential for wildfire ignition during construction. Site operations would introduce new sources of ignition that could exacerbate wildfire risks. This impact would be potentially significant.

Wildfire Ascent
City of Roseville

3.17-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Construction
Construction of Phase 1 would include the partial construction of the RRTO Facility, the Corporation Yard, and the Vendor Lease Area. The RRTO Facility would include a single-stream materials recovery facility (MRF) for recyclables, an area for receiving and transferring municipal solid waste, and an area for receiving, processing, and transferring organic waste. The Corporation Yard would include two primary areas; the EU Services Facility, which would provide office and storage space for the EU Department, and the Equipment Maintenance Facility, which would provide parking, maintenance and repair, and fueling/charging of all the EU fleet needs, as well as an administrative office building and employee parking. The Vendor Lease Area would provide space for prospective vendors to commit materials to the RRTO Facility.

The project site does not currently receive utility services, except for limited data and electricity. The project would include the extension of nearby water, wastewater, stormwater, data, and electrical infrastructure. To provide service to the project, a new 16-inch diameter water supply line would be extended approximately 3 miles along the alignment of Phillip Road, from the existing water supply line located in Blue Oaks Boulevard.

The project site is not located within an SRA or a “Very High” FHSZ. The closest SRA to the city of Roseville is located east and northeast of the cities of Rocklin and Loomis, respectively. The closest areas designated as "Very High" FHSZs within the SRA are located in the cities of Granite Bay and Loomis, which are 15.45 and 16.9 miles from the project site, respectively (CAL FIRE 2025). However, the project site is located within the LRA, and portions of the project site are located within a moderate FHSZ.

Project-related construction activities would introduce new temporary sources of ignition in the form of worker commute vehicles and use of heavy construction equipment. Use of motorized equipment can contribute to increased wildfire ignition risk through various mechanisms including sparks resulting from metal equipment contacting rocks or other hard material, vehicle catalytic converters becoming hot and contacting vegetation under the vehicle, and faulty equipment catching fire during operation. Construction of new infrastructure would be subject to City Fire Code Requirements, which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Title 24 of the CCR sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help minimize fire risk. Although these minimum development standards would reduce fire risks during construction, they may not be sufficient to ensure construction fire risks are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, the fire risk impacts associated with site construction would be potentially significant.

Operation
Project operations would introduce new sources of ignition within the project area. Operational fire risks would be associated with the following:
 equipment-sparked fire caused by faulty electrical connections;  ignition of collected refuse or dry vegetation on or near the equipment;  smoldering refuse brought into the facility by the haul trucks;  fuel stored on the site that may be ignited;
 ignition associated with the fueling and/or charging operations;  crushed or damaged batteries (particularly lithium-ion type batteries) inappropriately disposed of within the waste stream; and
 careless smokers.

Operating procedures and design features at the facility would reduce the potential for fire to be started at the site and to spread onto adjacent lands. These operating procedures include implementation of an equipment maintenance program; and implementation of design, safety, training, and reporting measures required to be specified in the facility’s hazardous materials management plan. In addition, the potential for onsite fire to spread to adjacent lands is reduced by the availability of stored fire-suppression water, engineered fire suppression systems in the site’s buildings, equipment on the site that can be used to extinguish or contain small fires, and the maintenance of firebreaks.

Ascent Wildfire
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.17-7 Design features include constructing the site facilities in compliance with state and local regulations for fire protection, including the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire-resistant landscaping, defensible space, adequate water supply, and emergency access. Additionally, water for fire suppression would be provided either by extending the public water supply system from Blue Oaks Boulevard to the project site or using existing non-potable water wells to fill an approximately 1-million-gallon fire suppression water tank with a diesel-powered fire suppression water pumping system that would supply the fire sprinkler system and onsite hydrants. Although these typical industrial-facility operating procedures and design features would reduce fire risks, they may not be sufficient to ensure the project’s fire risks are minimized. Therefore, the fire risk impacts associated with site operations would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1a: Prepare and Implement a Fire Risk Management Plan A fire risk management plan shall be prepared prior to the start of construction. The plan shall describe the potential for fires to occur as a result of project construction and operations, shall describe fire response procedures and protocols for facility staff, and shall contain measures necessary to minimize fire risks, including at a minimum those listed in Mitigation Measures 3.17-1b and 3.17-1c. The plan shall be prepared by City staff in consultation with the City of Roseville Fire Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.17-1b: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Construction During construction activities at the project site, the contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the following fire risk reduction measures:
 Within a minimum 50-foot buffer from any welding/grinding operations or areas of open flame, maintain all areas clear of vegetation and other flammable materials;  Spray nearby vegetation with water, if not already cleared, using a water truck or other suitable equipment, prior to any welding or grinding operations or the use of an open flame;  All equipment, gasoline-powered hand tools, and construction and maintenance vehicles shall be equipped with spark arresters;
 Equip all construction and maintenance vehicles entering the project site, including welding trucks or rigs, with minimal fire suppression equipment (e.g., ax, bucket, 5-pound fire extinguisher, shovels);  Maintain at least one half-full water truck or water tanker at each work site during all periods of work and for 1 hour after all work has ceased for the day;
 Clearly mark and maintain fire-suppression materials and equipment; and  Use a dedicated fire watch during all welding activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.17-1c: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Operations During operational activities at the project site, the following fire prevention measures shall be implemented:
 On-site buildings shall be equipped with fire detection systems and fire sprinklers that are specifically designed for the planned building uses;
 Fire hydrants shall be installed around the site perimeter and within the site interior at intervals consistent with the City of Roseville Fire Code requirements;
 Designated areas shall be established on the site where any truck containing burning materials can immediately be directed to discharge its load (consistent with Title 14 CCR Section 17407.1);  A hazardous waste screening program shall be developed and implemented concurrent with the initiation of waste acceptance operations to reduce the presence of flammable materials within the waste stream; and  A continuous fire break shall be established around the facility to minimize the potential for fires to spread onto adjacent lands or to enter the site from adjacent lands.

Wildfire Ascent
City of Roseville

3.17-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a, 3.17-1b, and 3.17-1c and compliance with all applicable regulations, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exacerbation of wildfire risk because a fire risk management plan and fire prevention measures would be prepared and implemented.

Phase 2
While a majority of infrastructure and utility extensions would be completed as part of Phase 1, Phase 2 would also include the construction of buildings and associated infrastructure related to expansion of the RRTO Facility and construction of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Similar to Phase 1, infrastructure would be installed and facilities would be operated in compliance with state and local regulations; however, there would still be the potential for wildfire ignition during Phase 2 construction and operations. This impact would be potentially significant.

Construction
Construction of Phase 2 would include construction of an additional 122,000 square feet of building area for the RRTO Facility and construction of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. While a majority of the utility infrastructure extensions would be completed as part of Phase 1, Phase 2 would include minor infrastructure development. As described above under Phase 1, Roseville Electric would provide electrical power to the project site and the MRF equipment would be served by extending the existing 12 kV line from its current location near Blue Oaks Boulevard. However, for ultimate buildout, Roseville Electric is expected to require development of a new substation to serve the project. To accomplish this, Roseville Electric is expected to extend an existing 60 kV line from the existing 60 kV power supply system located near the City power production site on Phillip Road east of Westbrook Boulevard and build a new substation on the project site. Further discussion of impacts related to the construction of the new substation is analyzed in Section 3.15, “Public Utilities.” Similar to Phase 1, project-related construction activities associated with Phase 2 would introduce new temporary sources of ignition in the form of worker commute vehicles and use of heavy construction equipment. Construction of new infrastructure would be subject to City Fire Code Requirements, which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Title 24 of the CCR sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help minimize fire risk. Development would be constructed and maintained in compliance with state and local regulations for fire protection, including the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire-resistant landscaping, defensible space, adequate water supply, and emergency access.

Therefore, installation and maintenance of infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk.

Operation
The Potential Future Organics Processing Facility included in Phase 2 would introduce new fire risks at the site. For compost and biomass facilities, there is a potential for the stored organic materials to spontaneously combust.

Spontaneous combustion in compost and biomass materials occurs through a complex interaction of biological, chemical, and physical processes that generate and trap heat within stored materials.

The process typically begins with microbial activity. When moisture content in compost/biomass ranges between 20 percent and 45 percent, conditions become ideal for bacterial and fungal growth. These microorganisms digest organic material and generate heat through their metabolic processes. As internal temperatures rise to approximately 40-60°C, the microbes die off, but chemical oxidation reactions take over.

These oxidation reactions accelerate as temperatures increase, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. The chemical breakdown of the materials releases heat, further raising temperatures within storage piles. In confined storage conditions with limited ventilation, this heat cannot dissipate effectively.

Combined with the microbial activity, other factors that increase the risk for spontaneous combustion include low moisture levels in the piles that make them easier to ignite; large and well-insulated piles (larger piles retain more heat); limited air flow and reduced free air space; poor moisture distribution within the piles; a nonuniform mix of materials; and poor or incomplete temperature monitoring. These precursor conditions are more likely found in piles that use passive aeration rather than forced aeration. Managing organic materials storage piles and having both

Ascent Wildfire
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.17-9 facilities and operational procedures that reduce this risk are typical design and operating procedures employed at compost facilities. The use of sprinklers on raw materials storge piles, maximum times that raw materials are stored before processing are examples of fire preventative measures typically employed at composting facilities. Also of note, the City is envisioning the use of an Aeriated Static Pile (ASP) technology at the compost facility and not the use of a passive aeriation system which has more propensity to have the precursor conditions leading to a fire.

For biomass facilities specifically, there is an additional fire risk associated with biomass dust. The generation of biomass dust creates explosion hazards in storage facilities due to its combustible nature and tendency to form explosive atmospheres when suspended in air. When biomass particles become airborne, they create a fuel-air mixture that can ignite.

Biomass materials generate dust during handling, processing, and storage operations. This combustible dust has a very high surface area-to-volume ratio, allowing for rapid oxidation when ignited. When suspended in air at sufficient concentrations (typically 40-500 grams per cubic meter [g/m³]), these particles form an explosive atmosphere that requires only a small ignition source to detonate.

Common ignition sources in biomass facilities include:
 static electricity discharges,
 hot surfaces from equipment or machinery,
 friction sparks from mechanical operations,
 electrical faults or arcing, and
 open flames or maintenance activities like welding.

These dust explosions can also result in secondary explosions. An initial explosion often dislodges accumulated dust from surfaces, creating a larger dust cloud that, when ignited, causes a secondary explosion. The risks of these types of explosions would be dependent upon the type of biomass facility installed at the site and the safety protocols integrated into the facility. The type of biomass facility envisioned is less likely to incur these types of risks. Some of the features that would reduce the risk profile include:
 raw materials are anticipated to be mostly yard/garden waste and not kiln dried woody biomass (such as pallets although some quantity of pallets is anticipated);
 arriving highly putrescible material (such as food waste) would be required to be processed and placed into the compost process within 48 hours of arrival;
 activities that generate high quantities of dust such as drying, sanding, and wood planing are not envisioned at the facility;
 the facility would be outdoors, somewhat similar to the nearby Rio Bravo facility, although approximately onetenth the size; and  the facility design would include sprinklers for the storage pile, dust suppression in the form of misters where activities have the potential to create dust (such as when grinding green waste to size), and fire suppression where appropriate, according to the City’s Fire Marshall requirements.

Nonetheless, implementation of Phase 2 construction and operations would exacerbate wildfire risk at the project site. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a, 3.17-1b, and 3.17-1c, described above.

Mitigation Measure 3.17-1d: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Phase 2 Construction and Operations During Phase 2 construction, Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a, 3.17-1b, and 3.17-1c shall be implemented. In addition, during compost and/or biomass facility operations, the following fire prevention measures shall be implemented:

Wildfire Ascent
City of Roseville

3.17-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR  Coordinate with the Roseville Fire Department regarding guidelines on how to manage and extinguish compost and biomass fires if they occur. This includes having appropriate firefighting gear available on the site, as determined by the fire department.
 Ensure material piles are managed consistent with industry standards including ensuring they are adequately ventilated and that appropriate moisture levels are maintained. Ventilation can be achieved by turning the pile or using a mechanical aeration system. Ventilation can also be improved by constructing narrower, shallower windrows or piles.
 Avoid pile depths greater than 12-feet and monitor internal pile temperatures on a weekly basis.  If a fire is detected, use a large, wheeled loader to open up the pile and have a fire hose available as the loader removes material to spray directly onto burning embers. Notify the fire department immediately upon identifying a fire.
 For biomass operations, use an infrared temperature monitoring system, as appropriate, to provide continuous surveillance of biomass storage areas to detect hotspots and temperature anomalies that may indicate developing fires. Carbon monoxide (CO) and smoke detectors should also be employed to identify developing fires.  For conveyor systems and pneumatic transport lines where biomass materials are in motion, use spark detection systems combined with automatically-trigger suppression systems.  In addition, the Fire Risk Management Plan identified in Mitigation Measure 3.17-1a shall be amended to include specific fire risk response protocols associated with compost and biomass facilities, as appropriate. These protocols could include, but would not be limited to, regular removal of accumulated dust from surfaces and equipment, and conducting regular safety audits and equipment inspections.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a, 3.17-1b, 3.17-1c, and 3.17-1d and compliance with all applicable regulations, Phase 2 of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exacerbation of wildfire risk because a fire risk management plan and fire prevention measures would be prepared and implemented.

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-1 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT APPROACH
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which a project is considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified EIR for such a planning document. This cumulative analysis uses a combination of the “list” approach and the “projections” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The effects of past and present projects on the environment are reflected by the existing conditions in the project area.

In the case of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project, the project area has been modified from its natural conditions by human activity. While the project site is predominantly used for agriculture (rice and hay farming), surrounding uses include several large specific plan areas (namely, Creekview, West Roseville, Regional University and Community, and Amoruso Ranch specific plan areas) that are in various stages of build-out. In addition, the project site is within an area of City-owned property that was purchased in 2003. Since the purchase, the project site has been intended for future City use.

A list of probable future projects is provided below. Probable future projects are those in the project vicinity that have the possibility of interacting with the project to generate a cumulative impact and either:

1. are partially occupied or under construction;

2. have received final discretionary approvals;

3. have applications accepted as complete by local agencies and are currently undergoing environmental review, or

4. have been discussed publicly by an applicant or otherwise have become known to the lead agency, provided sufficient information is available about the project to allow at least a general analysis of environmental impacts and an evaluation of the likelihood of implementation.

The analysis also considers planning efforts that address regional environmental issues, such as water quality improvement programs, and potential effects associated with climate change. These plans, programs, and effects are discussed in relevant resource discussions below.

4.2.1 Geographic Scope
The geographic area that could be affected by implementation of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project varies depending on the type of environmental resource being considered. When the effects of the project are considered in combination with those other past, present, and probable future projects to identify cumulative impacts, the other projects that are considered may also vary depending on the type of environmental effects being assessed.

