Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, October 7, 2026 (part 16 of 23)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Alternative 3. Alternative 3 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)

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 particular about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 3 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative 3. 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 3 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative 3. Overall, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar. (Similar)

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Although Alternative 3 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 3 would be similar. However, due to its smaller footprint, a smaller portion of the project site would be designated as 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplain for Pleasant Grove Creek. Similar to the project, Alternative 3 would be

Page 2185 of 3079 ends

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-17 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 similar. (Similar) NOISE
Alternative 3 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 3 would require the same mitigation required by the project. Although there may be a slight reduction in on-site noise due to the elimination of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the project’s long-term noise impacts at the project site would generally be similar.

Additionally, the same mitigation measures required for the project would likely apply to Alternative 3 to reduce noise from stationary sources (e.g., backup generators).

Under this alternative, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, which would eliminate operational noise that would be generated from this facility under the proposed project. However, this alternative could generate greater traffic noise levels related to the need for additional truck transportation due to offsite hauling to an external composting facility, and more sensitive receptors would be exposed to this increased traffic noise along the haul routes to the off-site facility. Therefore, overall noise impacts would be greater. (Greater)

POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
Like the project, Alternative 3 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 3 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 3 would result in a similar demand on utilities, including wastewater treatment and conveyance and solid waste services. Because the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, this alternative would require less water and electricity than the project. However, because the project’s impacts associated with utilities are less than significant, the overall impact would generally be similar. (Similar)

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Alternative 3 would include the same project components as the proposed project (with the exception of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility), which would result in a similar workforce and similar levels of employee vehicle trips. Under this alternative, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would not be constructed or operated, however, this alternative could generate greater truck trips 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 VMT impact because although the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would

Page 2186 of 3079 ends

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR not be constructed or operated, organic waste would still be transported to the RRTO and transferred off-site, and off-site hauling of organic waste to an external composting facility would generate additional truck trips that would not be generated by the project. Similar to the project, Alternative 3 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 greater VMT generation, impacts related to transportation and circulation would, overall, be greater. (Greater, 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 in particular about the land uses or overall development identified in Alternative 3 that differs from the project in a way that would change the level of impact. Similar mitigation measures would be required for Alternative 3. Overall, impacts related to wildfire would be similar. (Similar)

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 6-2 provides a summary comparison of the alternatives and the proposed project.

Table 6-2 Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project Environmental Topic Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative
Alternative 2: Reduced
Development Area
Alternative
Alternative 3: No On-site
Compost or Biomass
Operations Alternative
Aesthetics and Visual Resources LTS/M Reduced Greater Similar Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources SU Reduced Reduced, but still SU Reduced, but still SU Air Quality SU Reduced Similar, and still SU Greater, and still SU Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU Reduced Similar, and still SU Greater, and still SU Biological Resources LTS/M Reduced Reduced Reduced
Cultural Resources LTS/M Reduced Reduced Reduced
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M Reduced Reduced Reduced Energy LTS Reduced Similar Similar
Geology and Soils LTS/M Reduced Similar Similar
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M Reduced Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality LTS Reduced Reduced Similar Noise LTS/M Reduced Similar Greater
Population, Employment, and Housing SU Reduced Similar, and still SU Similar, and still SU Public Services LTS Reduced Similar Similar
Public Utilities LTS Reduced Similar Similar
Transportation and Circulation SU Reduced Similar, and still SU Greater, and still SU Wildfire LTS/M Reduced Similar Similar
Notes: LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable.

Source: Data compiled by Ascent in 2026.

Because the No Project Alternative (described above in Section 6.4.1) would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project analyzed in Chapter 3, it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives of the project as presented above in Section 6.2. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project

Page 2187 of 3079 ends

Ascent Alternatives
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 6-19 Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated.

As shown in Table 6-4, while some impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be reduced, other impacts would be similar to or greater than the proposed project because, under Alternative 3, 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. Off-site hauling of organic waste to an external composting facility would generate additional air quality and GHG emissions, traffic noise, and truck trips that would not be generated by the project. Therefore, these impacts would be greater compared to the proposed project and Alternative 3 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG, and VMT. Further, Alternative 3 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to population growth because Phillip Road would still be improved, which could increase the potential for unplanned growth in the area.

Due to their reduced footprints, Alternatives 2 and 3 would each reduce (but would not avoid) the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to Important Farmland. Both alternatives would nonetheless result in the conversion of Important Farmland (although less acreage than the proposed project).

Most impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be reduced or similar to the proposed project. Because Alternative 2 would be developed on a smaller project footprint, impacts related to biological resources, cultural and Tribal cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality would be reduced. However, because Alternative 2 would include the same project components as the project, it would generate similar air pollutant and GHG emissions, operational noise, potential for unplanned population growth, and VMT. Thus, Alternative 2 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG, population growth, or VMT. Additionally, Alternative 2 may result in greater impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources due to the addition of multi-level parking garages and buildings. Nevertheless, because it would reduce more of the significant impacts associated with the project than Alternative 3, Alternative 2 is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

Page 2188 of 3079 ends

Alternatives Ascent
City of Roseville
6-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Page 2189 of 3079 ends

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 7-1 7 REPORT PREPARERS
City of Roseville (Lead Agency)
Devin Whittington.....................................................................................Assistant Environmental Utilities Director of Operations Brian Craighead ................................................................................................................Assistant Director of Environmental Utilities Wes Heathcock .................................................................................................................................... Refuse and Stormwater Manager Brian Jones ................................................................................................................................................................Refuse Superintendent Keith Schmidt, PE.................................................................................................................................................................. Senior Engineer Jessica Lynch.....................................................................................................................................................Environmental Coordinator HDR (Engineering)
Tim Raibley, PE..........................................................................................................................................................................Vice President Charlie O’Neill......................................................................................................................................................... Senior Project Manager Cindy Liles, PE........................................................................................................................................................Organics and Air Quality Andrea Ramirez, PE ...............................................................................................................................................................Waste Facilities Bob Rella, PE .......................................................................................................................................................................... Senior Engineer Lock Quan, PE.........................................................................................................................................................................Water Engineer Rich Stratton, PE ....................................................................................................................................................................Water Engineer Amit Roy, PMP ................................................................................................................................................................... Corporation Yard Jacobs (Consultant to HDR)
Janet Goodrich.................................................................................................................. Waste Solutions Global Technology Leader Douglas Environmental (Consultant to HDR)
Doug Brown......................................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Edgar and Associates (Permitting)
Neil Edgar................................................................................................................................................................ Senior Project Manager Ascent, Inc. (CEQA Compliance)
Mike Parker, AICP............................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Sarah Henningsen...............................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Jackie Bottomley................................................................................................................... Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Wildfire Molly Nagle.......................... Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources; Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Utilities Elena Savignano............................................ Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Transportation and Circulation Jing Qian .......................................................................Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy; Health Risk Assessment Kenneth Nguyen.......................................................................................................................................................................................Noise Dimitri Antoniou ...................................................................................................... Senior Air Quality/GHG/Energy/Noise Specialist Jazmin Amini ..................................................................................................................... Transportation and Environmental Planner Carlos Alvarado.............................................................................................................................................................Biological Resources Tammie Beyerl........................................................................................................................................................................Senior Biologist Roberto Mora................................................................................................................. Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources Amber Engle ................................................................................................................... Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources Alta Cunningham........................................................................... Senior Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Specialist Rachel Mills-Coyne ............................................................................................................................Hazards and Hazardous Materials Bryn Kirk ...................................................................Geology and Soils; Population, Employment, and Housing; Public Services Elena Savignano........................................................................................................................................ Transportation and Circulation Yingying Cai ...........................................................................................................................................Cumulative Impacts, Alternatives Brian Perry ...........................................................................................................................................................................Graphic Specialist

Page 2190 of 3079 ends

Report Preparers Ascent
City of Roseville
7-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Phi Ngo......................................................................................................................................................................................... GIS Specialist Gayiety Lane...................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Tracy Prybyla..................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Riley Smith......................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Kittelson & Associates (Transportation Impact Study)
Mychal Loomis, PE ........................................................................................................................................................... Principal Engineer Anusha Musunuru, PhD ...........................................................................................................................Senior Engineering Associate Mingmin Liu..................................................................................................................................................Senior Engineering Associate Qiming Sun ................................................................................................................................................................ Engineering Associate Sravya Kamalapuram............................................................................................................................................... Engineering Associate

Page 2191 of 3079 ends

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-1 8 REFERENCES
Reference materials are available for review during normal business hours at City of Roseville Development Services Department (311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678) or by request from Jessica Lynch, at [email protected].

Chapter 1 Introduction
City of Roseville. 2020 (August). City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update, Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2019080418. Prepared by AECOM. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed August 2021.