Table 4-1 presents the general geographic areas associated with the different resources addressed in this analysis.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts
Resource Topic Geographic Area
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Local (project site and surrounding public viewpoints) Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources Local (project site) for land use and Placer County for agricultural resources Air Quality Regional (pollutant emissions that affect the air basins) and immediate project vicinity (pollutant emissions that are highly localized)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global
Biological Resources Regional, Placer County, City of Roseville Cultural Resources Local (project site), with regional implications Tribal Cultural Resources Local (project site), with regional implications Energy Roseville Electric service area
Geology and Soils Local (project site)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Local (project site)
Hydrology and Water Quality Pleasant Grove Creek watershed, City of Roseville Noise Local (immediate project vicinity where project-generated noise could be heard concurrently with noise from other sources)
Population, Employment, and Housing Regional and local
Public Services Regional and local service areas
Public Utilities Local service areas
Transportation and Circulation Regional and local
Wildfire Placer County
Source: Compiled by Ascent in 2025.

4.2.2 Regional Planning Environment
The City of Roseville General Plan 2035, adopted by the City Council in August 2020, establishes the land use pattern and goals for development and growth in the City of Roseville. In addition, the City has 16 subareas that have been planned for urban development, including the Infill Area, the North Industrial area, and 14 specific plan areas (some of the specific plans are described below). These plans were relied upon in preparing the cumulative impact analysis.

The documents are available for review online at
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8740544 and at the City of Roseville Development Services, Planning Department at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678.

4.2.3 Related Projects
The cumulative impacts analysis considers the environmental effects of growth in the region, as represented by adopted planning documents and proposals currently under consideration, in combination with implementation of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project. Development considered in this cumulative analysis includes:
 Build-out of City of Roseville’s existing General Plan and approved specific plans;  Campus Oaks (Hewlett Packard [HP] Campus Rezone) project including the extension of HP Way from Foothills Boulevard through the HP Campus northwesterly to Blue Oaks Boulevard;  Build-out of the Regional University Specific Plan (RUSP);  Build-out of Phase 1 of Placer Vineyards;
 Build-out of City of Lincoln’s specific plans;

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-3  Build-out of City of Rocklin’s specific plans;
 Projects outside of South Placer County including the Elverta Specific Plan (ESP) (Sacramento County), Johnson Ranchos (City of Wheatland), and Sutter Pointe (Sutter County);  Partial build-out of the Placer Ranch area (50 percent residential, 25 percent non-residential, and a 25,000- student University);
 Extension of Placer Parkway westerly as a four-lane roadway from Foothills Boulevard to Santucci Boulevard; and  Build-out of the Dry Creek/West Placer Community Plan (Placer County, south of Baseline Road).

These proposed and anticipated development projects are shown in Figure 4-1 and described below.

PROPOSED AND ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT
City of Roseville Approved Specific Plans
Creekview Specific Plan
The Creekview Specific Plan (CVSP) was approved on September 19, 2012 for the 501-acre area located east of the project site. The land was annexed into the City on April 17, 2013. A total of 2,011 dwelling units would be distributed as follows: 826 low-density, single-family units; 665 medium-density units; and 520 high-density, multi-family units.

Approved land uses include a total of 136 acres that would be set aside as permanent open space, 15.7 acres for neighborhood parks, a 7-acre elementary school site, 2.6 acres of utilities sites, and 19.3 acres for commercial development. The CVSP was approximately 40 percent built out as of January 2025, and home construction is underway for subdivisions approximately 2 miles to the east of the project site.

Sierra Vista Specific Plan
The Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road. The SVSP area was annexed into the City of Roseville from unincorporated Placer County. The SVSP includes 8,679 single and multifamily units, including approximately 259 acres of commercial, 106 acres of park, 304 acres of open space, and 56 acres for schools. In addition, the SVSP included a large Urban Reserve area that did not participate in the specific plan process.

At build-out, the SVSP area is expected to accommodate approximately 20,045 residents and provide 9,000 jobs.

The SVSP was adopted in May 2010 and annexed into the City in January 2012. The SVSP was amended in June 2012 to entitle land uses on 397 acres of the SVSP area including: 141 acres (705 units) of low-density residential, 79 acres (635 units) of medium-density residential, and 28 acres (689 units) of high-density residential. In addition, 6 acres of commercial mixed use, 37 acres of general commercial uses, 11 acres of public/quasi-public uses including an elementary school, 16 acres of parks, and 36 acres of open space are proposed. The SVSP was approximately 45 percent built out as of January 2025.

West Roseville Specific Plan
The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) includes 3,162 acres west of Fiddyment Road, generally north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The WRSP is a mixed-use development that includes 8,792 single and multifamily units, 704 age-restricted units, 57 acres of commercial, 109 acres of industrial, 255 acres of parks, 705 acres of open space, and 108 acres of schools. At build-out, the plan area is expected to accommodate approximately 22,332 residents and provide 3,726 jobs.

The WRSP was adopted in February 2004. The WRSP was approximately 85 percent built out as of January 2025.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) area is located on 694 acres northwest of the current City limits, south of West Sunset Boulevard, and approximately 1.5 miles west of Fiddyment Road. The ARSP would include the development of a mix of uses, including 337 acres of low-, medium-, and high-density residential land developed with 2,827 dwelling units. The land use plan also includes three commercial parcels totaling 51 acres, a 9.6-acre elementary school site, seven neighborhood parks, and a 3-acre fire station/public facilities site. Approximately 135

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR acres of the site would be set aside as open space preserve. The ARSP was adopted by the City Council on June 15, 2016. Home construction in the ARSP began in 2024 and has continued throughout 2025.

Riolo Vineyards Specific Plan
Originally approved on May 12, 2009, the Riolo Vineyards Specific Plan (RVSP) is proposed as a residential community with open space, recreational, and commercial components and encompasses approximately 525 acres. The RVSP area is located in Placer County outside of the City of Roseville, approximately 1 mile south of Baseline Road. The development would include a total of 933 residential units consisting of low-, medium- and high- density as well as rural and agricultural residences. An amendment to the RVSP was approved on March 24, 2015. Mass grading has been completed for portions of the RVSP, and the first subdivisions are under construction.

Curry Creek Community Plan
The Curry Creek Community Plan (CCCP) area is located west of the SVSP and WRSP in Placer County. Although the RUSP, described below, lies within the CCCP Area, it is independent of the CCCP. While the Board of Supervisors gave direction to County Staff to proceed with studying the area for future development in 2003, no formal community plan is pending at this time.

Hewlett Packard Campus Oaks Project
In August 2015, the City received approved an application from BBC Roseville for a Rezone, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and Development Agreement for a 189-acre portion of the HP property located approximately three miles southeast of the ARSP. BBC Roseville proposes developing the site as a mixed-use project referred to as “Campus Oaks” that would include residential uses of varying densities, commercial and office/tech uses, parks, and a fire station. The Planning Commission approved the HP Campus Oaks Master Plan Design Guidelines on March 9, 2017. The Plan area completed development entitlements and is actively under construction, with build out nearly complete.

Regional University Specific Plan
The RUSP is 1,157 acres located in the western Placer County immediately west of the WRSP Area. Access to the site would be through an extension of Watt Avenue. It will include a 600-acre private university campus on the western portion of the plan area, and a 557.5 urban community on the eastern portion of the site. Approximately 3,232 residential units and a private high school for 1,200 students would be included in the development. The RUSP was approved by Placer County in December 2008. The RUSP was last amended in May of 2019; however, to date, development of RUSP has not yet commenced.

Placer Vineyards Specific Plan
The Placer Vineyards Specific Plan (PVSP) area is located south of the SVSP, (south of Baseline Road). The PVSP was originally approved by Placer County in July 2007 and includes development on 5,230 acres. At build-out, Placer Vineyards would include 14,132 dwelling units, 274 acres of commercial development, 919 acres of park and open space land and 851 acres of quasi-public uses, and roadways. Home construction has begun within the PVSP, and Placer County is currently processing several subdivision maps within the plan area.

City of Lincoln
Twelve Bridges Specific Plan
The Twelve Bridges Specific Plan includes 5,700 acres in western Placer County, within the southern portion of the City of Lincoln. The Specific Plan would include 10,146 residential units and 180 acres of commercial and business uses. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Lincoln in April 1993. The Twelve Bridges Specific Plan is nearly built out, with several residential community areas under construction or slated for future development. A majority of the construction is occurring in the Bella Breeze loop, which will include single-family and multi-family residential development. The remaining vacant parcels in the Twelve Bridges Specific Plan are zoned commercial.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-5 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 4-1 Proposed and Anticipated Development

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-7 Village 1 Specific Plan
The Village 1 Specific Plan includes 1,832 acres in western Placer County, within the northeast portion of the City of Lincoln. The Village 1 Specific Plan would create a mix of land uses including residential (5,610 units), mixed use commercial, two elementary schools, and parks and open space. The Village 1 Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Lincoln in July 2013. Only a small portion of the Village 1 Specific Plan is under construction. The majority of construction is occurring along State Route (SR) 193. Approximately 1,300 single-family dwelling units are entitled and under construction.

Village 5 Specific Plan
The Village 5 Specific Plan includes 4,787 acres in western Placer County, immediately west of the City of Lincoln. The project site is located within the adopted Sphere of Influence of (and would be annexed into) the City of Lincoln. The Village 5 Specific Plan would create a mix of land uses including residential (8,206 units), retail commercial, office/business professional, recreational, open space, and public/quasi-public, consistent with development patterns in Lincoln. The Village 5 Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Lincoln on December 5, 2017. A Partially Recirculated EIR was subsequently prepared and certified on September 14, 2021. No construction activity has occurred in the Village 5 Specific Plan area.

Village 7 Specific Plan
The Village 7 Specific Plan includes 703 acres in south Placer County, within the southwest portion of the City of Lincoln. The 703-acre Village 7 Specific Plan includes four planning areas for future development. Development includes a mix of low, medium, and high density residential, a school, a community park, a fire station, a recreation center, neighborhood-serving retail uses, and park and open space amenities. The Village 7 Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Lincoln on September 10, 2013. The Lincoln City Council recently recommended that the City initiate the annexation process for the un-incorporated portion of Village 7 Specific Plan and the approved Village 7 Pre-Zone.

City of Rocklin
Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan (Whitney Ranch) The Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan (Whitney Ranch) includes 1,871 acres in western Placer County, in the City of Rocklin. The Plan would include 4,424 residential units, commercial, business professional, light industrial, recreation, and public uses (schools). The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area Final EIR was certified and adopted by the Rocklin City Council on July 9, 2002. The most recent amendment of the plan was approved in 2019.

Projects Outside of South Placer County
Elverta Specific Plan
The ESP includes 1,744 acres in the north-central portion of Sacramento County, immediately south of PVSP.

Approximately 881 acres would accommodate 4,950 residential units, and 552 acres would include agricultural/rural land use. It also would include 19 acres of commercial and office professional units. The ESP was approved by Sacramento County in August 2007. The ESP land use plan was amended in 2014. No development activity has occurred to date.

Johnson Rancho Project
The Johnson Rancho Project consists of 3,357 acres and was annexed, along with the Hop Farm Property, into the City of Wheatland in 2014. Development includes a mix of low, medium, and high residential, commercial, employment/office, parks, open space, and schools. The City of Wheatland expects development activity to commence during the 2021-2029 planning period.

Sutter Pointe Specific Plan
The Sutter Pointe Specific Plan (SPSP) encompasses approximately 7,528 acres of land in south Sutter County, adjacent to the Placer County line. It includes approximately 3,600 acres of commercial and industrial uses, 2,900 acres for residential uses, and 1,000 acres of parks, recreation, and open space. The SPSP was originally approved by

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Sutter County in June 2009. On October 28, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the SPSP affecting the eastern plan area located south of Sankey Road, north of Riego Road and east of Pacific Avenue. The first phase of development, called Lakeside at Sutter Pointe, was approved by the Board of Supervisors in November of 2020. This phase includes approximately 3,402 single-family homes, 399 multi-family units, 46.1 acres of employment center, 25 acres of commercial, 61.3 acres of parkland, 54.9 acres of open space, and a K-8 school.

Sunset Area Plan and Placer Ranch Specific Plan
The Sunset Area Plan (SAP) is a Placer County-initiated update to its 1997 Sunset Industrial Area Plan. The SAP also incorporates the Placer Ranch Specific Plan (PRSP). The SAP area encompasses 8,497 acres located in unincorporated south Placer County west of the Highway 65 corridor, situated between the Cities of Lincoln to the north, Rocklin to the east, and Roseville to the south. The PRSP area constitutes 2,213 acres within the southern portion of the SAP area.

The SAP will bring forward new land use designations, including General Commercial, Entertainment/Mixed Use, Business Park, Innovation Center, Eco-Industrial, Light Industrial, Public Facility, and Urban Reserve. The PRSP is a mixed-use community consisting of 5,636 residential units, including a university and an age-restricted community; an elementary school, middle school, neighborhood parks, and open space; commercial and mixed uses; and campus park (office, research and development, light industrial, and commercial). The proposed university and non-residential land uses are intended as a catalyst for employment-generating development in Placer County’s overall Sunset Area.

On December 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR and approved the SAP/PRSP. In May 2024, the Board of Supervisors amended the SAP to address changes since its adoption in 2019. The updates correct minor errors in the SAP and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and they update graphics to reflect recent projects and transportation network changes. A significant addition is a multifamily residential zoning district within the SAP area. Residential development associated with Placer One, the first project within the PRSP, began in 2025.

Placer Parkway
The Placer Parkway is to be an approximately 15-mile long, high-speed transportation facility, which will connect SR 65 in western Placer County to SR 70/99 in south Sutter County. It will link existing and planned development near some of the region’s fastest growing communities while improving access to the I-5 corridor, downtown Sacramento, and SMF.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of Transpiration (Caltrans), and South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) completed a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/EIR which analyzed the five corridor alignment alternatives identified by SPRTA. The Final Tier 1 EIS/EIR, released in November 2009, identified Alternative 5 as the Preferred Alternative and the Environmentally Superior Alternative subject to approvals by FHWA and SPRTA. The first phase of Placer Parkway, from SR 65 to Foothills Boulevard North, was approved by Placer County in 2015 (SCH# 2015052032). Construction of this first phase is planned to begin in spring 2026.

Dry Creek/West Placer Community Plan
The Dry Creek/West Placer Community Plan area encompasses approximately 9,200 acres in the southwest corner of Placer County. It is bounded by Baseline Road on the north, Sutter County to the west, Sacramento County to the south, and the City of Roseville to the east. This Community Plan area encompasses other specific plans such as Placer Vineyards and Riolo Vineyards, which are in early stages of buildout.

Other Cumulative Projects
Western Regional Sanitary Landfill
The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill, operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA), is located in western Placer County. The WPWMA is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln and Placer County. The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill is a Class II/III municipal solid waste (non-hazardous) landfill and is permitted to accept 1,900 tons of solid waste per day and 624 vehicles per day. The facility, which opened in 1995, receives, separates, processes, and markets recyclable materials removed from delivered solid waste. In addition to the landfill, the facility includes a public waste and recyclables drop-off area, a compost area, a construction and demolition processing area, the Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and a household

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-9 hazardous waste collection area. Most solid waste collected from the city of Roseville is delivered to the MRF for processing. The landfill has a total capacity of 36.4 million cubic yards. Projected waste disposal assumes a 2 percent average annual increase in municipal solid waste, and based on the landfill’s remaining capacity the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach its currently permitted landfill capacity in 2058 (WPWMA 2022). Expansion of the landfill to extend its operational life an additional 43 to 52 years was approved in 2022. This expansion would expand the permitted capacity of the landfill to between 45.1 and 50.2 million cubic yards (WPWMA 2022).

Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project
The Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Facility is located southwest of the ARSP. The EIR for the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Facility was certified in 2003 and evaluated full build-out of the retention basin to 2,350 acre-feet (AF) capacity. (Note: the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Facility was also evaluated in the SAP/PRSP EIR.) At build-out, the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project will provide retention storage in two basins, a south basin with 1,768 AF of storage and a north basin with 1,132 AF of storage. The City is currently collecting drainage impact fees from new development projects to fund construction of this project, which will be constructed as funds are made available. As of 2025, the City is in the process of designing the retention basin as a regional facility, and preparation of a Subsequent EIR is underway.

Phillip Road Project
The Phillip Road Project (formerly the Roseville Industrial Park Project) would be located at 6382 Phillip Road on approximately 176 developable acres and would include a mix of residential, retail, medical offices, and innovation center uses, as well as parks, open space, and trails. The Phillip Road Project is approximately 2 miles east of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project site. Proposed uses include 664 residential units, 30,084 square feet (sf) of retail uses, 20,925 sf of medical offices, 1,011,032 sf of innovation center uses, 4.9 acres of park, and 13.6 acres of open space along the Pleasant Grove Creek and Pleasant Grove Creek Bypass Channel. The project also includes utility uses and extensions and improvements to Blue Oaks Boulevard and Phillip Road. Preparation of an EIR is underway.

Country Acres Clean Power Project
The Country Acres Clean Power Project would be located on up to 1,170 acres of land in southwestern Placer County, just west of the City of Roseville, and south of proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project site. The Country Acres Clean Power Project is a solar and battery storage project connected to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) grid. An EIR was certified in April 2023, and the project entitlements were approved in February 2024.

SMUD has completed the contracts to construct and operate the project and construction began in September 2024, with completion anticipated in late 2026.

Curry Creek Solar Project
SMUD proposes to develop the Curry Creek Solar Project on up to 680 acres of land in southwestern Placer County, just west of the City of Roseville, north of Baseline Road, and east of Country Acres Lane. The project site is adjacent to SMUD’s Country Acres Solar Project currently under development. In addition to a solar power and battery storage facility, the project would include a generation substation and interconnection to SMUD’s electric grid. A notice of preparation of an EIR was published in August 2025. Construction is expected to begin in 2027, with plans to be operational in late 2028.

4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
For purposes of this EIR, the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project would result in a significant cumulative effect if:
 the cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are not significant and the incremental impact of implementing the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, to result in a new cumulatively significant impact; or

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR  the cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are already significant, and implementation of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project makes a considerable contribution to the effect. The standards used herein to determine a considerable contribution are that either the impact must be substantial or must exceed an established threshold of significance.

Significance criteria, unless otherwise specified, are the same for cumulative impacts and project impacts for each environmental topic area. This cumulative analysis assumes that all mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 to mitigate project impacts are adopted. The analysis herein analyzes whether, after adoption of project-specific mitigation, the residual impacts of the project would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would contribute considerably to existing/anticipated (without the project) cumulatively significant effects.

4.3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Aesthetic and visual resources impacts are project-specific and localized. Aesthetic impacts of projects visible from the same areas where the proposed project would be visible were evaluated to determine whether there would be significant cumulative aesthetic and visual impacts. The geographic extent for considering cumulative impacts on aesthetics includes projects within the same viewshed (i.e., area visible from viewer’s location) of the proposed project, which is a conservative estimate of the likely maximum distance from which the project would be visible, particularly considering the flat terrain of the project area that does not afford elevated viewpoints with very expansive views.

As described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” cumulative projects in surrounding communities would result in construction of a substantial number of residential units and commercial development. The project site is in the vicinity of the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project to the east, Country Acres Clean Power Project to the southeast, the Phillip Road Project to the east, and the Creekview Specific Plan area to the east. Due to their proximity, these projects would be visible in the same viewshed as the proposed project. Some of these developments are already under construction, and construction of developments could overlap with construction in the project area. This analysis focuses on the proposed project after it is built out because the precise timing and location of construction of the majority of individual projects and structures within the project area (with the exception of Country Acres) is not known.

VISUAL CHARACTER AND QUALITY
The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, industrial, and other development and would result in similar visual changes. For example, many of the cumulative developments would be adjacent to agricultural/grazing and open space areas and could degrade visual quality by placing urban development adjacent to these areas. The cumulative developments and the proposed project would therefore together cause substantial degradation of visual quality, especially where there would be abrupt transitions between open space and agricultural/grazing areas and development. These would be cumulatively significant impacts on visual quality and character. As described in Impact 3.1-1, the proposed facilities would be designed to be visually consistent and would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to community design and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Similar design requirements would be placed on other developments in Roseville to reduce visual impacts. As described for Impact 3.1-1, to reduce the project’s impact on visual character from operation, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would require implementation of a litter mitigation program to minimize litter generated by the project. Implementation of this program would include collecting and disposing of litter from the project site and affected roadways such that litter would not substantially increase beyond existing conditions. The project impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated. However, the project would combine with other cumulative projects to result in urban land uses adjacent to agricultural/grazing and open space areas, which would substantially degrade the area’s visual quality. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would result in a cumulatively significant impact related to visual character or quality of the area. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-11

LIGHT AND GLARE
The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, and industrial development and would result in creation of daytime glare and nighttime light sources. For example, the Country Acres Clean Power Project to the southeast would involve solar power development that could result in glare from solar panels. The Creekview Specific Plan would involve residential development that would create extensive sources of glare and light in areas that currently have scattered and dispersed sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting.

As described for Impact 3.1-2, to reduce the project impact of glare and lighting from operation, Mitigation Measure

3.1-2 would require implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare. These standards include the use of cutoff type light fixtures, restrictions on the height of pole mounted lighting, and the use of nonreflective surfaces for new structures. The project impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated. However, given the rural character of the project site and vicinity, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, could create a substantial new source of daytime glare and nighttime light. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would result in a cumulatively significant impact.

The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.2 Land Use and Agricultural Resources
Impacts related to consistency with land use plans or policies would be localized and would not generally combine to result in cumulative impacts. The threshold of significance for land use impacts is whether a project would conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding environmental impacts. Such conflicts are inherently site specific and are addressed by individual projects. As discussed in Impact 3.2-1, the project would be consistent with land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the project site. The project impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.

The cumulative context for agricultural resources includes the project region (i.e., project site, the City of Roseville, Placer County). Cumulative agricultural land impacts could occur in conjunction with development proposed in the City of Roseville and Placer County. While the City of Roseville General Plan EIR states that buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant impact involving the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses, development within the county would result in the continued loss of farmland in the region. As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, implementation of the project would result in conversion of Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would require compensation for Important Farmland conversion. However, no new farmland would be made available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The project impact related to conversion of farmland would be significant and unavoidable. Because the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources, it would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to agricultural resources. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.3 Air Quality
The cumulative context for the assessment of impacts related to air quality is the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB).

Potential cumulative air quality impacts would result when cumulative projects’ emissions would combine to degrade air quality conditions below attainment levels for SVAB, delay attainment of air quality standards, affect sensitive receptors, or subject surrounding areas to objectionable odors.

AIR QUALITY PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project and the related projects identified in Section 4.2.3 would have the potential to result in cumulative impact to air quality plans, if they would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan or the Sacramento 2015 Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. As discussed in Impact 3.3-1,

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR the project would include development of government offices and municipal corporation yard facilities, the project would be consistent with the land use designation (P/QP) and zoning (PD) established by the City of Roseville. The project would not result in emissions exceeding the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) thresholds of significance and, thus, would not conflict with the goals of the Sacramento 2015 Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards in the SVAB or with further progress towards achieving attainment. The related projects in the vicinity of the project would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, including applicable general plans and the Sacramento 2015 Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, which would prevent conflicts with applicable air quality plans from occurring. Therefore, the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS
Air quality impacts are assessed at the air basin level. As discussed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” the project site is located within the Placer County portion of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of PCAPCD. The project-generated impacts identified in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” are inherently cumulative because the thresholds established by PCAPCD are developed considering emissions forecasts and emissions targets for the region (i.e., air basin) and anticipated development wholistically.

Construction
Air pollutant impacts are cumulative in nature because no single project would generate enough emissions to cause an air basin to be designated nonattainment. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to project construction are discussed under Impact 3.3-2. As discussed in Impact 3.3-2, construction of the project would not result in criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors emissions that would contribute to the nonattainment status of the SVAB. Therefore, the project construction is not anticipated to result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors that would contribute to the nonattainment status of the SVAB. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Operation
Similar to the discussion above under “Construction,” no single project would generate enough emissions to cause an air basin to be designated nonattainment. Cumulative impacts related to project operation are discussed under Impact

3.3-3. As discussed in Impact 3.3-3, the operational emissions associated with full project buildout would exceed the applicable thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10). Because the PCAPCD thresholds of significance are directly tied to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, projects that do exceed these thresholds would contribute to adverse health effects. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants and would result in adverse health impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.3- 3a and 3.3-3b require the City to implement dust control measures and conduct permitting-level ambient air quality evaluation, respectively, if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a and 3.3-3b would reduce criteria pollutants and ozone precursors emissions, but it cannot be determined with certainty at this time whether the ROG, NOx, and PM emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
The project-generated health risk associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs) was evaluated under Impact 3.3-4 in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions are the primary TAC of concern regarding the construction and operation of new urban land uses and infrastructure. This impact examines whether implementing the project would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions that would result in cancer risk of 10 in 1 million or a noncarcinogenic Health Hazard Index (HHI) of 1 at any receptor. Thus, the analysis

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-13 focuses on the incremental increase in health risk from project-related sources of TAC emissions. As discussed in Impact 3.3-4, construction of the project would result in emissions that exceed the cancer risk threshold of 10 per million at nearby receptors, but the non-cancer risk threshold of HHI of 1 would not be exceeded. Operation of the project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions in excess of 10 in 1 million cancer risk or a non-cancer health risk greater than 1.0 on the HHI. The effects of TAC concentrations are typically localized to areas in the near vicinity of a project site and adjacent areas. This is because concentrations of air pollutants quickly disperse as distance is increased from the source, and when discussing health risks associated with TACs, higher concentrations of TACs are correlated with higher risk exposure. Therefore, while TACs do contribute to overall regional air quality concerns, their effects (i.e., health risks) are more of a local concern.

However, when combined with other nearby projects that generate TAC emissions, project-related construction or operational emissions could contribute to potentially significant cumulative TAC impacts at sensitive receptors located close enough to both the proposed project and other cumulative sources. As discussed above, a number of large development projects are located in close proximity to the project, including multiple specific plan areas and the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project is anticipated to be developed directly adjacent to the east of the project site. As described and evaluated in Impact 3.3-4, existing nearby sensitive receptors are located to the south of the project. During construction and operations of the project, this would be the receptor location exposed to the highest TAC concentrations. The Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project site is located directly to the east of these same receptors. Therefore, if construction activities at the Stormwater Retention Basin Project were to occur while the project was being constructed, emissions could combine to increase concentrations. However, the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project boundary is located approximately 650 feet to the east of the homes south of Philip Road. These homes are located approximately 320 feet south of the project site. When discussing health risk and TAC exposure, pollutant concentrations (and therefore health risk effects) reduce with increasing distance from the source. The project’s health risk effects would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 and these homes are located much closer to the project site than they are from other future nearby projects (i.e., 320 feet versus 650 feet). Because the project’s risks would be reduced to a less-than-significant level at a distance of 320 feet, it is reasonable to conclude that risk levels from the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project, which is further away from sensitive receptors (i.e., 650 feet), would be similar due to the dispersive properties of air pollutant concentrations, risk reduces with increasing distance from the source. Thus, while the project-generated TAC emissions could potentially combine with those from the other nearby project, project TAC contribution from each individual project is not anticipated to be substantial enough that when combined would contribute to an adverse cumulative condition.

As described in Impact 3.3-4, mitigated emissions with the use of Tier 4 construction equipment would be substantially below the threshold for significant risk (i.e., 2 per million compared to 10 per million of excess cancer risk). Thus, with incorporation of mitigation, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Similar to the proposed project, if emissions from nearby cumulative projects result in impacts, similar mitigation could be required to ensure individual project emissions do not exceed thresholds. With the increased distances from the receptor and the effectiveness of Tier 4 mitigation, emissions from other nearby projects would not combine with emissions from the proposed project at the same receptor such that a new cumulatively considerable impact could occur. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

ODORS
The project and the related projects discussed under Section 4.2.3 would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with objectionable odors if they would create objectionable odors or place sensitive receptors next to existing objectionable odors. Construction of the project and cumulative projects would involve the use of equipment with diesel engines. Exhaust odors from diesel engines may be considered offensive to some individuals.

However, minor odors from the use of heavy-duty diesel equipment would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Given the temporary nature of construction activities and the dispersion properties of odors resulting from heavy-duty diesel equipment, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an odor-related impact.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Operation of the project would result in the development of new odor sources into the areas from truck idling, municipal solid waste (MSW) and organic waste delivery and transfer, and operation of a potential future composting facility. As discussed in Impact 3.3-5, the potential future compost and/or biomass facility operations would be located at the northernmost portion of the project site, the farthest from Phillip Road to reduce the likelihood of the public encountering dust or air emissions. However, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances (2 miles) and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to project operations, resulting in new sensitive uses within the 2-mile buffer, the project could create objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an odor reduction plan be established for the life of project operations to address all potential odor sources. With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. In addition, the potential future compost facility would be required to prepare and maintain a site-specific Odor Impact Minimization Plan, as required by Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 17863.4 to reduce potential odors and comply with applicable PCAPCD best management practices (BMPs).

Furthermore, emissions of odors would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any number of people.

Nonetheless, considering the subjective nature of odors and how people perceive them in conjunction with the anticipated future growth in the vicinity, placing more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, and that the proposed project is a known major odor source, the possibility remains that odors could affect a substantial number of people, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

The cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would be subject to future environmental review, and to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance. Furthermore, the cumulative projects in closest proximity to the project site would involve mostly mixed-use development (e.g., commercial and residential uses), which are not typically associated with operational odors. Nonetheless, because the proposed project would be a major odor source and because the anticipated future growth in the area would place more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, the possibility remains that odors from the proposed project could combine with odors from other projects to affect a substantial number of people (especially as the City builds out). This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project and related infrastructure for Impacts

3.4-1 and 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” is inherently a cumulative impact analysis. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from one project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions. The analysis of Impact

3.4-1 concluded that the level of construction GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project would not exceed PCAPCD’s bright line threshold of 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per year (MTCO2e/year). However, Phase 2 operational emissions (2040) and full operation of the project (2058) would exceed the bright-line threshold and, therefore, would be substantial and cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure 3.4- 1a requires the City to use low- or zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and equipment, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b requires the City to prepare and implement an Emissions Capture and Control Plan. Implementation of on-site GHG reduction measures required by Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce GHG emissions below applicable PCAPCD thresholds and on-site methane emissions controls required by Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would further reduce GHG emissions. However, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce emissions to below PCAPCD’s threshold, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Due to this uncertainty, it is possible that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would be less effective and the thresholds could be exceeded. Further, although Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Given this uncertainty, this analysis conservatively assumes that emission thresholds could still be exceeded with implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.4-1b. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-15

4.3.5 Biological Resources
Sensitive habitats for biological resources in the vicinity of the project site and in the region have been modified, removed, and fragmented over time as land has been developed and converted to agricultural, urban, and residential uses. Historic development in the region has resulted in substantial loss of sensitive habitats, including riparian habitat, which has been dramatically reduced from its historical extent in the region. This represents an existing significant cumulative impact. Future projects in the region, including projects described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” could continue to result in losses of sensitive habitats and sensitive species. These future projects include planned residential development (i.e., under approved specific plans) and major road improvements (e.g., Placer Parkway), which would contribute to ongoing loss of natural habitat (e.g., vernal pools, grassland, riparian habitat).