Chapter 2 Project Description
City of Roseville. 2020 (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed December 2024.

City of Roseville. 2024 (February 21). Corporation Yard Programming and Technical Memorandum. Prepared by HDR.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2023 (September 29). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 6.4.10, Organic Material Composting. Available:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/y10dqvsa/chapter6.pdf. Accessed December 2024.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Chapter 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
California Department of Transportation. 2025. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed May 15, 2025.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

City of Roseville. 2004 (February 4). West Roseville Specific Plan. Prepared by EIP.

City of Roseville. 2008 (March 19). Community Design Guidelines for the City of Roseville. Adopted December 6, 1995.

City of Roseville. 2016. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan. Adopted June 15, 2016; amended March 18, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_plannin g_areas/amoruso_ranch_specific_plan. Accessed May 13, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020 (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed May 13, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2021 (August). Creekview Specific Plan.

Section 3.2 Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources California Department of Conservation. 2025. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2002 (October 16). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Roseville Detention Basin. SCH# 2002072084.

Page 2192 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR City of Roseville. 2020a (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020b (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified August 5, 2020. Available: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%20EIR/City%20of%20Roseville%20EIR.pdf.

Accessed April 2025.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2025 (November). Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2020-2050. Available: https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint. Accessed January 2026.

Section 3.3 Air Quality
California Air Resources Board. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed July 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2022. Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Draft%202022%20Gas%20Station%20IWG%20- %20Technical%20Guidance_ADA%20Compliant.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2025 California Air Resources Board. 2024. Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards. Accessed July 8, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025b. “Hot Spots” Risk Assessment. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/ab-2588-air-toxics-hot-spots/hot-spots-risk-assessment. Accessed July 8, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025c. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed July 2025.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville General Plan 2035, IV. Air Quality and Climate Change Element. Available:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%202020/04%20Air%20Quality%20and%20Climate %20Change_Final.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2024. Roseville EU Ops Facility Strategy Planning TM 2-24.

Climate Registry Default Emission Factors. 2021. Available: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emissionfactors-hub. Accessed August 1, 2025.

EDCAQMD et al. See El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2023 (October). Sacramento Regional 2015 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment & Further Reasonable Progress Plan. Available:

Page 2193 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-3 https://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/Sacramento%20Regional%202015%20NAAQS %208%20Hour%20Ozone%20Attainment%20and%20Reasonable%20Further%20Progress%20Plan.pdf.

Accessed October 20, 2025.

EPA. See US Environmental Protection Agency.

Kittelson & Associates. 2025 (December). Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis.

Mustafa, A., R. K. Calay, and M. Y. Mustafa. 2017. “A Techno-Economic Study of Biomass Gasification Plant for the Production of Transport Biofuel for Small Communities.” Energy Procedia 112: 529–536.

PCAPCD. See Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 1998 (April 9). Rule 234 Automotive Refinishing Operations. Available:
https://www.placerair.org/DocumentCenter/View/1782/Rule-234-Automotive-Refinishing-Operations-PDF.

Adopted November 3, 1994. Last amended on April 9, 1998. Accessed July 8, 2025.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2003 (December 11). Rule 216. Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations. Available: https://www.placerair.org/DocumentCenter/View/2192/Rule-216-PDF. Adopted June 19, 1979. Last amended on December 11, 2003. Accessed July 8, 2025.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available:
https://www.placerair.org/1801/CEQA-Handbook. Accessed July 8, 2025.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2026. 2025 Blueprint (MTP/SCS) Adopted Land Use Forecast. Available:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/4eee93dd2cbd48e0afbfb947d092ce79. Accessed February 4, 2026.

SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2020 (April). Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District CEQA Guide. Available:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3Construction4-30-2020.pdf. Accessed February 2026.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2016a. Emission Calculator “PM10 based emissions from operations generating dust from green waste composting.” Available: https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/emissionfactors/. Accessed August 1, 2025.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2016b. Emission Calculator “Composting Greenwaste VOC.” Available: https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/emission-factors/. Accessed December 1, 2025 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2023a. Compost Emission Factor Report. Available:
https://www.valleyair.org/media/hdsoobtp/criteria-compost-emission-factors-report-final-voc-nh3-3-21-23.pdf.

Originally published on September 15, 2010. Last amended on March 21, 2023. Accessed February 4, 2026.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2023b. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 6.4.10.

Available: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/toufwaok/draft-proactive-update-bact-guideline-6410-organicmaterial-composting-9-29-23.pdf. Last amended on September 29, 2023. Accessed February 4, 2026.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Catalog of CHP Technologies. US Environmental Protection Agency Combined Heat and Power Partnership.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Basic Information about NO2. Available: https://www.epa.gov/no2- pollution/basic-information-about-no2. Accessed July 8, 2025.

Page 2194 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR US Environmental Protection Agency. 2025a. Basic Information about Air Quality SIPs. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/basic-information-about-air-quality-sips#what-is-asip. Accessed July 8, 2025.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2025b (April). Clean Air Act Overview. Available: https://www.epa.gov/clean-airact-overview/clean-air-act-text. Accessed July 8, 2025.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2025c. Health Topics. Available: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaltopics/health-topics. Last updated February 12, 2025. Accessed July 16, 2025.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2025d. “Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards; California; Sacramento Metro Area.” Final determination. Federal Register. Vol. 90. No. 160. 40741-40746. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-08-21/pdf/2025-16045.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2025.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2025. Rocklin, California Period of Monthly Climate Summary. Available:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7516. Accessed July 8, 2025.

WHO. See World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. n.d. Air Quality, Energy and Health. Available: https://www.who.int/teams/environmentclimate-change-and-health/air-quality-and-health/health-impacts/types-of-pollutants. Accessed July 8, 2025.

Western Placer Waste Management Authority. 2024 (December). Western Placer Waste Management Authority Site Wide Odor Plan. Available: https://wpwma.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SWOP-V2_UPDATEDECEMBER-2024.pdf. Accessed February 2026.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.

Yu, K-P., Y-C. Chen, Y-J. Miao, S. Siregar, Y. W. Tsai, and W-M. G. Lee. 2020 (January 12). “Effects of Oil Drops and the Charcoal’s Proximate Composition on the Air Pollution Emitted from Charcoal Barbecues.” Aerosol and Air Quality Research. Available: https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-19-01-oa-0042. Accessed November 1, 2022.

Section 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board. 2020. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/basics-notes.pdf. Accessed July 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2022 (December). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plandocuments. Accessed July 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2024. Discussion Draft 2025 Mobile Source Strategy. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/Discussion_Draft_2025_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf.

Accessed July 3, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025a. CARB Receives Direction on Finalizing Low Carbon Fuel Standard Amendments. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-receives-direction-finalizing-low-carbon-fuelstandard-amendments. Accessed July 9, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025b. Advanced Clean Fleets. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/advanced-clean-fleets. Accessed July 9, 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2021 (August). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf.

Accessed July 9, 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2024 (December). 2024 California Energy Code. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/2025_Energy_Code_Summary_ADA.pdf. Accessed July 9, 2025.

Page 2195 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-5 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Statewide Summary Report.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018 (January). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-californiaplan-2018-update.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2025.

California State Transportation Agency. 2025. CAPTI 2.0 Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure. Available:
https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/climate-action-plan. Accessed July 9, 2025.

CalSTA. See California State Transportation Agency.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, et al. 2013. “Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K.

Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, 465–570. Cambridge University Press.

City of Roseville. 2010 (October). Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/Citywide%20Planning%20Documents/Communitywide%20Sustaintability%20Action%20Plan.p df. Accessed July 9, 2025.

CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency.

EPA. See US Environmental Protection Agency.

European Commission Joint Research Centre. 2018 (March). Climate Change Promotes the Spread of Mosquito- and Tick-Borne Viruses. Available: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/climatechange-promotes-spread-mosquito-and-tick-borne-viruses-2018-03-16_en. Accessed July 9, 2025.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers.

Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Summary for Policy Makers. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf. Accessed July 9, 2025.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Lister, B. C. and A. Garcia. 2018 (January). “Climate-Driven Declines in Arthropod Abundance Restructure a Rainforest Food Web.” PNAS 115 (44): E10397–E10406. Available:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1722477115. Accessed July 9, 2025.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2024 (June). Technical Support Document. Available:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. Accessed July 9, 2025.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2025. National Centers for Environmental Information. Global Climate Report Annual 2024. Available: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthlyreport/global/202413. Accessed October 2025.

NHTSA. See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Page 2196 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Nordahl S. L., C. V. Preble, T. W. Kirchstetter, C. D. Scown. 2023. Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions from Composting, Environmental Science and Technology (57):6. Available:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c05846. Accessed August 6, 2023.