Although individual projects would be required to mitigate for significant impacts on a project-by-project basis, they may result in residual impacts that combine with the existing adverse conditions to create a significant cumulative impact related to special-status species and sensitive habitats.

The project site and vicinity are located in an area of Roseville that is characterized by agricultural land uses. Most project activities would occur within the agricultural land on the project site and would avoid Pleasant Grove Creek and associated valley oak riparian woodland habitat; however, the project also includes an off-site public utility easement (PUE) area that contains a mix of agricultural habitat, as well as vernal pool wetland. Thus, the project would not result in any direct impacts to wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities on the project site, but could have adverse effects on these resources in the off-site PUE area. In addition, project implementation could result in adverse effects on special-status plants, special-status wildlife, wildlife movement corridors, and wildlife nurseries. In addition, project implementation could result in conflicts with tree preservation requirements in the City of Roseville Municipal Code. As discussed in Impacts 3.5-1 through 3.5-6, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-2a, 3.5- 2b, 3.5-2c, 3.5-2d, 3.5-2e, 3.5-2f, 3.5-2g, 3.5-2h, 3.5-2i, 3.5-2j, 3.5-4a, 3.5-4b, 3.5-5, and 3.5-6 would avoid or minimize adverse effects on these resources and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures would require the City to conduct focused surveys for specific species, implement avoidance measures if individuals are detected, and, if avoidance is not feasible, mitigate for the loss of individuals or habitat, in accordance with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act and other regulatory programs that protect habitats and General Plan policies for resource protection. The City would also be required to utilize wildlife-friendly building design (Mitigation Measure 3.5-5), and obtain and comply with the provisions of a City Tree Permit for removal of protected trees (Mitigation Measure 3.5-6). Through full implementation of the mitigation measures, potential project-related impacts would be avoided, reduced, or compensated to such an extent that they are not expected to result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

Because the project would either have no impact or a very limited impact on biological resources after mitigation, it would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.3.6 Cultural Resources
The cumulative context for cultural resources is the former territory occupied by the Nisenan and the historic period small-scale ranches located near Pleasant Grove Creek. Nisenan territory extended from the area surrounding the current City of Oroville on the north to a few miles south of the American River on the south. The Sacramento River bounded the territory on the west, and in the east, it extended to a general area located along the crest of the Sierras west of Lake Tahoe. Historic period ranches near Pleasant Grove Creek included those of the Lee, Boutwell, Dunlap, and Kaseberg, and the Fiddyments. Lee and Boutwell, Dunlap, and Kaseberg used the land around Pleasant Grove Creek for livestock grazing while the Fiddyments also used the land for livestock grazing, a turkey farm in the 1920s, and more recently for pistachio farming.

Because all significant cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base. The loss of any one significant archaeological site could affect the scientific value of others in a region because these resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are a part. The cultural system is

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR represented archaeologically by the total inventory of all sites and other cultural remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing cultural resources must focus on the likely distribution of cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary.

Proper planning and appropriate mitigation can help to capture and preserve knowledge of such resources and can provide opportunities for increasing our understanding of past environmental conditions and cultures by recording data about sites discovered and preserving the artifacts found. Federal, state, and local laws are also in place, as discussed in Section 3.6, “Cultural Resources,” that protect these resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to protect these resources, particularly when preservation in place would make projects infeasible, and for this reason the cumulative effects of past and present projects in the City of Roseville, including the projects listed in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact on archaeological resources. Without mitigation, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to cause a substantial change in the significance of archaeological resources that are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes.

As discussed in Impact 3.6-1, no known archaeological resources are present on-site and adverse effects on unknown archaeological resources would be avoided with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1a and 3.6-1b. Mitigation Measures 3.6-1a and 3.6-1b require the performance of a records search and pedestrian survey of the off-site PUE area, as well as professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery and protection of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources. Similar mitigation would be required for other projects. Impacts related to human remains would be avoided through compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 (Impact 3.6-2). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact on cultural resources. The cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
The cumulative context for Tribal cultural resources is the former territory occupied by the Nisenan. The territory extended from the area surrounding the current City of Oroville on the north to a few miles south of the American River on the south. The Sacramento River bounded the territory on the west, and in the east, it extended to the crest of the Sierras west of Lake Tahoe.

Because all significant Tribal cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base. The loss of any one significant Tribal cultural resources site could affect the scientific value of others in a region because these resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are a part. The cultural system is represented archaeologically by the total inventory of all sites and other cultural remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing Tribal cultural resources must focus on the likely distribution of Tribal cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary.

Proper planning and appropriate mitigation can help to capture and preserve knowledge of such resources and can provide opportunities for increasing our understanding of the past environmental conditions and cultures by recording data about sites discovered and preserving artifacts found. Federal, state, and local laws are also in place, as discussed in Section 3.7, “Tribal Cultural Resources,” that protect these resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to protect these resources, particularly when preservation in place would make projects infeasible, and for this reason the cumulative effects of past and present projects in the City of Roseville, including the projects listed in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact related to Tribal cultural resources.

As discussed in Impact 3.7-1, no known Tribal cultural resources are identified on-site and adverse effects on unknown Tribal cultural resources would be avoided with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a and 3.7-1b.

Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a and 3.7-1b require implementation of a worker awareness training program and require appropriate treatment and proper care of significant Tribal cultural resources, in the case of a discovery. Similar mitigation would be required for other projects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulatively significant impacts to Tribal cultural resources. The cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-17

4.3.8 Energy
Several other currently planned and approved projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would require electricity and natural gas services. These projects would also consume energy related to transportation and construction. These projects would be required to implement energy-efficiency measures in accordance with Title 24 to reduce energy demand. Given the large amount of development identified in the region, it is possible that even with implementation of Title 24 measures, inefficient and wasteful energy consumption could occur. As described in Impact 3.8-1, the project would be aligned with SB 1383 goals, which addresses emissions of short-lived climate pollutants and GHG, and the increase in energy demand at the project site would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Because the project would enable the City to manage its waste and recyclable materials locally while maintaining compliance with state requirements such as SB 1383 (Impact 3.8-2), the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to energy use. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

4.3.9 Geology and Soils
Geological and soils impacts are site-specific rather than regional in nature and any cumulative projects, including projects described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would be subject to, at minimum, uniform site development and construction and regulatory standards related to seismic and other geological conditions that are prevalent within the region, such as the California Building Code standards. As discussed in Section 3.9, “Geology and Soils,” the project would have less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils assuming compliance with existing regulations and with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-4a and 3.9-4b. Mitigation Measures 3.9-4a and 3.9- 4b require construction personnel to be properly trained on the discovery of unique paleontological resources and, in the event fossil specimens are encountered during construction activities, require that a paleontologist be retained to evaluate the fossil and recommend appropriate actions. Similar mitigation would be required for other projects. As such, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to geology and soils. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the past or current uses of a project site usually occur on a project-by-project basis and are site- or location-specific rather than regional in nature. A cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with the cumulative projects would result in potential significant impacts from hazardous materials and would interfere with implementation of emergency response plans.

Any hazardous materials discovered during construction activities would be managed consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws to limit exposure and clean up the contamination. In addition, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be undertaken in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements to limit risk of exposure. Other projects in the vicinity of the project would create similar hazardous material effects during standard construction activities and would be required to comply with applicable regulations and laws similar to those identified in Section 3.10, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” to minimize the potentially for hazardous conditions to occur. As discussed in Impact 3.10-1, implementation of the project would result in a lessthan-significant impact related to the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials when in compliance with laws and regulations intended to reduce potential impacts on workers and the environment. Impacts related to foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hazardous materials use, storage, transport, or accidental spills.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Project construction would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; however, construction activities would involve truck traffic that could result in temporary lane closures, increased traffic, and other roadway conditions that could interfere with or slow down emergency vehicle access and services. As discussed in Impact 3.10-3, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level through implementation of a construction traffic management plan. Current and reasonably foreseeable projects, including those described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would also be required to implement measures similar to Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 to minimize and/or avoid impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, the incremental impact of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to emergency access.

Thus, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.3.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Previous, on-going, and future development in the City of Roseville and Placer County, including projects discussed in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” have contributed to additional demands on groundwater resources and available water supply, surface and groundwater water quality impacts, and regional increases in peak drainage flows from increased impervious surfaces associated with development.

As identified in Impact 3.11-1 in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” all earth disturbing activities during construction would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that would require the City to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ). The NPDES Construction General Permit identifies limits on discharge, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not hurt water quality or people's health. Compliance with these provisions, including preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and implementation of BMPs, would ensure that construction impacts associated with water quality and waste discharge requirements would be minimized. The project would also comply with the City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual, Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Stormwater Management Manual, and Section

16.20.040 of the Roseville Municipal Code that include measures to control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution. The project impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. Similar requirements would be placed on other developments in Roseville and surrounding areas to reduce water quality impacts. The incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to water quality. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact 3.11-2, the project would not directly use groundwater and no new wells are proposed; however, it would be served by the City of Roseville, which uses surface and groundwater sources for the City’s water supply. The project site is undeveloped land and implementation of the project would add approximately 150 acres (116 acres from Phase 1 and 34 acres from Phase 2) of impervious surface to the site; however, this would account for less than 0.1 percent of the surface area of the North American River subbasin. Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater levels nor interfere with groundwater recharge. Project impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant. Cumulative development identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would be required to conduct appropriate CEQA analyses to evaluate potential environmental impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge and would be required to be in compliance with application sustainable groundwater management plans, if available. The incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to groundwater. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Development of the project site would increase the quantity of impervious surfaces, which would alter the drainage pattern and increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. This would result in increased runoff and potentially an increase in flooding. In addition, portions of the project site are designated as 100-year floodplain and 500-year

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-19 floodplain for Pleasant Grove Creek. As discussed in Impact 3.11-3, the project would be required to comply with City Improvement Standards, the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual, and Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Stormwater Management Manual that require stormwater drainage facilities to be designed with adequate capacity for stormwater flows from the project site. The project would also be required to obtain a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA and to remove a portion of the project site from the flood zone before that area can be developed. The project impacts related to flooding, additional sources of polluted runoff, and exceedance of existing stormwater infrastructure capacity resulting from drainage pattern alteration would be less than significant. Similar requirements related to FEMA map revision and stormwater drainage designs would be placed on other developments in Roseville and surrounding areas to reduce impacts from drainage pattern alteration. The incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to water quality, drainage, and flooding. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

4.3.12 Noise

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Noise dissipates rapidly from its source; however, cumulative impacts from construction-generated noise could result if construction activities of other planned projects were to take place in close enough proximity to project-generated construction such that noise effects would combine to result in substantial increases in noise at the same sensitive receptors. Several new large developments are planned in the region. See Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” for a list of reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area. The closest projects to the project site, which are most relevant for the cumulative construction noise, include the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin project and the Country Acres Clean Power project, which are located immediately east and south of the project site. As part of the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin project, the City is currently collecting drainage impact fees from new development projects to fund construction of this project. The Country Acres Clean Power project is currently under construction with completion anticipated in late 2026. It should be noted that the Roseville EU Operations Center is expected to begin construction in 2027, as such construction activities would not occur simultaneously with the Country Acres Clean Power project. It is likely that as the Roseville EU Operations Center project continues to be constructed, construction activities on the project site could occur simultaneously with construction of the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin project.

With regard to cumulative construction noise, and noise in general, the addition of two similar noise levels results in a 3-decibel (dB) increase, which is considered perceptible by most people. When a louder noise level is combined with a lower noise level, however, a less than 3-dB increase would occur (i.e., 65 dB plus 60 dB equals 66 dB). Thus, for a perceptible increase in cumulative construction noise to occur, similar noise levels from two different construction sites would need to combine at the same sensitive receptor to result in a cumulative increase in noise.

Site preparation is the construction phase that typically involves the greatest number of heavy equipment and, thus, the potential to generate construction. Construction of the project will likely be further along (e.g., beyond the heavy construction phase) when the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin site construction begins; therefore, if construction associated with the project is still occurring, construction noise would generally be limited to the activities that produce the least amount of noise (e.g., finishing, architectural coatings). At the time of project construction, it is anticipated that construction noise associated with the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin project would not be substantial. As discussed in Impact 3.12-1, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 would require temporary barriers and other best management practices to reduce nighttime construction noise to levels below the City’s applicable nighttime noise standards. The impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the project’s construction noise would not combine with other anticipated developments nearby such that a considerable cumulative increase in noise would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to construction noise. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

OPERATIONAL NOISE (STATIONARY AND TRANSPORTATION)
Cumulative noise levels could be affected by additional buildout of surrounding land uses and increases in vehicular traffic on affected roadways.

Regarding stationary noise increases, the proposed project would result in land use development that typically includes stationary noise sources such as noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, electrical generators, and loading docks. As discussed in Impact 3.12-3 in Section 3.12, “Noise,” stationary noise sources would be mitigated to below applicable standards by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-3; thus, noise from these sources would not combine with other off-site stationary sources to result in considerable increases in noise.

Traffic generated by future planned development in the region would result in additional traffic-related noise on surrounding roadways. In the future cumulative no project scenario, traffic and associated noise levels on existing roadways are anticipated to increase. According to the City’s noise standards, in areas where ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, an increase of 5 dB or greater is the City’s threshold for a substantial change in the noise environment. As discussed in Impact 3.12-2, the project would not cause a noise level increase that would be considered significant according to the City’s noise standards.

Thus, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.3.13 Population, Employment, and Housing
For population, employment, and housing, the cumulative setting includes Placer County, City of Roseville, and other local jurisdictions adjacent to Roseville. The project would result in significant cumulative population, employment, and housing impacts if it, in combination with cumulative projects and development identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. As discussed in Section 3.13, “Population, Employment, and Housing,” the project would not displace existing people or homes because no housing is present on-site. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to people or housing displacement.

Major projects close to the project area include the Creekview Specific Plan and the West Roseville Specific Plan, which would add 2,011 and 9,496 dwelling units, respectively, as well as office and other non-residential uses (see Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects”). Other large developments approved farther from the project site, include the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, Riolo Vineyards Specific Plan, Curry Creek Specific Plan, and Hewlett Packard Campus Oaks Project. These approved plans would result in the continued development of Roseville and surrounding areas, including residential, commercial, and industrial development. Cumulative projects and development in the City of Roseville, City of Lincoln, City of Rocklin, and Placer County would be required to undergo various levels of local and regional review to determine whether population and housing growth would be within the projections of regional and local plans. Cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, have been or would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine the potential for significant impacts related to population, employment, and housing. In addition, most of the cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3 are specific plans that are anticipated to accommodate existing housing needs and population growth projections in the region.

As discussed in Impact 3.13-1, implementation of the project would result in up to 60 temporary jobs during construction and approximately 439 new permanent jobs during operation of Phase 1 and 92 new permanent jobs during operation of Phase 2. As described in Section 3.13, “Population, Employment, and Housing,” this amount of growth is within the scope of the growth anticipated and planned for in the General Plan, and new infrastructure would serve the project and not induce growth. For example, it is anticipated that the project employees would be largely from the local employment pool and would not result in a substantial number of employees relocating from outside of the region resulting in unplanned population growth. The project would have a less-than-significant impact related to unplanned population growth. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-21

4.3.14 Public Services
Existing fire protection and emergency response services in the project area are sufficient to meet existing demand.

Cumulative development described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would result in continued development in Roseville and surrounding areas, including residential, commercial, and industrial development. This cumulative growth would place additional demand on existing fire protection and emergency response services, resulting in a potentially significant cumulative impact on existing fire protection services and facilities. As discussed in Impact 3.14- 1, future Fire Station #11 (to the northeast of the project site) is planned to be located in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area and the project would not necessitate the construction of new or expanded fire service facilities. Impacts related to fire service facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to the need for new or expanded fire service facilities. The cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Existing law enforcement services in the project area are also sufficient to meet existing demand. Cumulative development described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would result in growth that would place additional demand on existing law enforcement services, resulting in a potentially significant cumulative impact on existing law enforcement services and facilities. However, police services are a general fund department funded primarily by sales tax and property tax revenue, and these development projects (as well as the proposed project) would help fund existing and future law enforcement needs through the generation of sales tax and property tax revenue. As described in Impact

3.14-2, the Roseville Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2024/2025 budget provides funding to support current and future staff members. The funding for future positions would expand the Police Department’s current staffing to better serve the City, including the project, but would not result in the construction of new or expanded facilities that could generate significant environmental impacts. The project would not result in an increased need for new or expanded police services or facilities, impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to the need for new or expanded law enforcement services facilities. The cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

4.3.15 Public Utilities
For public utilities, the cumulative context includes the service areas of the various service providers.

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Water supply and wastewater service would be provided by the City of Roseville Environmental Utilities and electrical service would be provided by Roseville Electric. Future development in Roseville would increase the demand for new and expanded utility infrastructure, the relocation or construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As described under Impact 3.15-1 in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” the project would require utility infrastructure extensions to serve the project’s water supply and wastewater demands and would require the installation of a new electrical substation, power lines, and other associated infrastructure to meet the project’s electrical demands. The anticipated water demand and wastewater output from the project would be within the capacity of the existing utility infrastructure. All proposed utility hookups to existing infrastructure would occur within the disturbance area of the project site or adjacent roadways. The impacts would be less than significant because the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new utility infrastructure beyond what has been evaluated in the EIR. Similarly, cumulative development would be required to demonstrate an adequate capacity of utilities and services, including water supply, wastewater, and electrical infrastructure, before project approval. Cumulative development would be required to contribute fair share funding to fund necessary expansion of utility infrastructure and conduct appropriate CEQA analyses to evaluate potential environmental impacts of utility relocation, construction, or expansion. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to utility infrastructure. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-22 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

WATER SUPPLY
The geographic scope for the cumulative water supply analysis is the City of Roseville. Population growth and local regulation of associated development within the city prevent the occurrence of existing cumulative utilities and service system impacts by implementing the City of Roseville General Plan that includes a policy framework that ensures adequate capacity exists to support proposed development.

The project’s impact on water supply, described in Impact 3.15-2 in Section 3.15, “Public Utilities,” is cumulative in nature because the analysis evaluates whether Roseville has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. As discussed in Impact 3.15-2, the projected water supplies in normal years would exceed water demands for the city, including the proposed project.

In single dry and multiple dry years, there would be a deficit in projected water supplies. However, projected water demands do not assume any water conservation. With the implementation of water conservation measures, the City is expected to have adequate water supplies to serve the project in all water year types. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to water supply. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

SOLID WASTE
The cumulative setting for solid waste services consists of the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) service area, including unincorporated western Placer County and the cities of Rocklin, Lincoln, Roseville, Loomis, Auburn, and Colfax. Future development in the region, described in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would increase the amount of waste processed at the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and disposed of at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill. In recognition of this growth, WPWMA approved a landfill expansion in 2022 that would accommodate growth in the waste stream until 2110; therefore, cumulative demand for solid waste services is considered less than significant.

The project would include development of a Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations Facility, which would provide an on-site MRF to segregate recyclable material; an area for receiving and transferring municipal solid waste (MSW); and an area for receiving, processing, and transferring organic waste. As discussed in Impact 3.15-3, solid waste generated from construction and operations of the project would be managed on-site or sent to the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill for the remainder of the City’s contract with the WPWMA through 2043. The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes related to solid waste, including the state Integrated Waste Management Act and the solid waste policies of the City of Roseville General Plan, and would help the City meet its waste reduction goals. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

4.3.16 Transportation and Circulation
The cumulative context for the assessment of transportation contains buildout of various land uses and construction of numerous planned improvements in Roseville and unincorporated Placer County, inclusive of the cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects.”

CIRCULATION SYSTEM PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CONSISTENCY Under cumulative conditions, traffic from people walking, bicycling, and driving on the surrounding street network would increase as a result of the project and the development in the vicinity. This would generally lead to an increase in the potential for conflicts between people driving and people walking, bicycling, and public transit operation. As discussed in Impact 3.16-1, there are no existing or proposed transit facilities or services located within 0.25 miles of the project site. Therefore, project construction and operation would not damage or adversely affect any existing transit facilities. In addition, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with adopted transportation plans. As with the project, the cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable plans, policies, and programs.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 4-23 Cumulative projects would be required to undergo various levels of cities and/or counties review to ensure that proposed bicycle and pedestrian access, vehicular access, and streetscape modification follow appropriate design guidelines, and are constructed consistent with applicable standards. The project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
The discussion of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts associated with the project in Impact 3.16-2 addresses VMT generated by the project based on an efficiency threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans. As described in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa (LCI [formerly known as OPR] 2018: 6).” Therefore, the VMT impacts identified in Impact 3.16-2, are inherently cumulative. As discussed in Impact 3.16-2, implementation of the project would result in VMT per service population exceeding the City’s VMT threshold. The VMT impact would be significant. Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b require the implementation of a commute trip reduction program and an employee sponsored vanpool program, respectively. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project-generated VMT from employee trips, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold. The VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

TRANSPORTATION HAZARDS
In general, transportation hazards are site-specific and not cumulative in nature. As discussed in Impact 3.16-3, the project would be required to obtain encroachment permits for any work within the public right-of-way. The City encroachment permit application requires construction contractors to implement traffic control measures to minimize transportation hazards and ensure the safety of the traveling public. In addition, the project plans would be subject to review by the City, which would ensure that the project design, including that of off-site improvements, would comply with applicable design standards and regulations related to transportation safety and that implementation of the project would not result in transportation hazards during operations. Therefore, compliance with existing standards would ensure that the project would not result in transportation hazards or incompatible uses. The cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would also be required to comply with the applicable construction standards, thus, minimizing the potential for cumulative transportation-related hazards.

Therefore, the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation hazards. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

EMERGENCY ACCESS
In general, emergency access impacts are site-specific and not cumulative in nature. As discussed in Impact 3.16-4, the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and regulations identified in the California Fire Code as adopted in Chapter 16.16 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, including provisions related to maintaining emergency access during construction and operations. In addition, the project would be subject to review by the City and Roseville Fire Department, thus ensuring that the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access standards. As with the project, the cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would also be required to comply with the applicable emergency access standards, thus, minimizing the potential for cumulative impacts to emergency access. Therefore, the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to inadequate emergency access. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Roseville
4-24 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

4.3.17 Wildfire
The geographic scope for cumulative emergency response and wildfire impacts is Placer County, given that wildfires can cause impacts to large areas. A significant cumulative impact related to wildfire could occur if cumulative projects, in combination with the project, would contribute substantially to wildfire risks through installation of infrastructure or exacerbating wildfire risk, resulting in significant wildfire risks to the public or environment.

A significant cumulative impact related to exacerbating wildfire risk would occur if cumulative projects, in combination with the proposed project, would result in a substantial increase in wildfire risks associated with new development and the installation of infrastructure. Cumulative projects, similar to the proposed project, would be subject to the California Fire Code Requirements, such as Title 24 which sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help minimize fire risk.

In addition, development would be constructed and maintained in compliance with state and local regulations for fire protection, including the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire-resistant landscaping, defensible space, adequate water supply, and emergency access. This would ensure that new development associated with cumulative projects would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Thus, cumulative project impacts related to exacerbation of wildfire risk as a result of installation of infrastructure are considered less than significant.

As discussed in Section 3.17, “Wildfire,” the project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or on lands classified as a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The closest SRA to the City of Roseville is located east and northeast in the cities of Rocklin and Loomis. The closest areas designated as "Very High" FHSZs within the SRA are located in the cities of Granite Bay and Loomis, which are 15.45 and 16.9 miles from the project site, respectively (CAL FIRE 2025). Project-related construction activities would introduce new temporary sources of ignition in the form of worker commute vehicles and the use of heavy construction equipment.

Similar to other new development within the City, the project would be subject to City Fire Code Requirements, which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help minimize fire risk. Development would be constructed and maintained in compliance with state and local regulations for fire protection, including the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire-resistant landscaping, defensible space, adequate water supply, and emergency access. In addition, water for fire suppression would be provided through either extending the public water supply system from Blue Oaks Boulevard to the project site or using existing nonpotable water wells to fill an approximately 1-million-gallon fire suppression water tank with a diesel-powered fire suppression water pumping system that would supply the fire sprinkler system and onsite hydrants. In addition, the project would implement Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a and 3.17-1b, which would require preparation and implementation of a fire risk management plan and fire prevention measures during construction activities. Current and reasonably foreseeable projects would also be required to comply with measures that would minimize and/or avoid impacts related to wildfire risk. As discussed in Impact 3.17-2, operation of the project would include specific procedures that would minimize the potential for wildland fires on the site and the project would be subject to applicable regulations that would minimize wildfire risks, which would also apply to current and reasonably foreseeable projects. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to wildfire risk.

Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to exacerbation of wildfire risk. The cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-1 5 OTHER CEQA SECTIONS

5.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an environmental impact report (EIR). Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance for assessing growth-inducing impacts of a project:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can induce growth directly, indirectly, or both. Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in any of the following:
 substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises);  substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; and/or  removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).

Growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may foreseeably lead to environmental effects. If substantial growth inducement occurs, it can result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased demand for housing, demand for other community and public services and infrastructure capacity, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open-space land to urban uses, and other effects.

5.1.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project

AREA PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT
The project site is located on what is known as the Warnick/Plunkette property. The City purchased the Warnick/Plunkette property and Reason Farms, a combined 1,700 acres, in 2003. Since the purchase, the project site has been intended for future City use.

The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP), which primarily allows for municipal and governmental facilities. The zoning for the project site is Planned Development (PD). A PD District is a special purpose district that is intended to be applied in circumstances where the desired mix of uses cannot be achieved with a residential, commercial, or industrial mixed-use district when combined with a special area overlay. As a public facility, the project would be consistent with the P/QP land use designation and PD zoning district. No General Plan amendments or zoning changes would be required.

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR In summary, the project would be developed on land that is intended for development, and it would be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not be growth inducing in this respect because it would result in a municipal/governmental facility on land that is currently designated as Public/Quasi-Public in the adopted General Plan.

EXTENSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Utility service is not currently available at the project site. Thus, the project would require the extension of nearby water, wastewater, stormwater, data, and electrical infrastructure to serve the future development of the site. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” a new 16-inch diameter water supply line would be extended approximately 3 miles along the alignment of Phillip Road, from the existing water supply line located in Blue Oaks Boulevard. Sanitary sewer and wastewater flows would be conveyed by a force main offsite to the Pleasant Grove wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Additionally, the project site would be equipped with a pumping/lift station to pump sewage to a point in the City’s sewer main with adequate capacity, as agreed by the City Wastewater Utility, and would require the construction of a force main from the project site directly to the WWTP, the entire 4-mile distance. On-site stormwater runoff would be managed onsite using a series of stormwater detention basins and by participating in the City of Roseville Regional Retention Basin Project (depending on the implementation schedule for that project).

Electrical power would be provided by Roseville Electric. The project’s total estimated power demand would be approximately 20 megawatts (MW) with an estimated utility service size of 5 megavolt amperes (MVA). The project would require an initial demand of approximately 5 MW, and then increase to the larger, 20 MW demand when the City implements the electrical charging program for its truck fleet. The project would initially be served by extending the existing 12 kilovolt (kV) line from its current location near Blue Oaks Boulevard. The initial extension of power to the site for the 5 MW requirements would be provided via above grade power poles. Prior to developing the EV charging system, the project would likely require development of a new electrical substation with Roseville Electric to serve the project. To accomplish this, Roseville Electric is expected to extend an existing 60 kV line from the existing 60 kV power supply system located near the City power production site on Phillip Road east of Westbrook Boulevard and build a new substation on the project site.

The above would represent an extension of utility infrastructure to an area not currently served by such systems.

However, the project site is located within a two-mile radius of various specific plan areas, including the Creekview Specific Plan area (adopted by the City in 2011), the West Roseville Specific Plan area (adopted by the City in 2004), and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area (adopted by the City in 2016). These specific plan areas are in various stages of development and would each include extension of utility infrastructure to serve their respective communities. Further, the Phillip Road Site Project (formerly known as the Roseville Industrial Park Project) is a proposed mixed-use development that would be located approximately two miles east of the project site and would also include extension of utility infrastructure. Thus, the project would not remove obstacles to further growth in the project area due to extension of water, wastewater, stormwater, data, or electrical infrastructure because these would be sized to accommodate the project only. In this respect, the project would not be growth inducing.

Additionally, the project would include proposed improvements to Phillip Road to provide access to the project site.

The current condition of Phillip Road would be improved along the frontage of the project site and east to the westerly terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard. The improvements to Phillip Road would meet the City’s standard, 48-foot right of way Collector/Commercial street requirements, excluding sidewalks. These roadway improvements would greatly improve the condition of the roadway from a rarely used county road to City road standards that would accommodate the travel of City employees reporting to their work location and the Environmental Utilities Department’s fleet of vehicles. While the project itself may be considered by some to be an incompatible land use and the future Placer Parkway would be located just south of the project site and therefore make the surrounding areas unappealing to future housing development, the improvement of the roadway would remove an obstacle to future growth to the west and south of the project site. It cannot be guaranteed that this would not result in indirect unplanned growth in unincorporated Placer County.

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-3

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GROWTH
The project would be developed in two phases, with Phase 1 intended to be operational by 2028 and Phase 2 by 2040. A range of 40-60 construction workers would be onsite throughout construction of both Phases 1 and 2.

Because construction workers typically do not change where they live when they are assigned to a new construction site, it is not anticipated that there would be a substantial relocation of construction workers to Roseville or Placer County associated with the project. Additionally, as of 2023, Roseville had 4,345 people employed in the construction industry (US Census 2023). Because the existing number of construction workers in the City would likely be sufficient to meet the demand that would be generated by the project, no substantial increase in demand for housing or goods and services would be created by the project and, thus, no growth inducement associated with these workers would occur.

EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
The project would create substantial, permanent employment opportunities in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services industry. Phase 1 would employ 439 new employees and Phase 2 would employ 92 new employees, for a total of 531 new employees. Additionally, it is estimated that 165 existing employees would be relocated from the Hillip Circle Corporation Yard to staff Phase 1 project components, resulting in a total of 696 employees at full operational buildout.