OPR. See California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

PCAPCD. See Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. CEQA Handbook. Available: https://www.placerair.org/1801/CEQAHandbook. Accessed July 8, 2025.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2023 (September). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 6.4.10. Available: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/toufwaok/draft-proactive-update-bact-guideline6410-organic-material-composting-9-29-23.pdf. Accessed August 2025.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste. US EPA Office of Research and Development.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2024a. Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial Trucks and Buses. Available: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhousegas-emissions-commercial-trucks. Accessed March 25, 2025.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2024b (June). 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-06/epas-2024-2027-climate-adaptation-plan-508- compliant.pdf. Accessed August 2025.

Section 3.5 Biological Resources
American Bird Conservancy. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design. Available: https://abcbirds.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/Bird-friendly-Building-Guide_20151.pdf. Accessed May 2025.

Bailey Environmental. 2003 (December). Streams of Western Placer County: Aquatic Habitat and Biological Resources Literature Review. Prepared for Sierra Business Council.

Barnett Environmental. 2026 (January 27). Wetlands and Biological Resources Assessment on APN: 017-101-008, 6382 Phillip Road in Placer County, California 95747. Prepared for Panattoni Development Corporation.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. Accessed September 2025.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Retrieved
from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. Accessed June 12, 2025.

California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9.5.1).

Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed March 28, 2024, updated March 17, 2025.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2025. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed March 28, 2024, updated March 17, 2025.

California Water Boards. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019 and revised April 6, 2021. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf. Accessed May 2025.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Page 2197 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-7 City of Roseville. 2020 (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines. Accessed May 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023 (February). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roseville Industrial Park Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070186. Prepared by Ascent Environmental.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
eBird. 2025. Bird List for Phillip Road. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: https://ebird.org/hotspot/L421037/bird-list.

Accessed June 2, 2025.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (Technical Report Y-87-

1.) US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. iNaturalist. 2025. Research Grade Observations. GBIF Occurrence Download via GBIF.org. Available:
https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.nh9yuw. Retrieved June 2, 2025.

Lanterman J., P. Reeher, R. J. Mitchell, and K. Goodell. 2019. “Habitat Preference and Phenology of Nest Seeking and Foraging Bumble Bee Queens in Northeastern North America.” The American Midland Naturalist 182: 131–159.

Liczner A. R., and S. R. Colla. 2019. “A Systematic Review of the Nesting and Overwintering Habitat of Bumble Bees Globally.” Journal of Insect Conservation 23: 787–801.

NETR Online. See Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online. n.d. Historic Aerials Viewer. Available:
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed May 22, 2025.

Placer County. 2006 (February). Pleasant Grove and Curry Creek Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Prepared for Placer County Planning Department, with funding from California Bay-Delta Program. Prepared by Foothill Associates.

Placer County. 2020. Placer County Conservation Program: Western Placer County HCP/NCCP.

Available: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/81088/Placer-County-Conservation-ProgramWestern-Placer-County-HCPNCCPPDF. Accessed May 22, 2025.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society Press.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California.

Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366. Accessed May 28, 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html. Accessed September 2025.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Available:
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7627. Accessed September 2025.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/media/survey-guidelines-listed-large-branchiopods. Retrieved October 2025.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Recovery Plan for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis). Available:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final%20Recovery%20Plan%20_Rusty%20Patched%20Bu mble%20Bee_2021.pdf. Accessed June 2025.

Page 2198 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Available:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 28, 2025.

USACE. See US Army Corps of Engineers.

USFWS. See US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wildlands. 2005 (September). Orchard Creek Conservation Bank Long-Term Maintenance Plan.

Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Williams, N. M., J. M. Mola, C. Stuligross, et al. 2019. “Fantastic Bees and Where to Find Them: Locating the Cryptic Overwintering Queens of a Western Bumble Bee.” Ecosphere 10: e02949.

Witham, C.W. 2006. Field Guide to the Vernal Pools of Mather Field, Sacramento County. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento Valley Chapter.

Xerces Society. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi), and Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Available: https://www.xerces.org/publications/policy-statements/california-esa-bumble-beepetition-2018. Accessed June 2025.

Xerces Society, Wildlife Preservation Canada, York University, University of Ottawa, The Montreal Insectarium, The London Natural History Museum, BeeSpotter. 2021. Data accessed from Bumble Bee Watch, a collaborative website to track and conserve North America’s bumble bees. Available:
http://www.bumblebeewatch.org/app/#/bees/lists. Accessed June 12, 2025.

Section 3.6 Cultural Resources
Ascent. See Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2025. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Center Project. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

City of Roseville. 2020 (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed May 2025.

Section 3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
Ascent. See Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2025. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Center Project. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

Ione Band of Miwok Indians. 2025. Departments. Available: https://ionemiwok.net/departments/. Accessed March 27, 2025.

Private School Review. 2025. United Auburn Indian Community Tribal School. Available:
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/united-auburn-indian-community-tribal-school-profile. Accessed March 27, 2025.

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. 2025a. Departments. Available:
https://www.shinglespringsrancheria.com/departments/. Accessed March 27, 2025.

Page 2199 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-9 Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. 2025b. Tribal Court. Available:
https://www.shinglespringsrancheria.com/tribal-court/. Accessed March 27, 2025.

SSBMI. See Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

UAIC. See United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria. 2025. United Auburn Indian Community – Programs & Services. Available: https://www.auburnrancheria.com/programs-services/. Accessed May 8, 2025.

Wilton Rancheria. 2025a. Wilton Rancheria. Departments - Education. Available:
https://wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov/departments/education/. Accessed March 27, 2025.

Wilton Rancheria. 2022b. Tribal Court. Available: https://wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov/tribal-government/tribal-court/.

Accessed March 27, 2025.

Section 3.8 Energy
AFDC. See Alternative Fuels Data Center.

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2025. California Transportation Data for Alternative Fuels and Vehicles. Available:
https://afdc.energy.gov/states/CA. Accessed July 10, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025a. Advanced Clean Fleets. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/advanced-clean-fleets. Accessed July 9, 2025.

California Air Resources Board. 2025b. CARB Receives Direction on Finalizing Low Carbon Fuel Standard Amendments. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-receives-direction-finalizing-low-carbon-fuelstandard-amendments. Accessed July 9, 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2003 (August). Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Joint Agency Report by California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/ab2076final.pdf. Accessed July 2025.

Accessed July 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2024a (February). 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report-iepr/2023-integratedenergy-policy-report. Accessed July 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2024b. 2023 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15). Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874. Accessed July 10, 2025.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

City of Roseville. 2010 (October). City of Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan. Available:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/Citywide%20Planning%20Documents/Communitywide%20Sustaintability%20Action%20Plan.p df. Accessed July 9, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville General Plan 2035, IV. Air Quality and Climate Change Element.

EIA. See US Energy Information Administration.

Page 2200 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Roseville Electric. 2023. Roseville Electric. 2023 Power Content Label. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/Image/Electric/Electric1/2023%20Power%20Content%20Label%20for%20distribution%20(002).png. Accessed July 10, 2025.

US Energy Information Administration. 2025 (June). California State Energy Profile. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed July 10, 2025.

Section 3.9 Geology and Soils
Bryant, W. A., and E. W. Hart. 2007. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Interim Revision. Special Publications 42. California Geological Survey.

California Department of Conservation. 2025a. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed May 27, 2025.

California Department of Conservation. 2025b. Landslide Inventory (Beta). Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/app/. Accessed May 27, 2025.

California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2025.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

City of Roseville. 2011 (February). Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction. Available:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/Image/Government/Departments/Development%20S ervices/Engineering%20Land%20Development/Stormwater%20Design%20Inspection/BMP_Guidance.pdf.

Accessed May 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020a (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020b (August). City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report.

Certified August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed May 29, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023 (December). Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: 2023 Update. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/fire_department/emergency_preparedness/multi_hazar d_mitigation_plan. Accessed May 27, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025 (January). City of Roseville Design & Construction Standards. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/one.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8754129. Accessed May 27, 2025.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

HDR 2024. Preliminary Conceptual Design Geotechnical Report. City of Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center. Prepared July 2, 2024.

USGS. See US Geological Survey.

US Geological Survey. 1989. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Available:
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale.

Accessed June 3, 2025.

US Geological Survey. 2018. Divisions of Geologic Time—Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units.

Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3054/fs20183054.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2025.

Page 2201 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-11 US Geological Survey. 2025. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Available:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. Accessed June 4, 2025.

Section 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Bradley, Michael. Division Chief Fire & Life Safety; Fire Marshal. Roseville Fire Department, Roseville, CA. August 18, 2025—phone conversation with Jessica Lynch of the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning regarding input on the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR.

CalCUPA Forum. See California CUPA Forum.

California CUPA Forum. 2025. What Is A CUPA? Available: https://www.calcupa.org/about/mission.html. Accessed April 28, 2025.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025a. EnviroStor Database. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True. Accessed April 29, 2025.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025b. Registered Hazardous Waste Transporter Database.

Available: https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/transporters/. Accessed April 30, 2025.

California Governor’s OES. See California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2017 (October). State of California Emergency Plan. Available:
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/California_State_Emergency_Plan_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2011. Emergency Operations Plan. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Fire%20Dept/Emerge ncy%20Preparedness/COR_Emergency_Operations_Plan.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020a (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Safety Element. Adopted August 5, 2020.

Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025
City of Roseville. 2020b (August). City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update, Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2019080418. Prepared by AECOM. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023 (December). City of Roseville 2023 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopted December 2023.

Available: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Fire%20Dept/Emerge ncy%20Preparedness/Multi%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan/2023%20RosevilleHMP_Final_2023-12-16.pdf.

Accessed April 2025.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

REE. See Roseville Environmental Engineering.

Roseville Environmental Engineering. 2002 (September). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Mabel Property, 8100 Phillip Road. Prepared for City of Roseville.

Roseville Environmental Engineering. 2003. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Warnick Property. 8100 Phillip Road, Pleasant Grove, California. Prepared for City of Roseville.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2025. GeoTracker Database. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Accessed April 28, 2025.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Page 2202 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Section 3.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Anderson, Joe. Associate Engineer. City of Roseville, Public Works – Engineering Division, Roseville, CA. June 10, 2025—email to Shelby Maples of the City of Roseville, Development Service – Planning, regarding the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project.

California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin.

California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Updated 2020. Available: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5_021_64_NorthAmericanSubbasin.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

California Department of Water Resources. 2021. North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Available: https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/north-american-subbasin-groundwater-sustainability-plan/.

Accessed April 2025.

California Department of Water Resources. 2022a. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Available:
https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-management. Accessed May 5, 2025.

California Department of Water Resources. 2022b. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan 2022 Update. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood-Management/Flood-Planning-and-Studies/Central-Valley-FloodProtection-Plan. Accessed April 2025.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/#basinplans. Accessed April 2025.

Central Valley RWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

City of Roseville. 2004 (February). Stormwater Management Program. Prepared by: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.

Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/roseville_swmp.pdf.

Accessed May 2025.

City of Roseville. 2011. Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction. Available: https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Engineering/Design%20and%20Construction%20Standards/Stormwater%20Quality%20BMP%20Guidan ce%20Manual%20for%20Construction.pdf. Accessed May 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020b (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

HDR. 2024 (October). Roseville Utilities Operations Facility. Water Utility Strategy and Evaluation Report. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

HDR. 2025 (August 20). Technical Memorandum regarding Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Facility - FEMA Flood Hazard Area.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2025. National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Available: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed April 2025.

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Page 2203 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-13 PCFCWCD. See Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Placer County. 2022 (August). West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual. Original dated April 2016; Revised May 2018, August 2022. Available: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1610/West-PlacerStorm-Water-Quality-Design-Manual-PDF. Accessed April 2025.

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 1993. Auburn Ravine, Coon, and Pleasant Grove Creeks Flood Mitigation. Prepared by: CH2MHill. Available
https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1253/Cross-Canal-Watershed-Flood-Control-PlanVolume1-PDF. Accessed April 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021 (June 9). 2018 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html.

Accessed April 2025.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Section 3.12 Noise
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes.

California Department of Transportation. 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

Noise, Division of Environmental Analysis.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville General Plan 2035; Noise Element. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines. Accessed June 18, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025. Municipal Code. Section 9.24.030 (Health and Safety; Noise Regulations; Exemptions); Available: https://ecode360.com/42758432?highlight=noise&searchId=597609992922626#42758420.

Accessed June 18, 2025.

EPA. See US Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/tnm_v25/index.cfm. Accessed June 18, 2025.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, D.C.

Prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2025.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Kittelson & Associates. 2025 (December). Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis.

LDN Consulting. 2016. Tractor Supply Commercial Development Noise Assessment.

Lennox. 2019. 16ACX Merit Series Product Specifications.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1995 (August). Environmental, Economic, and Energy Impacts of Material Recovery Facilities.

Page 2204 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Section 3.13 Population, Employment, and Housing
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2025. Unemployment Rates for States. Available:
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm. Accessed May 14, 2025.

California Department of Finance. 2025 (May). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025.

California Employment Development Department. 2025 (May). Current Month Unemployment Rate and Labor Force Summary. Cities and Sub-County Places: Roseville city. Available:
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html. Accessed May 22, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2021 (August). 2021 Housing Element. Adopted August 18, 2021. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/General%20Plan/10%20Housing%20Element%20Adopted%208.18.21.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2022. Economic Development Strategy. Office of Economic Development. Adopted 2022. Available:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Economic%20Develop ment/Strategy/COR_ED_StrategicPlan_2022_WEB.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

DOF. See California Department of Finance.

EDD. See California Employment Development Department.

SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2020 (March). SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan Cycle 6 (2021-2029).

Available: https://www.sacog.org/home/showpublisheddocument/370/638218262676300000. Accessed April 2025.

US Census. 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Roseville CA. Available:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Roseville&y=2000%3A2019&tid=DECENNIALDPSF42000.DP1.

Accessed April 30, 2025.

US Census. 2010. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: 2010, Roseville, CA. Available:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2010.DP05?g=160XX00US0662938. Accessed April 30, 2025.

US Census. 2019. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: 2019, Roseville, CA. Available:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=1600000US0662938&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP05. Accessed April 30, 2025.

US Census. 2023. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: 2023, Roseville, CA. Available:
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Industry&g=160XX00US0662938&y=2023. Accessed May 14, 2025.

Section 3.14 Public Services
Bradley, Michael. Division Chief Fire & Life Safety; Fire Marshal. Roseville Fire Department, Roseville, CA. June 10, 2025a—email to Jessica Lynch of the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning regarding the need for fire facilities for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project.

Bradley, Michael. Division Chief Fire & Life Safety; Fire Marshal. Roseville Fire Department, Roseville, CA. August 18, 2025b—phone conversation with Jessica Lynch of the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning regarding input on the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR.

California Department of Education. 2024. Enrollment by Grade. Roseville City School District, Roseville Joint Union High School District, Eureka Union School District, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, and Center Joint Unified School District. Available: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. Accessed April 2025.

Page 2205 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-15 California Department of Finance. 2024 (May). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2023 and 2024. Available:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020b (August). City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report.

Certified August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2024a. Adopted Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2024-25, Section III: Department Operating Budgets.

Available: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Finance/Financial%20 Transparency/Annual%20Budgets/2025%20Budget%20Book%20-%20compressed%208-28.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2024b (April). Roseville Parks, Trails & Bikeways Map. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Public%20Works/Bikin g%20&%20Walking/Parks,%20Trails,%20and%20Bikeways%20Map/Park&TrailsMap_2024.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

Roseville Fire Department. 2020 (February). Final Standards of Cover. Prepared by Fitch & Associates, LLC.

Roseville Fire Department. 2025. Fire Operations. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8918422. Accessed April 2025.

Roseville Police Department. 2024. City of Roseville Police Department 2024 Annual Summary. Available:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Police/forms%20and%20reports/annual%20sum mary/2024%20Annual%20Summary.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

Section 3.15 Public Utilities
California Department of Water Resources. 2021. North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available:
https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/north-american-subbasin-groundwater-sustainability-plan/. Accessed April 2025.

California Department of Water Resources. 2022. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Available:
https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-management. Accessed May 5, 2025.

Chancey, Maurice. 2023 (May). City of Roseville Completes Expansion of Pleasant Grove. For the California Water Environment Association. Available: https://www.cwea.org/news/roseville-pleasant-grove-expansioncomplete/. Accessed May 22, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020a (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Public Facilities Element. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed April 2025.

City of Roseville. 2020b (August 5). 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified August 5, 2020. Available: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%20EIR/City%20of%20Roseville%20EIR.pdf.

Accessed April 2025.

Page 2206 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR City of Roseville. 2022 (July). City of Roseville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Water Works Engineers, LLC. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/environmental_utilities/at_your_service/water_supply/ur ban_water_management_plan. Accessed April 2025.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

HDR. 2024a (October). Roseville Utilities Operations Facility, Water Utility Strategy and Evaluation Report. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

HDR. 2024b (February). Technical Memo: Strategy Planning Summary. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2025 (January). Technical Memorandum Sanitary Sewer System Recommendations.

Prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Roseville Electric. 2023. Roseville Electric. 2023 Power Content Label. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/Image/Electric/Electric1/2023%20Power%20Content%20Label%20for%20distribution%20(002).png. Accessed July 10, 2025.