In Roseville, 9,027 workers were employed in 2023 in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services industry, which is the fastest growing and second largest industry in the City (US Census 2023). At full buildout, the project would employ 696 workers (including 531 new workers and 165 relocated workers), which is approximately 7.7 percent of the total professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services workers employed in the City in 2023. Three specific plan areas (the Creekview Specific Plan, the West Roseville Specific Plan, and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan) are each located near or within a two-mile radius of the project site. The Creekview Specific Plan area is planned to accommodate 2,011 new residential units at buildout; the West Roseville Specific Plan area will include 9,496 residential units, and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area will include 2,827 new residential units. It is not possible at this time to predict the residential location of future employees of the project. It is possible that the jobs generated by the project could draw employees from outside of Roseville. However, given the existing number of workers within the City and adjacent communities and the future buildout of the various specific plan areas within the City, jobs generated by the proposed project are expected to be filled in large part by the existing resident labor pool in the region. Therefore, any potential increases in housing demand in the City attributable to jobs generated from the proposed project would be minimal, and the project would not be growth inducing in this respect.

EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
The project has been developed to address the City’s current and projected demands for municipal services. As described in Section 2.2.4, “Projected Increases in Demand for Materials Handling,” once the City reaches buildout of the General Plan (estimated in 2038), growth in the amount of waste produced within the City could plateau.

However, growth projections from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments indicate that areas immediately around the City will continue to grow. The project has been sized to accommodate this planned regional growth, combined with the assumption that population growth within and surrounding the city will continue beyond General Plan buildout. The project would serve the City’s existing and future demands, based on reasonable growth forecasts, but would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires EIRs to include a discussion of the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. As documented throughout Chapter 3 (project level impacts) and Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of this Draft EIR, after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, most of the impacts associated with the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Center Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, the following impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; that is, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Refer to Chapters 3 and 4 for further information regarding the analysis and impact determinations.

5.2.1 Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources
IMPACT 3.2-2: RESULT IN THE CONVERSION OF FARMLAND
Phase 1
The project site has been used historically for agricultural purposes and is designated by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, and Other Land. The conversion of Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, or Other Land is not considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Prime and Unique Farmland is considered Important Farmland and its conversion is considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would reduce impacts associated with the conversion of Important Farmland, but not sufficiently to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level because no new farmland would be made available, and the productivity of existing farmland would not be improved. As a result, a net loss of Important Farmland would occur. After mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 2
Implementation of Phase 2, like Phase 1, would result in the conversion of Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Approximately 34 acres would be converted for Phase 2 development. As described for Phase 1, the conversion of Unique Farmland, which is considered “Important Farmland” within the context of CEQA, would constitute a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would reduce impacts associated with the conversion of Important Farmland, but not sufficiently to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level because no new farmland would be made available, and the productivity of existing farmland would not be improved. As a result, a net loss of Important Farmland would occur. After mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

5.2.2 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-3: LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR

POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS
Phase 2
Phase 2 would involve the operation of additional square footage at the RRTO Facility and the operation of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, which could include a future composting and/or biomass facility. Similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 of the project would result in operational emissions from the use of on-site equipment and building-related energy as well as from mobile sources associated with employee commutes and operational truck travel. Based on the modeling conducted, operational emissions from Phase 2 and full operations would exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) thresholds of 55 pounds per day (lb/day) for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and the threshold of 82 lb/day for respirable particulate matter (PM) with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10). This impact would be significant.

Implementation of the identified dust control measures in Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a would substantially reduce fugitive PM₁₀ emissions from potential future composting operations by requiring site-specific best practices such as moisture control, traffic management, and suppression of dust-generating activities. Onsite dust suppression can generally

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-5 achieve up to 75 percent reduction from onsite moving equipment, resulting in 6 lbs/day (Phase 2) and 11 lbs/day (Full Operation) associated with onsite equipment movement/material loading and unloading during composting, reported in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” in Table 3.3-5 under the Biomass Composting category (SMAQMD 2020). However, considering the PM emissions are dominated by the gasification process and those alone exceed the thresholds, a 75 percent reduction in onsite PM emissions from material transfer would not bring total emissions down to below the thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b would require a permitting-level specific evaluation of the anticipated daily and annual emissions associated with the potential future on-site composting and/or biomass facility.

Understanding that technology advances over time, the specific technology and associated emissions with the potential future composting and/or biomass facility is likely to be different than what was evaluated in this EIR; thus, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b requires that based on the specific technology chosen in the future, including potential cogeneration features and emissions controls, that the facility meet all PCAPCD permitting requirements including emissions limits/offsets established by PCAPCD’s permitting process. Nonetheless, because ROG, NOx, and PM emissions may continue to exceed thresholds, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

IMPACT 3.3-5: CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL

NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project would include the construction and operation of additional square footage at the RRTO and the construction and operation of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Phase 2 of the project would introduce new odor sources into the area such as composting and/or biomass operations. Construction odor sources would be temporary, intermittent, and dissipate rapidly from the source. Although Phase 2 would include implementation of odor minimization design features, implementation of an Odor Impact Minimization Plan as required by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 17863.4, and compliance with applicable PCAPCD best management practices (BMPs), specific details relating to the anticipated future technology for the biomass facility and specific BMPs for each odor source have not been identified at this time. Therefore, Phase 2 could produce objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an Odor Reduction Plan be established for the life of project operations, and specifically, the Odor Reduction Plan would be designed to address all potential odor sources. The Odor Reduction Plan would also require ongoing monitoring and adjustments, should odor issues arise.

With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. Nonetheless, considering the subjective nature of odors and how people perceive them in conjunction with the anticipated future growth in the vicinity, placing more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, and that the proposed project is a known major odor source, the possibility remains that odors could affect a substantial number of people, resulting in odor complaints. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

5.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IMPACT 3.4-1: GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 1,106 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) from construction activities, which would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. However, Phase 2 operational emissions of 13,980 MTCO2e/year would exceed the bright-line threshold. In addition, full operation of the project (2058) is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 17,862 MTCO2e, which would also exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore,

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR implementation of Phase 2 would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions related to global climate change. This impact would be potentially significant.

Most operational GHG emissions would be generated from mobile sources, including on-site equipment use, City fleet vehicles, and waste collection vehicles, and composting, as shown in Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in Table 3.4-6. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would require that the City’s vehicle fleet meet a zeroemissions standard by operational year 2040, which could include a combination of renewable diesel fuel use and vehicle electrification. The use of renewable diesel, which would still result in tailpipe emissions, would not result in increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions and, therefore, emissions associated with vehicles/equipment fueled by this fuel type would be counted as “zero.”
As shown in Table 3.4-6, during Phase 2 of the project, emissions from off-road material transfer and organic material transfer using off-road vehicles would result in 581 MTCO2e/year and emissions from trucks would be 4,931 MTCO2e/year, totaling 5,512 MTCO2e/year. During full operation (2058), these sources would amount to 9,185 MTCO2e/year.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would establish a zero-emissions City-owned fleet target. Based on emissions modeling and project-specific information, approximately 70 percent of vehicles that would be operated would be City-owned and, therefore, emissions associated with these vehicles could reach zero emissions with implementation of this mitigation. For Phase 2, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 3,858 MTCO2e/year (i.e., 70 percent * 5,512 MTCO2e/year = 3,858 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 10,122 MTCO2e/year. For full buildout, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 6,430 MTCO2e/year (i.e., 70 percent * 9,185 MTCO2e/year = 6,430 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 11,433 MTCO2e/year. In both project phases, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a, project-generated emissions would continue to exceed PCAPCD’s 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold.

Further, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would substantially reduce emissions, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Due to this uncertainty, it is possible that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would be less effective than discussed above.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b requires that the City prepare and implement an Emissions Capture and Control Plan that incorporates the best available methane capture and control technology that is reasonably expected to be commercially available and technically feasible at the time of facility construction (anticipated prior to 2040). Although the preparation and implementation of this plan would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Given this uncertainty, this analysis conservatively assumes that emission thresholds could still be exceeded with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b. For these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

5.2.4 Population, Employment, and Housing
IMPACT 3.13-1: POTENTIAL TO INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH
Phase 1
The proposed project would improve the City’s waste management operations by allowing City services to increase as a result of increased projected demands for solid waste and recycling services. Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the project would generate temporary jobs (up to 60 construction workers) and 439 new permanent jobs that could induce population growth. Although the City’s population is growing, current and projected growth has been anticipated and planned for in the City of Roseville’s General Plan. Thus, this increase in population or housing demand from new or existing workers relocating to the area because of the project would be within the scope of

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-7 growth projections of the City of Roseville General Plan. The project would require the extension of existing infrastructure and development of new infrastructure, which could induce unplanned population growth or increase housing demand in the area, this impact would be significant.

By meeting City improvement standards for roadways, the improvement of Phillip Road would remove a constraint to growth, which could indirectly induce unplanned population growth, particularly in the areas located west and south of the project site. These areas are located within unincorporated Placer County and, as such, development activity in these areas cannot be controlled by the City. There are no available mitigation measures to reduce the potential for unplanned growth resulting from the project’s improvement of Phillip Road. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

5.2.5 Transportation and Circulation
IMPACT 3.16-2: CONFLICT OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3(B) REGARDING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Phase 1
The project would generate additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with additional trucks and passenger vehicles travelling to the site each day. The project would have an average VMT per service population under existing-plus-project conditions of 44.1, which exceeds the citywide average VMT per service population of 32.5.

Because the project would exceed the City’s VMT per service population threshold, which is a 15 percent reduction from the citywide average, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b require the implementation of a commute trip reduction program and an employee sponsored vanpool program, respectively. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project generated VMT from employee trips for the reasons described in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project would generate additional VMT associated with additional trucks and passenger vehicles travelling to the site each day. As described for Phase 1, the project would have an average VMT per service population under existing-plus-project conditions of 44.1, which exceeds the citywide average VMT per service population of 32.5. Because the project would exceed the City’s VMT per service population threshold, which is a 15 percent reduction from the citywide average, this impact would be significant.

Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project generated VMT from employee trips for the same reasons described for Phase 1, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

5.2.6 Cumulative Impacts

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (VISUAL CHARACTER AND QUALITY) The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, industrial, and other development and would result in similar visual changes. For example, many of the cumulative developments would be adjacent to

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR agricultural/grazing and open space areas and could degrade visual quality by placing urban development adjacent to these areas. The cumulative developments and the proposed project would therefore together cause substantial degradation of visual quality, especially where there would be abrupt transitions between open space and agricultural/grazing areas and development. These would be cumulatively significant impacts on visual quality and character. As described in Impact 3.1-1, the proposed facilities would be designed to be visually consistent and would comply with General Plan policies related to community design and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Similar design requirements would be placed on other developments in Roseville to reduce visual impacts. As described for Impact 3.1-1, to reduce the project’s impact on visual character from operation, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would require implementation of a litter mitigation program to minimize litter generated by the project. Implementation of this program would include collecting and disposing of litter from the project site and affected roadways such that litter would not substantially increase beyond existing conditions. The project impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with mitigation incorporated. However, the project would combine with other cumulative projects to result in urban land uses adjacent to agricultural/grazing and open space areas, which would substantially degrade the area’s visual quality. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would result in a cumulatively significant impact related to visual character or quality of the area. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (LIGHT AND GLARE)
The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, and industrial development and would result in creation of daytime glare and nighttime light sources. For example, the Country Acres Clean Power Project to the southeast would involve solar power development that could result in glare from solar panels. The Creekview Specific Plan would involve residential development that would create extensive sources of glare and light in areas that currently have scattered and dispersed sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting.

As described for Impact 3.1-3, to reduce the project impact of glare and lighting from operation, Mitigation Measure

3.1-3 would require implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare. These standards include the use of cutoff type light fixtures, restrictions on the height of pole mounted lighting, and the use of nonreflective surfaces for new structures. The project impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated. However, given the rural character of the project site and vicinity, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, could create a substantial new source of daytime glare and nighttime light. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would result in a cumulatively significant impact.

The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (IMPORTANT FARMLAND

CONVERSION)
The cumulative context for agricultural resources includes the project region (i.e., project site, the City of Roseville, Placer County). Cumulative agricultural land impacts could occur in conjunction with development proposed in the City of Roseville and Placer County. The City of Roseville General Plan EIR (2020) states that buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant impact involving the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses; however, development within the county would result in the continued loss of farmland in the region. As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, implementation of the project would result in conversion of Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would require compensation for Important Farmland conversion. However, no new farmland would be made available to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The project impact related to conversion of farmland would be significant and unavoidable. Because the project would have significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources, it would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to agricultural resources. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-9

AIR QUALITY (LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR

POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS)
No single project would generate enough emissions to cause an air basin to be designated nonattainment.

Cumulative impacts related to project operation are discussed under Impact 3.3-3. As discussed in Impact 3.3-3, the operational emissions associated with full project buildout would exceed the applicable thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Because the PCAPCD thresholds of significance are directly tied to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, projects that do exceed these thresholds would contribute to adverse health effects. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants and would result in adverse health impacts. Measures 3.3-3a and 3.3-3b require the City to implement dust control measures and conduct permitting-level ambient air quality evaluation, respectively, if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measures

3.3-3a and 3.3-3b would reduce criteria pollutants and ozone precursors emissions, but it cannot be determined with certainty at this time whether the PM10 emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

AIR QUALITY (ODORS)
Operation of the project would result in the development of new odor sources into the areas from truck idling, municipal solid waste and organic waste delivery and transfer, and operation of a potential future composting facility.

As discussed in Impact 3.3-5, the potential future compost and/or biomass facility operations would be located at the northernmost portion of the project site, the farthest from Phillip Road to reduce the likelihood of the public encountering dust or air emissions. However, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances (2 miles) and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to project operations, resulting in new sensitive uses within the 2-mile buffer, the project could create objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an odor reduction plan be established for the life of project operations to address all potential odor sources. With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. In addition, the potential future compost facility would be required to prepare and maintain a site-specific Odor Impact Minimization Plan, as required by Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 17863.4 to reduce potential odors and comply with applicable PCAPCD BMPs. Furthermore, emissions of odors would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any number of people. Nonetheless, considering the subjective nature of odors and how people perceive them in conjunction with the anticipated future growth in the vicinity, placing more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, and that the proposed project is a known major odor source, the possibility remains that odors could affect a substantial number of people, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

The cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2.3, “Related Projects,” would be subject to future environmental review, and to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance. Furthermore, the cumulative projects in closest proximity to the project site would involve mostly mixed-use development (e.g., commercial and residential uses), which are not typically associated with operational odors. Nonetheless, because the proposed project would be a major odor source and because the anticipated future growth in the area would place more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, the possibility remains that odors from the proposed project could combine with odors from other projects to affect a substantial number of people (especially as the City builds out). This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The discussion of GHG emissions associated with the project and related infrastructure for Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” is inherently a cumulative impact analysis. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from one project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions. The analysis of Impact 3.4-1 concluded

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR that the level of construction GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project would not exceed PCAPCD’s bright line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. However, Phase 2 operational emissions (2040) and full operation of the project (2058) would exceed the bright-line threshold and, therefore, would be substantial and cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a requires the City to use low- or zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and equipment, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b requires the City to prepare and implement an Emissions Capture and Control Plan. Implementation of on-site GHG reduction measures required by Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce GHG emissions below applicable PCAPCD thresholds and on-site methane emissions controls required by Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would further reduce GHG emissions. However, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce emissions to below PCAPCD’s threshold, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Due to this uncertainty, it is possible that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would be less effective and the thresholds could be exceeded. Further, although Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Given this uncertainty, this analysis conservatively assumes that emission thresholds could still be exceeded with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED) The discussion of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts associated with the project in Impact 3.16-2 addresses VMT generated by the project based on an efficiency threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans. As described in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa (LCI [formerly known as OPR] 2018: 6).” Therefore, the VMT impacts identified in Impact 3.16-2, are inherently cumulative. As discussed in Impact 3.16-2, implementation of the project would result in VMT per service population exceeding the City’s VMT threshold. The VMT impact would be significant. Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b require the implementation of a commute trip reduction program and an employee sponsored vanpool program, respectively. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project-generated VMT from employee trips, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold. The VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Therefore, the cumulation impact would be significant and unavoidable.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generation to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The project would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy and material resources during construction and operation, including the following:
 construction materials, including such resources as soil, rocks, wood, concrete, glass, and steel;  land area committed to new project facilities;

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 5-11  water supply for project construction and operation; and  energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil for equipment and transportation vehicles that would be needed for project construction and operation.