Western Placer Waste Management Authority. 2022 (October). Final Renewable Placer: Waste Action Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://wpwma.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Contents-andIntroduction-from-WasteActionPlan_FinalEIR.pdf. Accessed May 2025.

WPWMA. See Western Placer Waste Management Authority.

Section 3.16 Transportation and Circulation
CALCOG. See California Association of Councils of Governments.

California Air Pollution Control Officer Association. 2021 (December). Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Available:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/full_handbook.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2025.

California Association of Councils of Governments. 2025. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA).

Available: https://calcog.org/placer-county-transportation-planning-agency-pctpa/. Accessed March 10, 2025.

California Department of Transportation. 2020 (May). Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. Adopted May 20, 2020. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2025.

California Department of Transportation. 2022. Encroachment Permits Manual. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/encroachment-permits/appendix-k-ada-a11y.pdf.

Accessed May 21, 2025.

California Department of Transportation. 2023 (June). Truck Networks on California State Highways, District 3.

Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/trucks/truckmapd03-a11y. Accessed March 11, 2025.

California Department of Transportation. 2024 (January). California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/camutcd/rev8/camutcd2014-rev8-all.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2025.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officer Association.

City of Roseville. 2008 (March 19). Community Design Guidelines for the City of Roseville. Adopted December 6, 1995.

Page 2207 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-17 City of Roseville. 2020 (August). City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_develop ment_guidelines. Accessed March 10, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2022 (August). Local Service Map. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Public%20Works/Rose ville%20Transit/Services%20&%20Schedules/Local/10-22-
2025%20Local%20MAP%20Bus%20Services%20Guide%20-%20Web.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023a (January). Section 4 VMT and Traffic Impact Standards. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Engineering/Design%20and%20Construction%20Standards/2023%20DS%20Sections/DS%20- %20SECTION%2004%20-%20Jan.2023%20-%20UPDATED%20-%20Comments%20Added_LH.pdf. Accessed March 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023b. Fire & Life Safety Standard. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Emergency%20Vehicle%20Access%202023.pdf.

Accessed March 20, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2023c (January). Section 12 Construction Area Traffic Control Devices. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Serv ices/Engineering/Design%20and%20Construction%20Standards/2024%20CS%20Sections/CS%20- %20SECTION%2012%20-%20UPDATE%202024.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025a (May). City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Public%20Works/Tran sportation%20360/Roseville_ATP_Final-Plan_05-06-25.pdf. Accessed July 16, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025b (January). City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/engineering_land_development/ construction_management_inspection/design_construction_standards. Accessed March 11, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025c. Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) Program. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/engineering_land_development/ transportation_planning/Traffic%20Fees/citywide_traffic_mitigation_fee_tmf_program. Accessed March 11, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025d. Engineering Permits, Encroachment Permit. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/engineering_land_development/ permits. Accessed May 20, 2025.

Federal Highway Administration. 2023 (February). Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures. 2023 Edition. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/hwyfunctional-classification-2023.pdf. Accessed May 2025.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

Kittelson & Associates. 2025 (December). Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis.

PCTPA. See Placer County Transportation Planning Agency.

Placer County. 2018 (June). Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan 2018 Update. Available:
https://pctpa.specialdistrict.org/files/77f1c60e1/PlacerCounty_RegionalBikewayPlan_FINAL_20180629.pdf.

Accessed March 14, 2025.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 2024 (June). 2044 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.

Available: https://www.pctpa.net/regional-transportation-plan-documents. Accessed March 10, 2025.

Page 2208 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 2025 (June). Short-Range Transit Plan. Available:
https://www.pctpa.net/files/0ad471269/PCTPA+Final+Short-Range+Transit+Plan+%28Clean%29.pdf#print.

Accessed September 30, 2025.

SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

University of California, Berkeley. Transportation Injury Mapping System. Available: https://tims.berkeley.edu/.

Accessed July 2025.

Section 3.17 Wildfire
Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams. 2016 (October 18). Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(42):11770-11775.

Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, J. T. Abatzoglou, R. C. Nagy, E. J. Fusco, and A. L. Mahood. 2017 (March 14). Human-started wildfires expand the fire nice across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(11):2946-2951.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024. Cal Fire Strategic Plan 2024. Available: https://cal-firecommunications.paperturn-view.com/cal-fire-strategicplan24-web?pid=ODg8828162&v=2. Accessed May 12, 2025.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2025. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available:
https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008.

Accessed May 12, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025a. Roseville Fire Department Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/FHSZ_11x17_RSVFire_20250506_0900.pdf.

Accessed June 12, 2025.

City of Roseville. 2025b. Fire Station Locations. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/fire_department/fire_station_locations. Accessed May 13, 2025.

Schoennagel, T., J.K. Balch, H. Brenkert-Smith, et al. 2017 (May 2). Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(18):4582-4590.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006 (August 18). Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789): 940-943.

Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Accessed May 12, 2025.

Page 2209 of 3079 ends

Ascent References
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 8-19 Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

Accessed August 15, 2025.

LCI. See Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, formerly known as Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

WPWMA. See Western Placer Waste Management Authority.

Chapter 5 Other CEQA Sections
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

Accessed August 15, 2025.

LCI. See Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, formerly known as Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

US Census. 2023. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: 2023, Roseville, CA. Available:
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Industry&g=160XX00US0662938&y=2023. Accessed May 14, 2025.

Chapter 6 Alternatives
No references are cited in this chapter.

If a hyperlink in the above list is broken, the reference materials are available for review during normal business hours at City of Roseville Development Services Department (311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678) or by request from Jessica Lynch, at [email protected].

Page 2210 of 3079 ends

References Ascent
City of Roseville
8-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Page 2211 of 3079 ends

Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Roseville Environmental Utilities
Operations Center Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2024060953
Prepared for:

September 2026

Page 2212 of 3079 ends

Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Roseville Environmental Utilities
Operations Center Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2024060953
Prepared for:

City of Roseville
Development Services - Planning
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Contact:

Jessica Lynch
Environmental Coordinator
Prepared by:

Ascent
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Sarah Henningsen
Project Manager
20220140.01 September 2026

Page 2213 of 3079 ends

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project City of Roseville Errata Sheet to the Final EIR 1 September 21, 2026

ERRATA SHEET TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Since publication of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project (State Clearinghouse # 2024060953) on September 16, 2026, the following sentence from the first full paragraph on page 2-28 of the Final EIR has been removed at the request of the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA):

Original:

Specifically, it would not provide a shared location for the management of waste, recycling, and organic materials; provide the option for citywide three-cart collection services to support Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance; improve the sustainability and long-term flexibility of the City's waste management operations; attract recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale; or respond to projected future solid waste service demands and regulatory requirements. The existing WPWMA facility, stated to be poised to meet current regulations, has not yet been demonstrated to meet current regulations, nor is it poised to meet future regulations.

Revised:

This revision does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) The Final EIR is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning (311 Vernon Street, Roseville). The Final EIR is also available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.gov/development_services/planning/environmental_documents_public_notices.php.

For more information on the project, please contact Jessica Lynch at (916) 774-5352 or [email protected].

Page 2214 of 3079 ends

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................... iii 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Final EIR ............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Project Objectives..............................................................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Summary Description of the Project...........................................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis.................................................................................................1-4

1.6 CEQA Public Review Process.........................................................................................................................................1-4

1.7 Organization of the Final EIR.........................................................................................................................................1-5 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR..........................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Comments and Responses............................................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Tribes....................................................................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Agencies..............................................................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Companies ........................................................................................................................................................2-71 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ..............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Revisions to the Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Revisions to Chapter 2, “Project Description”.........................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Revisions to Section 3.3, “Air Quality”.......................................................................................................................3-3

3.4 Revisions to Section 3.5, “Biological Resources”.................................................................................................. 3-10 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Appendices
Appendix A Placer County Conservation Program: Development Interface Design Requirements Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Site and Surrounding Conservation Land............................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-2 Potential Wetlands on the Clemetson Property (West of the Project Site)................................................ 2-17 Figure 2-3 Placer Parkway Alignment Near the Project Site................................................................................................. 2-21 Tables
Table 1-1 Project Overview................................................................................................................................................................1-3 Table 2-1 List of Commenters...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

Page 2215 of 3079 ends

List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Roseville
ii Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADT average daily traffic
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQA Air Quality Attainment Plan
ASP Aerated Static Pile
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
City City of Roseville
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
EU Roseville Environmental Utilities
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Final EIR final environmental impact report
GHG greenhouse gas
HRA health risk assessment
ITP Incidental Take Permit
LEA local enforcement agency
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS level of service
MTCO₂e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOP notice of preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
OIMP Odor Impact Minimization Plan
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public
PCA Placer Conservation Authority
PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PCCP Placer County Conservation Program
PD Planned Development
ppb parts per billion
PRC Public Resources Code
Project Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RRTO Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations
SB Senate Bill
SFNA Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District USGS US Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds

Page 2216 of 3079 ends

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of Roseville (City), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15132). This Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center Project (project). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this document (response to comments document), which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL EIR
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft EIR made in response to these comments.

The Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the project.

This Final EIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit elements of the project over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the Proposed Extension or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.

Responsible agencies may include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, State Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Placer County, and Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

While not a state or local agency, the following federal agencies may use environmental information in this EIR to inform their permitting actions: the Federal Emergency Management Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site consists of 243 acres along Phillip Road, near its western terminus at South Brewer Road, at the northwest limit line of the City of Roseville in Placer County. The project site, which is owned by the City, is predominantly agricultural in use and is leased for rice and hay farming. Several structures are located on the site, which are remnants from a former pheasant club, agricultural support structures, and a former residence. These structures may be demolished prior to project development or some of them may be repurposed. Although the project site is 243 acres in size, the total development area is currently anticipated to be approximately 150 acres, as evaluated in this EIR, and focused within the southern portion of the project site.

The project site includes portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 017-010-033-000, 017-090-054-000, and 017-090- 055-000. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP), which establishes areas for municipal, governmental, or public facilities. The zoning for the project site is Planned Development (PD).

Pleasant Grove Creek is located along the site’s northern boundary. The planned Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Facility would be located to the east and the Reason Farms Preserve is located to the northeast of the project site. Other surrounding land uses include agriculture with supporting residential structures. The Creekview Specific Plan, West Roseville Specific Plan, Regional University and Community, and Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan areas are each located near or within a two-mile radius and are in various stages of development. These surrounding

Page 2217 of 3079 ends

Introduction Ascent
City of Roseville
1-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR land uses will allow for a total of 13,630 residential units at buildout. 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.

1.3 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 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 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 or similar regulations.

1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The City proposes to construct and operate a new EU Operations Center in northwest Roseville to provide modernized facilities to support City residents, businesses, and services. The following facilities are proposed:
▶ Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) Facility would include a materials recovery facility for recyclables receipt, materials recovery, separation into their individual commodities, and product shipment to secondary markets elsewhere; an area for municipal solid waste (MSW) receipt, staging/densification, and transfer to disposal facilities elsewhere; and an area for receiving, preprocessing, and transferring organic waste to off-site organics processing facilities;
▶ EU Operations Facility Corporation Yard (Corporation Yard) would provide office and storage space for the EU Department (the EU Services Facility) and an equipment maintenance facility that would provide for the parking, maintenance and repair, and fueling/charging of the EU fleet needs (assuming a fleet of up to 400 fleet vehicles and equipment), as well as an administrative office and parking for employees; ▶ Vendor Lease Area would provide an area available for lease to prospective vendors that could commit to deliver their waste streams to the RRTO Facility (parking would be provided for 50 to 100 collection type waste fleet trucks and a similar number of employee parking spaces); and ▶ Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would include a potential future compost facility and/or biomass to energy facility (biomass facility) to accommodate the combined quantities of the City’s forecasted organic wastes

Page 2218 of 3079 ends

Ascent Introduction
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 1-3 and organic wastes from sources outside the City. The necessity of this function in terms of both economics and technical viability will be evaluated by the City at a later time and may be subject to supplemental CEQA review.

The City may or may not elect to develop this facility.

The project would be developed in two phases, as shown in Table 1-1. Phase 1 is evaluated at a project-level throughout this EIR and is anticipated to be operational by 2028. Phase 2 is evaluated at a project-level (for the RRTO expansion) and program-level (for the potential future Organics Processing Facility) throughout this EIR and may be complete by 2040. Phase 2 would provide capacity for the City through 2058.

Table 1-1 Project Overview
Project
Phase
Project Component
Level of CEQA
Analysis in this EIR
Site Acreage
Forecast
New Staff1
Construction Operation
Phase 1 RRTO Facility (Phase 1) Project-level 40 43 March 2027 through October 2028
October
2028
Vendor Lease Area Project-level 5 40 March 2027 through October 2028
October
2028
Corporation Yard
⯈ EU Services Facility
⯈ Equipment Maintenance Facility
Project-level 71 386 Constructed on an
as-needed basis
As early as
2028
Phase 2 RRTO Facility Expansion (Phase 2) Project-level 0 (expanded facility on
same footprint)
49 Constructed on an
as-needed basis
As early as
2040
Potential Future Organics
Processing Facility
Program-level 34 13 Beginning in 2035 2040
Totals - - 150 acres 531 new staff - -
Notes: EU = Environmental Utilities; RRTO = Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations. 1 In addition to forecast new staff, it is anticipated that 165 existing staff would be relocated from the Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard to the project site.

Source: Compiled by Ascent in 2026.

A portion of the project site is within a 100-year flood zone of Pleasant Grove Creek according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps, and is also identified as being within Roseville’s Regulatory Floodplain. To develop this portion of the project site, a portion of the historically flooded area would need to be removed from the FEMA flood zone and Roseville’s Regulatory Floodplain. This would require the preparation of a preliminary conditional Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) request to FEMA. Following FEMA and City approval, grading plans and construction documents would be prepared, and FEMA would review and consider for approval the final LOMR. The City would remove the northern portion of the proposed development area from the FEMA flood zone by importing fill and raising that portion of the site. Compensation for areas filled and removed from the floodplain is required such that there are no off-site increases to the 100-year water surface elevation or Base Flood Elevation.

Utility service is not currently available at the project site except for limited data and electricity. Thus, the project includes the extension of nearby water, wastewater, stormwater, data, and electrical infrastructure. The project’s total estimated power demand would be approximately 20 megawatts, which would likely require development of a new substation with Roseville Electric to serve the project. To accomplish this, Roseville Electric is expected to extend an existing 60 kilovolt line from the existing 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 main entry to the project site would be from Phillip Road. It would include a public driveway and an internal circulation road to provide access to a surface parking lot. Sufficient parking would be provided for operational vehicles (heavy and light duty), staff, and members of the public. Security systems would include controlled access through installation of perimeter fencing, security gates, and cameras.

Page 2219 of 3079 ends

Introduction Ascent
City of Roseville
1-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Phillip Road would be improved compared to its current condition along the frontage of the project site and east to the westerly terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard. Other developments in the region may improve portions of this alignment in advance of this project. The improvements to Phillip Road are expected to reflect the City’s standard, 48-foot right of way Collector/Commercial street requirements, excluding sidewalks.

1.5 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft EIR identifies significant or potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and wildfire. These impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation.

The following impacts were identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unavoidable; that is, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level:
▶ Aesthetics: Visual Character and Quality (cumulative) and Light and Glare (cumulative); ▶ Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources: Result in the Conversion of Farmland (project and cumulative); ▶ Air Quality: Long-term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors (project and cumulative); Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People (project and cumulative); ▶ Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment (project and cumulative); ▶ Population, Employment, and Housing: Potential to Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth (project); and
▶ Transportation and Circulation: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (project and cumulative).

1.6 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
On May 7, 2026, the City of Roseville released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review and comment period. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City of Roseville’s website (https://www.roseville.ca.gov/development_services/planning/environmental_documents_public_notices.php); and was made available at the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning (311 Vernon Street, Roseville). In addition, a notice of availability of the Draft EIR was distributed by the City to a project-specific mailing list.

A public hearing was held on May 26, 2026, to receive comments on the Draft EIR. The meeting was held as part of the Public Utilities Commission Meeting at 6 p.m. in the Roseville Electric Building located at 116 South Grant Street. No comments were received during the public hearing.

As a result of these notification efforts, written comments were received from ten commenters on the content of the Draft EIR. Chapter 3, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

Before taking action on the project, the City is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the City’s decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.

Page 2220 of 3079 ends

Ascent Introduction
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 1-5

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is organized as follows:
▶ Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final EIR, summarizes the Roseville EU Operations Center Project and the major conclusions of the Draft EIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final EIR.
▶ Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period, as well as a late comment letter received July 3, 2026; copies of the comments received; and a response to each comment.
▶ Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. ▶ Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis. ▶ Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final EIR.

Page 2221 of 3079 ends

Introduction Ascent
City of Roseville
1-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Page 2222 of 3079 ends

City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains reproduced comments from letters received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, which concluded on June 22, 2026, as well as a late comment letter received July 3, 2026. No comments were received during the May 26, 2026, Public Utilities Commission public hearing. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft EIR.