The use of these nonrenewable resources is expected to account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region. Construction activities would not result in inefficient use of energy or natural resources. Construction contractors selected would use best available engineering techniques, construction and design practices, and equipment operating procedures. Long-term project operation would not result in substantial long-term consumption of energy and natural resources.

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Roseville
5-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-1 6 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.6(a) (State CEQA Guidelines) requires EIRs to describe “… a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of a project, and foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” This section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should consider.

Subsection (b) further states the purpose of the alternatives analysis is as follows:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CCR Section 15126.6[d]).

The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the “no project” alternative be considered (CCR Section 15126.6[e]).

The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. If the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR “…shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CCR Section 15126[e][2]).

In defining “feasibility” (e.g., “… feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project …”), CCR Section 15126.6(f)(1) states, in part:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to consider the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). The factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR include: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.6[c]). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body, here the City of Roseville City Council. (See PRC Sections 21081.5, 21081[a][3].)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

6.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.2.1 Attainment of Project Objectives
The City has identified the following project objectives for the purposes of this EIR:

1. provide a shared location for the management of waste, recycling, and organic material generated by land uses within the City’s jurisdiction with capacity to serve areas outside the City’s jurisdiction;

2. provide the option to implement a citywide waste/recycling services three-cart set out, thereby meeting the organics and recycling diversion requirements established by Senate Bill (SB) 1383;

3. limit potential odors associated with recycling and composting by maintaining an appropriate distance from nearby residential and other sensitive uses;

4. minimize environmental impacts to surrounding areas, including residential communities and other sensitive land uses;

5. improve the sustainability of the City’s waste management operations;

6. allow for City services to increase and respond to projected demands for solid waste services and changing regulations;

7. consolidate multiple Environmental Utilities (EU) divisions at a single location to allow for greater operational efficiencies;

8. provide a secondary corporation yard to serve the City’s long-term needs and allow for the consolidation of divisions with associated efficiencies;

9. attract recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale for the City and its customers; and

10. provide for City fleet and mobile equipment changes to comply with the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) or similar regulations.

6.2.2 Environmental Impacts of the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project
Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of this Draft EIR address the environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project. Potentially feasible alternatives were developed with consideration of avoiding or lessening the significant, and potentially significant, adverse impacts of the project, as identified in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR and summarized below. If an environmental issue area analyzed in this Draft EIR is not addressed below, it is because no significant impacts were identified for that issue area. Table 6-1 summarizes the significant impacts of the project.

Table 6-1 Summary of the Project’s Significant Impacts
Environmental Impact Phase 1 Phase 2
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact 3.1-1: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site or its Surroundings Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare That Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources
Impact 3.2-2: Result in the Conversion of Farmland SU SU

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-3 Environmental Impact Phase 1 Phase 2
Air Quality
Impact 3.3-3: Long-term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors Impact 3.3-4: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Impact 3.3-5: Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People LTS
LTS/M
LTS/M
SU
LTS/M
SU
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.4-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
LTS SU
Biological Resources
Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species Impact 3.5-2: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Impact 3.5-3: Result in Degradation or Loss of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities Impact 3.5-4: Result in Degradation or Loss of State or Federally Protected Wetlands Impact 3.5-5: Interfere with Wildlife Movement Corridors or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries Impact 3.5-6: Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS
LTS/M
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS/M
Cultural Resources
Impact 3.6-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources LTS/M LTS/M Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 3.7-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource LTS/M LTS/M Geology and Soils
Impact 3.9-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature LTS/M LTS/M Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.10-2: Result in Foreseeable Upset and/or Accident Conditions Involving Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment
Impact 3.10-3: Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS
LTS/M
Noise
Impact 3.12-1: Construction-Generated Noise
Impact 3.12-3: Long-Term Non-Transportation Noise Levels LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
LTS/M
Population, Employment, and Housing
Impact 3.13-1: Potential to Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth SU LTS Transportation and Circulation
Impact 3.16-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled SU SU Wildfire
Impact 3.17-1: Exacerbate Wildfire Risk as a Result of Project Construction and Operations LTS/M LTS/M Notes: LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable.

Source: Data compiled by Ascent in 2026.

6.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project, and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings [2008] 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167.) In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision-maker(s). (See PRC Section 21081[a][3].) At the time of action

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR on the project, the decision-maker(s) may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision-maker(s), for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-maker(s) adopts a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998.) The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.

The following alternatives were considered by the City but are not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.3.1 Alternative Site
Alternative sites are generally considered in EIRs when one of the means to avoid or eliminate the significant impacts of a project is to develop it in a different available location. Such alternatives are especially appropriate where a proposed project would put a site to uses different than those contemplated in the governing general plan, which presumably reflects land use policies reached after much deliberation and public involvement, and also in instances where there is an ample supply of similarly situated land that could be developed for a project. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Public/Quasi-Public, which primarily allows for municipal, governmental, or public facilities. The zoning for the project site is Planned Development. Further, the project site is geographically tied to existing roadways and utility infrastructure due to its proximity to existing and planned development.

Under this potential alternative, the City would develop an alternative site with the Environmental Utilities Corporation Yard, as well as a new Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) facility. Based on existing undeveloped land in the City, there are no parcels owned by the City that provide equivalent acreage of development compared to the project site. The majority of undeveloped parcels remaining in the City are approximately 10 acres or less in size or located proximate to existing residential uses. Developing the project on an alternative site could reduce or avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to Important Farmland depending on whether it is located on Important Farmland, and population growth depending on whether it would remove an obstacle to growth (e.g., utility extensions and roadway improvements); however, it would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because the same project components would be constructed and operated. Because of the potential for greater impacts, lack of appropriately sized parcels, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors in these areas, development of the project at alternative site locations would not fulfill most of the basic project objectives, including those related to providing a central/shared location for the management of City resources and waste. As a result, this alternative is not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.3.2 Relocation of Other City Departments to the Project Site Under this potential alternative, the City would develop the project site with new City facilities, but the EU Corporation Yard would remain at its current location at 2005 Hilltop Circle. This alternative would involve relocating other City departments (e.g., Electric, Public Works, Parks, Fire, and Police) to the project site, which would still be developed with a new RRTO facility. This alternative would allow for the expansion of existing City departments to accommodate anticipated growth of the City and increased demand for services. However, because the RRTO facility would be managed by the EU Department, it would not be as efficient and would necessitate increased travel between 2005 Hilltop Circle and the project site. Further, this alternative would locate certain essential City services (e.g., Police and Fire) further from their areas of response and potentially result in inefficiencies and risk to City residents and employees. This potential alternative would not reduce or avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to Important Farmland, air quality, GHG, population growth, or VMT because similar project components would be constructed and operated on the project site and Phillip Road would still be improved. Further, operational impacts

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-5 would be greater under this potential alternative because it would require increased travel between 2005 Hilltop Circle and the project site. Because of the potential for greater impacts, this alternative would not fulfill most of the basic project objectives, including those related to minimizing impacts to surrounding areas and consolidating multiple EU divisions at a single location. As a result, this alternative is not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.3.3 Relocation of Other City Departments from Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard to Other Sites
Under this potential alternative, the City would develop other site(s) with new City facilities in a decentralized fashion, clearing out other City facilities for construction of the RRTO Facility. The EU Corporation Yard would remain at its current location at 2005 Hilltop Circle, but other City departments (e.g., Electric, Public Works, Parks, Fire, and Police) would be reconstructed on some other site(s) within the City limits. The Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard would be developed with a new RRTO facility; however, acreage is limited at the Hilltop Circle site. This alternative would allow for the expansion of existing City departments to accommodate anticipated growth of the City and increased demand for services. However, because the RRTO facility would be far from where the solid waste fleet is refueled at the Pleasant Grove wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), it would not be as efficient and would necessitate increased travel between 2005 Hilltop Circle and the Pleasant Grove WWTP. Further, this alternative could locate certain essential City services (e.g., Police and Fire) further from their areas of response and potentially result in inefficiencies and risk to City residents and employees, essentially further decentralizing City services. Because this potential alternative would not be located on the project site, it would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to Important Farmland and population growth (related to Phillip Road improvements); however, it would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG, or VMT because the same project components would be constructed and operated in different locations. Further, operational impacts would be greater under this potential alternative because it would require increased travel between 2005 Hilltop Circle and the Pleasant Grove WWTP. Because of the potential for greater impacts, this alternative would not fulfill most of the basic project objectives, including those related to minimizing impacts to surrounding areas and consolidating multiple EU divisions at a single location. As a result, this alternative is not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.3.4 City-only Waste Stream
Under this potential alternative, the City would only accept waste material (e.g., municipal solid waste [MSW], compostables, and recyclables) generated within city boundaries at the RRTO. This would limit the capacity of the onsite RRTO facility to 270,000 tons per year, which is consistent with the projected waste stream associated with full implementation of the General Plan implementation. However, due to financial considerations, this is not considered feasible over the long-term and acceptance of out-of-city waste is considered necessary for the RRTO facility to maintain consistent waste, recyclables, and organic material quantities for economically viable operation of the materials recovery facility. This potential alternative would not reduce or avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to Important Farmland, air quality, GHG, population growth, or VMT because the same project components would be constructed and operated on the project site (albeit with a reduced RRTO capacity) and Phillip Road would still be improved. This alternative would not as effectively meet several of the City's project objectives, including the objective related to improving the sustainability of the City’s waste management operations.

Also, this alternative would not allow for City services to increase and respond to projected demands for solid waste services and changing regulations. Further, this alternative would not enable the City to attract recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale for the City and its customers. As a result of this alternative’s financial feasibility concerns and its less effective ability to achieve several of the project objectives, it is not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

6.3.5 City-only Organics Processing Facility
Under this potential alternative, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility could be constructed and operated, but it would only accept organic waste generated by land uses within the City. Organic waste generated outside of the City would not be accepted. All other project components, including the RRTO, Corporation Yard, and Vendor Lease Area, would be constructed and operated on the project site in the same location and with the same size and capacity as the project. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 considered in Section 6.4, below, except that the City would be able to import wastes and recyclables from outside the City, with the exception of organic waste (i.e., food and yard waste). This potential alternative would not reduce or avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to Important Farmland, air quality, GHG, population growth, or VMT because the same project components would be constructed and operated on the project site (albeit with a reduced Organics Processing Facility) and Phillip Road would still be improved. This alternative would not provide the City with the ability to attract the full suite of services to others outside the City and would therefore not as effectively enable the City to meet its project objectives related to improving sustainability of the City's waste management operations, which includes attracting recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale for the City and its customers. Additionally, this alternative would not allow for City services to increase and respond to projected demands for solid waste services and changing regulations. It is unknown whether this alternative would be financially viable or whether it would allow sufficient operational flexibility. As a result, this alternative is not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are evaluated in this Draft EIR.  Alternative 1: No Project Alternative assumes no development occurs on the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition (undeveloped agricultural land). Existing EU Operations would continue to be located at the Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard. Mixed waste, recyclables, and compostable waste generated by the City would continue to be sent to the WPWMA facility or another viable processor for the foreseeable future.  Alternative 2: Reduced Development Area Alternative would reduce the overall development footprint and shift the proposed facilities to the south by Phillip Road, further away from Pleasant Grove Creek. The same project components (i.e., RRTO Facility, Environmental Utilities Services Facility, Equipment Maintenance Facility, Vendor Lease Area, and Potential Future Organics Processing Facility) would be constructed and operated, but on a smaller footprint. Alternative 2 would develop 120 acres (which is 30 acres or 20 percent smaller than the proposed project).
 Alternative 3: No On-site Compost or Biomass Operations Alternative would not include the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. All other project components, including the RRTO, Corporation Yard, and Vendor Lease Area, would be constructed and operated on the project site in the same location and with the same size and capacity as the project. Instead of on-site composting or biomass operations, organic waste received at the site would be received at the RRTO, unloaded, undergo some level of contamination removal such as the removal of packaging (if determined to be necessary), and transferred off-site to the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) facility or another facility.

Further details on these alternatives, and an evaluation of environmental effects compared to the proposed project, are provided below.

6.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, no actions would be taken by the City and the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions (undeveloped agricultural land). Existing City operations would continue.

Mixed waste, recyclables, and compostable waste generated by the City would continue to be sent to the WPWMA facility or another viable processor for the foreseeable future. The City would not implement a three-cart waste,

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-7 recycling and green waste collection service program per the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) SB 1383 requirements. Existing EU Operations would continue to be located at the Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard (2005 Hilltop Circle). The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives, including those related to providing a shared location for the management of City resources and waste, improving the sustainability of the City’s waste management operations, consolidating multiple EU divisions at a single location, or providing a secondary corporation yard. Further, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. However, as required by CEQA, the No Project Alternative is evaluated in this Draft EIR.

Although it is acknowledged that with the No Project Alternative, there would be no discretionary action by the City, and thus no impact, for purposes of comparison with the other action alternatives, conclusions for each technical area are characterized as “impacts” that are greater, similar, or reduced, to describe conditions that are worse than, similar to, or better than those of the proposed project.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its existing condition, with the continued use of the site as undeveloped agricultural land. No new facilities would be built, and no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities would occur. Further, no construction-related or operational impacts or vehicle trips would be generated.

As described above, the No Project Alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project site and that existing City operations would continue. Currently, mixed waste, recyclables and compostable waste generated by the City are sent to the WPWMA facility. If the project is not developed, the City may decide to send its mixed waste, recyclables, and compostable waste to another viable processor located further from the WPWMA facility. This would generate impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and VMT that would not occur with the proposed project due to longer haul distances travelled; however, because an alternative disposal site has not been identified, the magnitude of these impacts cannot be known at this time. Further, the City may not implement a three-cart waste service program consisting of waste, recyclables, and organic wastes, each collected from generators in separate carts. The three-cart collection program would facilitate compliance with CalRecycle’s SB 1383 requirements as a programmatic pathway to being in compliance with the elevated diversion requirements. To be in compliance with the state, the City would need to rely on WPWMA or other processors to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. WPWMA is intending to seek compliance with SB 1383 by way of the single cart collection system, termed the ‘One-Big-Bin’, paired with a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility. Such programs are included in the law as possible pathways to compliance. If other entities are considered as possible processing providers for the City’s materials, an analysis of the provider’s facility and program would need to be performed to determine the viability of the pathway to compliance with SB 1383.

Therefore, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be reduced compared to the project for the following environmental issue areas:
 aesthetics and visual resources;
 land use planning and agricultural resources;
 air quality;
 greenhouse gas emissions;
 biological resources;
 cultural resources;
 tribal cultural resources;
 energy;
 geology and soils;
 hazards and hazardous materials;
 hydrology and water quality;
 noise;
 population, employment, and housing;
 public services;
 public utilities;
 transportation and circulation; and
 wildfire.

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

6.4.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Area Alternative Under Alternative 2, the Reduced Development Area Alternative, the overall development footprint would be reduced (compared to the project) and the proposed facilities would be shifted to the south toward Phillip Road and further away from Pleasant Grove Creek (Figure 6-1). The same project components (i.e., RRTO Facility, Environmental Utilities Services Facility, Equipment Maintenance Facility, Vendor Lease Area, and Potential Future Organics Processing Facility) would be constructed and operated, but presumably, on a smaller footprint. The precise location of each of these functions has not been determined at this time. Overall, Alternative 2 would be developed on 120 acres (which is 30 acres or 20 percent smaller than the proposed project). This alternative was developed to reduce the project’s impacts to agricultural resources (Prime and Unique Farmland) and hydrology/water quality (development within 100-year floodplain).

To accommodate a 30-acre reduction in the project site while maintaining the same key operational functions of the project, the following would be implemented to compress the project onto a smaller footprint:
 reduction in the buffer area along Phillip Road,
 redesign of the EU Operations Center campus to reduce site landscaping and minimize paved areas,  consideration of the use of parking garages for employees,  consideration of the use of parking garages for the City’s truck fleet and charging stations,  deepening of stormwater ponds to reduce the area committed to this function, and  development of multi-level office/administration buildings rather than single-level buildings.

This alternative would achieve most of the basic project objectives by providing a shared location for the waste, recycling, and organic material but would not achieve all of the project objectives, as it would reduce available facility space to accommodate City growth and associated operational needs. The proposed operations center is one of several attempts by the City to establish a permanent corporation yard to serve its needs, each of which has been outgrown. The City had a Corporation Yard at the Diamond Oaks golf course, another at the present fairgrounds site, and currently operates out of the Hilltop Circle site developed in the early 1990s. Thus, there would likely be a need for future expansions if the project is undersized to meet future demands. Impacts to agricultural resources (Prime and Unique Farmland) and hydrology/water quality (development within 100-year floodplain) would be reduced.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Alternative 2 would result in a smaller development footprint than the proposed project (i.e., 120 acres vs. 150 acres), which would result in similar or slightly reduced impacts associated with lighting and glare. Impacts related to visual character would be similar because the same types of uses would be developed, on a smaller footprint. Development would be further from Pleasant Grove Creek, but would still be adjacent to Blue Oaks Boulevard and the same distance from sensitive viewers to the south. This alternative could include the addition of parking garages and multilevel buildings, which would be taller than the proposed project, more visible from off-site viewpoints, and could block views of the surrounding area. Overall, the impact would be greater. (Greater)

LAND USE PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 2 would result in less ground disturbance and a smaller development footprint than the proposed project.

The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with plans, policies, and regulations focused on environmental impact minimization, and this alternative would have a similar impact. Because of its smaller development footprint, Alternative 2 would convert less Important Farmland than the project (Figure 6-1).

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-9 Source: Downloaded from California Department of Conservation in 2024; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 6-1 Farmland Designations for Alternative 2

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR The conversion of Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, and Other Land is not considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Prime and Unique Farmland is considered Important Farmland and its conversion is considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternative 2 would still involve the conversion of some Prime and Unique Farmland (i.e., Important Farmland), albeit to a lesser degree than the project. Although Alternative 2 would convert less Important Farmland, this alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact. Overall, the impact would be reduced, but would remain significant and unavoidable. (Reduced, but still significant and unavoidable)

AIR QUALITY
Alternative 2 would involve a smaller area of disturbance and, thus, would result in fewer construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants, ozone precursors, and toxic air contaminants (TACs). Long-term emissions would be similar to the project because the same project components would be operated, including a similar number of truck trips. Development of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would be shifted south, however, closer to sensitive receptors located south of Blue Oaks Boulevard. This could increase exposure of these receptors to dust, air emissions, and odors from the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. This alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impact because the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility could still be constructed and operated, albeit on a reduced footprint compared to the project, and the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a cannot be determined at this time because the specific design, daily throughput, and operational details of the future composting facility are not yet known at an adequate design level. Alternative 2 would result in similar emissions of criteria air pollutants, ozone precursors, and TACs, and overall air quality impacts would be similar. (Similar, and still significant and unavoidable)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Alternative 2 would involve a smaller area of disturbance but would, nonetheless, result in similar overall VMT because there would be a similar number of truck and employee trips. (Note that total VMT differs from the VMT efficiency metrics used in the VMT analysis). Because the same project components would be constructed and operated, albeit on a smaller footprint, Alternative 2 would require a similar amount of building energy and energy associated with onsite equipment. This would result in a similar level of GHG emissions. This alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impact because the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility could still be constructed and operated, albeit on a reduced footprint compared to the project. While Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce emissions to below PCAPCD’s threshold, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Further, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility; however, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Therefore, overall GHG impacts would be similar. (Similar, and still significant and unavoidable)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impacts of the proposed project on biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Some of the impacts requiring mitigation are associated primarily with Pleasant Grove Creek.

Alternative 2 would be located farther from Pleasant Grove Creek. Therefore, impacts associated with some specialstatus wildlife species and wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries would likely be substantially lessened by Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have the same vernal pool and other wetland habitat impacts as the project, and would require the same mitigation to reduce impacts. The overall impact would be reduced due to the elimination of the need to mitigate several impacts on the project site. (Reduced)

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-11

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 2 would eliminate development of the northern portion of the project site. Therefore, the overall disturbance area would be reduced. The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to currently unknown archaeological resources, and mitigation measures are identified to reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. Alternative 2 would require similar mitigation to reduce impacts; however, because this alternative would result in less ground disturbance, the chance of uncovering an unknown archaeological resource would be somewhat reduced. Overall, the impact would be slightly reduced. (Reduced)

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 2 would eliminate development of the northern portion of the project site. Therefore, the overall disturbance area would be reduced. The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to currently unknown Tribal cultural resources, and mitigation measures are identified to reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. Alternative 2 would require similar mitigation to reduce impacts; however, because this alternative would result in less ground disturbance, the chance of uncovering an unknown archaeological resource would be somewhat reduced. Overall, the impact would be slightly reduced. (Reduced) ENERGY
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with energy use. Although Alternative 2 would result in a smaller development footprint, it would create a similar demand for energy and would be equivalent to the project in terms of energy efficiency. Because the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to energy, the overall impact of this alternative would generally be similar. (Similar)

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project-related impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures. There is nothing about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 2 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative

2. Overall, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar. (Similar)

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project-related impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures. There is nothing about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 2 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative 2. Overall, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar. (Similar)

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Although Alternative 2 would have a smaller overall development footprint than the proposed project, the development types would be similar, and construction and operation of this alternative would require compliance with the same water quality regulations as the proposed project. The EIR indicates the project-related impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would be less than significant; impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar. However, due to its smaller footprint, none of the project site would be designated as 100-year floodplain or 500-year floodplain for Pleasant Grove Creek (Figure 6-2). Therefore, unlike the project, Alternative 2 would not be required to obtain a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to remove a portion of the project site out of the flood zone. Overall, the impact would be reduced. (Reduced)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Source: Downloaded from FEMA in 2022; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 6-2 Flood Zones for Alternative 2

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-13 NOISE
Alternative 2 would involve a smaller area of disturbance and would, therefore, result in lower construction noise levels along the northern portion of the site. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project’s construction noise to a less-than-significant level. Alternative 2 would require the same mitigation required by the project. Although there may be a slight reduction in noise due to the elimination of development on the northern portion of the project site, the project’s impacts would generally be similar. Additionally, the same mitigation measures required for the project would likely apply to Alternative 2 to reduce noise from traffic and stationary sources (e.g., backup generators). Overall, the impact would be similar. (Similar)

POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not include direct population growth and would result in a similar level of employment. Section 3.2, “Population, Employment, and Housing,” indicates that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to inducement of unplanned population growth because Phillip Road would be improved, thus removing an obstacle to unplanned population growth in the area; this alternative would not avoid that impact because Phillip Road would still be improved. This alternative’s similar employment numbers would result in similar secondary effects (employment-related) associated with population growth. Therefore, the overall impact of this alternative would be similar. (Similar, and still significant and unavoidable)

PUBLIC SERVICES
The project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to public services. There is nothing about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 2 that differs from the project in a way that would change the potential impact to police or fire services. Overall, impacts related to public services would be similar. (Similar)

PUBLIC UTILITIES
The project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities. Alternative 2 would result in a similar demand on utilities, including water, wastewater, electricity, and solid waste services. Therefore, because the project’s impacts associated with utilities are less than significant, the overall impact would generally be similar. (Similar)

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Alternative 2 would include the same project components as the proposed project, which would result in a similar workforce and similar levels of vehicle trips. Because this alternative would result in a similar level of vehicle trips, Alternative 2 would generate similar VMT compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would be designed to avoid conflicts with General Plan policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, minimize potential hazards related to design features, and provide adequate emergency access. Due to the similar VMT generation, impacts related to transportation and circulation would, overall, be similar. (Similar, and still significant and unavoidable)

WILDFIRE
Project-related impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures.

There is nothing about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 2 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative 2. Overall, impacts related to wildfire would be similar. (Similar)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

6.4.3 Alternative 3: No On-site Compost or Biomass Operations Under Alternative 3, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility (composting or biomass functions) would not be constructed or operated. All other project components, including the RRTO, Corporation Yard, and Vendor Lease Area, would be constructed and operated on the project site in the same location and with the same size and capacity as the project. In particular, the MSW receipt and transfer activities as well as the organics waste receipt, preprocessing and transfer would function as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” For Phase 1 of the project, organic waste would be unloaded in the transfer building where it would be consolidated, with the likelihood that some level of contamination removal, such as the removal of packaging, would be performed (including the use of de-packaging equipment, sorting equipment, or other technology deployment), and loaded into transfer trucks for delivery/processing elsewhere. Instead of on-site composting or biomass operations, organic waste received at the site would be received at the RRTO, unloaded, undergo some level of contamination removal (if determined to be necessary), and transferred off-site to the WPWMA facility or another facility.

The organic wastes unloading area would be located close to one of the two loadout chutes provided in the new transfer facility. This proximity is intended to minimize the amount of time these materials remain in the building.

Regulations require MSW, organics, residue from recyclables processing, or any materials being sent for secondary processing to be removed within 48 hours, unless an alternative storage time has been approved. The organic waste unloading area would be located on the commercial users, or west side of the building where City and franchise haulers would be directed for unloading.

Overall, Alternative 3 would be developed on 116 acres (which is 34 acres or 23 percent smaller than the proposed project, and roughly the same footprint as Alternative 2). This alternative was developed to reduce the project’s impacts related to dust, air emissions, and odors (from potential composting operations). Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would also reduce the project’s impacts to agricultural resources (Prime and Unique Farmland).

This alternative would require the City to rely on other entities to perform the organics composting and/or biomass processing functions and would therefore not as effectively enable the City to meet several of the project objectives, including improving sustainability of the City’s waste management operations or allowing for City services to increase and respond to projected demands for solid waste services and changing regulations. This alternative would not meet three objectives related to providing a shared location for the management of waste, recycling, and organic material within the City’s control; providing the option to implement a citywide waste/recycling services three-cart set out, thereby meeting the organics and recycling diversion requirements established by SB 1383; or attracting recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale for the City and its customers.

Additionally, this alternative could generate greater air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation impacts related to the need for additional truck transportation due to off-site hauling to an external composting facility.

Nonetheless, Alternative 3 represents a feasible alternative that would meet several of the project’s key objectives.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would result in a smaller development footprint than the proposed project (i.e., 116 acres vs. 150 acres), which would result in similar or slightly reduced impacts associated with lighting and glare. Impacts related to visual character would be similar because the same types of uses would be developed, on a smaller footprint. Development would be further from Pleasant Grove Creek, but would still be adjacent to Blue Oaks Boulevard and the same distance from sensitive viewers to the south. Overall, the impact would be similar. (Similar)

LAND USE PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would result in less ground disturbance and a smaller development footprint than the proposed project.

The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with plans, policies, and regulations focused on environmental impact minimization, and this alternative would have a similar impact. Because of its smaller development footprint, Alternative 3 would convert less Important Farmland than the project. The conversion

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-15 of Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, and Other Land is not considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Prime and Unique Farmland is considered Important Farmland and its conversion is considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternative 3 would still involve the conversion of some Prime and Unique Farmland (i.e., Important Farmland), albeit to a lesser degree than the project.

Although Alternative 3 would convert less Important Farmland, this alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact. Overall, the impact would be reduced. (Reduced, but still significant and unavoidable)

AIR QUALITY
Alternative 3 would involve a smaller area of disturbance and, thus, would result in fewer construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants, ozone precursors, and TACs. Long-term emissions generated at the project site would be similar to the project because the same project components (with the exception of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility) would be operated, including a similar number of truck trips.

Under this alternative, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, which would eliminate the dust, air emissions, and odors that would be generated from this facility under the proposed project. Nonetheless, some dust, air emissions, and odors would be generated because organic waste would still be received at the RRTO, unloaded, undergo some level of contamination removal (if deemed necessary), and transferred off-site to the WPWMA facility, Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment facility, or another facility. Further, this alternative could generate greater air quality impacts related to the need for additional truck transportation due to off-site hauling to an external composting facility.

Therefore, this alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impact because although the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, organic waste would still be processed at the RRTO and transferred off-site, and off-site hauling of organic waste to an external composting facility would generate additional emissions that would not be generated by the project. Thus, Alternative 3 would result in greater emissions of criteria air pollutants, ozone precursors, and TACs, and overall air quality impacts would be greater. (Greater, and still significant and unavoidable)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Alternative 3 would involve a smaller area of disturbance but would, nonetheless, result in similar overall VMT because there would be a similar number of truck and employee trips. (Note that total VMT differs from the VMT efficiency metrics used in the VMT analysis). Because the same project components would be constructed and operated (with the exception of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility), Alternative 3 would require a similar amount of building energy and energy associated with on-site equipment. This would result in a similar level of GHG emissions.

Under this alternative, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, which would eliminate the GHG emissions that would be generated from this facility under the proposed project. However, this alternative could generate greater GHG emissions related to the need for additional truck transportation due to off-site hauling to an external composting facility. This alternative would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impact because although the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, organic waste would still be processed at the RRTO and transferred off-site, and off-site hauling of organic waste to an external composting facility would generate additional emissions that would not be generated by the project. Therefore, overall GHG impacts would be greater. (Greater, and still significant and unavoidable)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impacts of the proposed project on biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Some of the impacts requiring mitigation are associated primarily with Pleasant Grove Creek.

Alternative 3 would be located farther from Pleasant Grove Creek. Therefore, impacts associated with some specialstatus wildlife species and wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries would likely be substantially lessened by