The comment letters below are reproduced exactly as they were submitted. Spelling, grammatical, and other errors in the original letters have not been corrected.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date

TRIBES (T)
T1 United Auburn Indian Community
Anna Starkey, Cultural Regulatory Manager, Tribal Historic Preservation Department May 8, 2026

AGENCIES (A)
A1 Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division May Soe, Supervising Oil & Gas Engineer – Northern District, Sacramento May 5, 2026
A2 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Benjamin On, Environmental Scientist, Permitting & Assistance Brach – North Section, Central Unit, Waste Permitting, Compliance & Mitigation Division, CalRecycle June 22, 2026
A3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Patrick Moeszinger, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) July 3, 2026
A4 Placer County
Daniel Chatigny, County Executive Officer
June 22, 2026
A5 Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Yushuo Chang, Planning & Monitoring Section, Supervisor June 22, 2026
A6 City of Lincoln
Angela Frost, Environmental Services Manager, City of Lincoln Public Works Department June 18, 2026
A7 Western Placer Waste Management Authority
Scott Scholz, General Manager
June 22, 2026
A8 Placer Conservation Authority
Greg McKenzie, Executive Director
June 20, 2026

COMPANIES (C)
C1 Pacific Gas & Electric
Plan Review Team, Land Management
May 12, 2026

Page 2223 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The written individual comments received and the responses to those comments are provided below. The comment letters are reproduced verbatim in their entirety. No edits have been made to the original comments, and spelling, grammatical, and other errors have been retained.

2.2.1 Tribes
Letter T1 United Auburn Indian Community
Anna Starkey, Cultural Regulatory Manager, Tribal Historic Preservation Department May 8, 2026
Comment T1-1
Thank you. I reviewed the TCR chapter and do not intend to comment on it. Looks good.

Response T1-1
The comment confirms receipt of the Tribal cultural resources chapter of the Draft EIR and states that the Tribe does not intend to comment on it. Because no specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR are raised in this comment, no further response is required.

2.2.2 Agencies
Letter A1 Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division
May Soe, Supervising Oil & Gas Engineer – Northern District, Sacramento May 5, 2026
Comment A1-1
Public Resources Code (PRC) section 3208.1 establishes re-abandonment responsibility when previously plugged and abandoned oil, gas or geothermal wells will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities.

Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near previously abandoned oil, gas, and geothermal wells.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has received the above-referenced project dated 5/1/2026. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making safe and practical land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, CalGEM provides a table in the attached enclosure of the wells within the parcel boundary or in its vicinity, based on CalGEM’s Well Finder database (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/).

CalGEM categorically advises against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells.

Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking at the landowner’s expense if there is a need to access a well. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment (consisting of well servicing rig, pumping equipment, pipe trailer) to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure.

Impermeable barriers such as asphalt, concrete, and plastic may trap hazardous gases and liquids underneath and could create a safety hazard if built over a well that later develops a leak.

Page 2224 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-3 CalGEM recommends that any well for which access is impeded or built over, against CalGEM’s advice, should be evaluated by a qualified petroleum professional for compliance with the statutory objectives of isolating all hydrocarbon-bearing strata; protecting underground and surface waters; prevention of subsequent damage to life, health, property, and other resources; and prevention of loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy. CalGEM recommends that wells that do not meet these standards are abandoned or re-abandoned prior to construction. The well information can be accessed through CalGEM’s Well Finder database mentioned above. PRC section 3208, subdivision (a), provides the primary statutory authority for CalGEM to oversee adequate abandonment of wells.

Additionally, CalGEM has developed the regulatory guidance for operators to be followed during well abandonment, which are listed within California Code of Regulation, title 14 (CCR) section 1723 and associated sub-sections (for onshore wells), and section 1745 and associated sub-sections (for offshore wells).

There is no guarantee that a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. Due to the inability to predict all subsurface conditions or changes, it always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. CalGEM acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current Division requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantee that such abandoned wells will not leak.

CalGEM advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format, and leak testing results should be provided to CalGEM. CalGEM expects any wells found leaking to be reported to CalGEM immediately.

PRC section 3208.1 gives CalGEM the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for reabandonment as:

1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.

2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be re-abandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake construction that impedes access, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.

3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the re-abandonment.

Should any wells require abandonment or re-abandonment, the responsible party must submit a Notice of Intention (NOI) to CalGEM through WellSTAR. The NOI form can be accessed in the ‘Plugging and Abandonment’ section of the following link: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/for_operators.

Page 2225 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from CalGEM. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. CalGEM also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR section 1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below the surface of the ground. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from CalGEM is required before work can start.

CalGEM makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer:

1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells, CalGEM recommends that information regarding the below identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property.

2. CalGEM recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.

As indicated in PRC section 3106, CalGEM has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to CalGEM's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC sections 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC sections 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within CalGEM's jurisdictional authority. CalGEM does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues.

Should you have any questions, or if any wells are encountered that were not part of this letter, contact CalGEM at 916-322-1110 or via email at [email protected] Enclosure: The wells listed below are reported to be located within and nearby the parcel boundary and may have future access impeded.

API No. Well Name
There are no wells in the project area
Response A1-1
The comment states that development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells can pose safety risks and requires maintaining access to wells, avoiding construction over them, and testing for leaks, with re-abandonment required if well integrity is compromised. Responsibility for re-abandonment may fall on the property owner, developer, or other parties depending on circumstances, and all well work requires CalGEM approval. The comment also states that no wells are present within the project area. Because the commenter identifies no wells in the project area, and identifies no specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Letter A2 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Benjamin On, Environmental Scientist, Permitting & Assistance Brach – North Section, Central Unit, Waste Permitting, Compliance & Mitigation Division, CalRecycle June 22, 2026
Comment A2-1
Thank you for allowing the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) staff to provide comments on the proposed project and for your agency’s consideration of these comments as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

Page 2226 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Roseville Development Services (City), acting as Lead Agency, has prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in order to comply with CEQA and to provide information to, and solicit consultation with, Responsible Agencies in the approval of the proposed project.

The City proposes to construct and operate a new Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center in northwest Roseville. The total development area is currently anticipated to be approximately 150 acres, as evaluated in this DEIR, and focused within the southern portion of the project site. The zoning for the project site is Planned Development (PD). Pleasant Grove Creek is located along the site’s northern boundary. The project site includes portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 017-010-033-000, 017-090-054-000, and 017-090-055-000. The planned Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Facility would be located to the east and the Reason Farms Preserve is located to the northeast of the project site.

The proposed project would construct and operate new modernized facilities and services in northwest Roseville to support City residents, businesses, and services. The project would include new facilities and services that would allow the City to cost effectively meet state-level legislation requirements, while providing space to grow for the Roseville EU Department’s services and staff.

The following facilities are proposed:
▶ Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) Facility would include a materials recovery facility; an area for municipal solid waste receipt, staging/densification, and transfer to disposal facilities elsewhere; and an area for receiving, preprocessing, and transferring organic waste to off-site organics processing facilities; ▶ Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would include a potential future compost facility and/or biomass to energy facility. The necessity of this facility will be evaluated by the City at a later time and may be subject to supplemental CEQA review. The City may or may not elect to develop this facility.

Response A2-1
The comment is an introductory statement and also summarizes the project description provided in the Draft EIR; the comment does not address the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required. Responses to specific comments concerning environmental issues are provided below.

Comment A2-2

COMMENTS
CalRecycle staff’s comments on the proposed project are listed below. Where a specific location in the document is noted for the comment, please ensure the comment is addressed throughout all sections of the Draft IS/ND, in addition to the specific location noted.

Comments for the Draft IS/ND are summarized in Italicized font below:

Chapter ES.2 Summary Description of the Project

Page 15 ends

“The project site consists of 243 acres along Phillip Road, near its western terminus at South Brewer Road, at the northwest limit line of the City of Roseville in Placer County.” Is there an exact address of where the proposed facility will operate? What are the projected days and hours of operations for the Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO)? Response A2-2
The comment asks whether there is an exact address of where the proposed facility will operate and what the projected days and hours of operations for the Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) are. The project site is located on Phillip Road. There is not currently an address assigned to the project site; however, as identified on page 2-1 of the

Page 2227 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Draft EIR, the project site includes portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 017-010-033-000, 017-090-054-000, and 017-090-055-000. The project site is shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2, among others, in the Draft EIR.

Regarding the anticipated hours of operation, page 2-20 of the Draft EIR states:

Typical operational hours for Phase 1 would be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the majority of staff working from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some facilities, however, would need to operate 24 hours per day. At ultimate buildout of Phase 2, the facility would operate 24 hours per day throughout the year. Waste hauling to and from the site would generally be concentrated to the hours of 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Comment A2-3
Chapter 2.6.2 Potential Permits and Approvals Required

Page 58 ends

The project applicant should work with the local enforcement agency (LEA) for review and approval of the project particulars prior to implementation.

Response A2-3
The comment states that the City should work with the local enforcement agency (LEA) (which is the Placer County Environmental Health Department) for review and approval of the project prior to implementation.

The City will coordinate with the LEA, as appropriate, for review and approval of the project in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements prior to implementation.

Comment A2-4
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Implement a Litter Mitigation Program

Page 75 ends

“Once the project is operational, the City Solid Waste Division shall fund a continuous litter mitigation program that includes collecting and disposing roadside litter from along the roadways tributary to the site daily (Monday-Friday) on public roads within 1 mile of the project site and weekly within 2 miles of the project site. The litter mitigation program shall include routine monitoring of where litter occurs, logging of complaints, and the deployment of staff to perform litter removal activities. The City shall report the effectiveness of the litter mitigation program to the Local Enforcement Agency. The Solid Waste Division shall also employ a litter management program that collects litter from the site, its fences, and roadways each operating day.” Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 17408.1 Litter Control, Litter at operations and facilities shall be controlled, and routinely collected to prevent safety hazards, nuisances or similar problems and off-site migration to the greatest extent possible given existing weather conditions.

The LEA is responsible for inspecting the solid waste facility for litter control as part of a monthly or a focused inspection.

Response A2-4
The comment restates the requirements of Title 14 CCR Section 17408.1 regarding litter control and describes the LEA’s role in inspection but does not comment on or request a revision to Mitigation Measure 3.1-1. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 requires implementation of a comprehensive litter control program, including routine collection, monitoring, and reporting, consistent with regulatory requirements. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment A2-5
Multiple pages
Biomass/Gasification Facility
In section 3.3-4 mitigation measures for “Implement Clean Construction Fleet” it is noted: “The HRA for combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project evaluated all on-site activities as well as the operation of a potential future compost facility and a 2.5 MW potential future biomass gasification facility, which could be developed at full operation (2058) of the project.”

Page 2228 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-7 Please clarify the biomass gasification facility is not projected to operate until 2058. Any proposed biomass project should meet the definition of “biomass conversion” pursuant to the Public Resources Code section 40106.

Response A2-5
The comment requests clarification that the proposed biomass gasification facility would not operate until 2058 and states that any such facility must meet the definition of “biomass conversion” under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 40106. The Potential Future Organics Processing Facility (which could include a potential future compost facility and/or biomass facility) is described on page 2-18 of the Draft EIR as a potential project component that could be pursued by the City and is evaluated at a programmatic level in the EIR. As identified on page 2-25 of the Draft EIR, the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility would be part of Phase 2 of the project, with construction anticipated to begin as early as 2035 and operation in 2040 (Phase 2 would provide capacity for the City through 2058).

Comment A2-6
Appendix A
Table 1 Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations Facility Table one shows the combined projected throughputs for the Recyclables (Material Recovery Facility), Organics, and MSW Transfer (Transfer Processing). If the Organics Processing Facility is an uncertain, the tonnage for the Organics should not be added into the Recyclables and MSW Transfer totals.

Response A2-6
The comment refers to Table 1 in the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which is attached as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

Since the NOP was issued in June 2024, the project details have been further refined. See Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR for the current project details. Table 3.15-7 in the Draft EIR presents the same information that was included in Table 1 in the NOP.

Although development of the Organics Processing Facility is uncertain, managing these materials (in terms of collection, receipt and transfer elsewhere) is a necessary function of this project. As a part of the City’s response to SB 1383 requirements, the City of Roseville intends to employ a three-cart waste, recyclables, and organics materials collection system. Organics materials collected from city entities would be delivered to the RRTO and unloaded. The RRTO would need to receive and ship these materials to processing facilities elsewhere. Therefore, these materials need to be included in the facility quantities to track both their quantities, and the vehicle counts of collection trucks arriving with the organics and transfer trucks taking the organic materials to off-site organics processing facilities elsewhere.

Comment A2-7
Appendix A
Table 2 Proposed building sizing
Table 2 shows a construction and expansion timeline for all proposed buildings in 2028, 2044, and 2058. Will the proposed expansion of the RRTO facility building in 2044 or 2058 impact the throughput of the proposed 420 tons per day? Will the RRTO be capable of processing 420 tons per day (TPD) when first constructed? If the RRTO facility will not be capable of processing 420 tpd, what throughput capacities will be tied to each of the building expansions? As an example, in 2028 the RRTO can process X amount of material in tons per day, in 2044 RRTO can process X amount of material? The DEIR should clarify the tonnage thresholds for future expansions associated with all proposed solid waste handling activities (material recovery facility, transfer processing, and the organics facility). As an example if in 2028 the tons per day is 420, will there be an increased tons per day of material processed projected for 2044 or 2058? Response A2-7
The comment asks whether the proposed expansion of the RRTO facility building in 2044 or 2058 will impact the throughput of 420 tons per day for the single-stream MRF processing line as identified in the third column of Table 2 in Appendix A. Table 2 was included in the NOP, which was released prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, to convey how the project would evolve over time to accommodate population growth and associated growth in the waste stream.

Page 2229 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR During preparation of the Draft EIR, the City decided to more precisely define the project as occurring in two distinct phases. As described in Table 2-2 on page 2-7 of the Draft EIR, Phase 1 would include a 200,000-square-foot RRTO building that would be operational by 2028. As identified in Table 2-1 on page 2-6 of the Draft EIR, Phase 1 construction is estimated to accommodate a near-term throughput capacity of 270,000 tons per year. The 200,000- square-foot RRTO building is assumed to include a single-stream MRF processing line that would process the portion of these 270,000 tons that are recyclable.

As identified in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 of the Draft EIR, Phase 2 would include expansion of the RRTO building by 122,000 square feet to accommodate a long-term estimated throughput capacity of 660,000 tons per year. Phase 2 expansion is assumed in the Draft EIR to occur in 2040. The single-stream MRF processing line is assumed to be expanded in Phase 2 in proportion to the increased tonnage of materials received. In response to the comment’s first question, because the single-stream MRF processing line would be sized to meet the recyclable material processing demands associated with each project phase, construction of the project’s second phase would not adversely affect the throughput capacity of the first phase single-stream MRF processing line.

The comment also asks if the RRTO will be capable of processing 420 tons per day when first constructed. The comment is assumed to be referring to the single-stream MRF processing line, as identified in the third column of Table 2 in Appendix A. As discussed above, the 200,000-square-foot RRTO building is assumed to include a singlestream MRF processing line that would be sized sufficiently to process the portion of the 270,000 tons of materials received in Phase 1 that are recyclable. The sizing of the processing line is expected to occur during the facility design phase but as an example, to accommodate the processing of 420 tons per day (assuming a double shift), the singlestream processing line would require an area within the building of approximately 50,000 square feet. As proposed, the 200,000-square-foot RRTO building would have sufficient capacity to accommodate a single-stream MRF processing line that could process 420 tons per day.

The comment states that the Draft EIR should clarify the tonnage thresholds for future expansions. As discussed above and in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIR, Phase 1 is estimated to accommodate a near-term throughput capacity of 270,000 tons per year, and Phase 2 is estimated to accommodate a long-term throughput capacity of 600,000 tons per year. The building sizing and acreages for these throughputs are identified for both phases in Table 2-2 on page 2-7 of the Draft EIR.

Comment A2-8
Solid Waste Regulatory Oversight
The Placer County Environmental Health Department is the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for Placer County and is responsible for providing regulatory oversight of solid waste handling activities, including inspections. Please contact the LEA, Jason Phillippe, at 530.745.2300 to discuss the regulatory requirements for the proposed project.

Response A2-8
The comment states that the Placer County Environmental Health Department is the LEA and requests that the City contact the LEA to discuss the regulatory requirements for the project. Because no specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR are raised in this comment, no further response is required.

Comment A2-9

CONCLUSION
CalRecycle staff thanks the Lead Agency for the opportunity to review and comment on the environmental document and hopes that this comment letter will be useful to the Lead Agency preparing the Final EIR and in carrying out their responsibilities in the CEQA process.

CalRecycle staff requests copies of any subsequent environmental documents, copies of public notices and any Notices of Determination for this proposed project.

Page 2230 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-9 If the environmental document is adopted during a public hearing, CalRecycle staff requests 10 days advance notice of this hearing. If the document is adopted without a public hearing, CalRecycle staff requests 10 days advance notification of the date of the adoption and proposed project approval by the decision making body.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 916.341.6753 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Response A2-9
The comment requests ongoing notification and document distribution with regard to the project. The City will comply with applicable noticing requirements and will include CalRecycle on distribution lists for future environmental documents and notices, as appropriate.

Letter A3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Patrick Moeszinger, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) July 3, 2026
Comment A3-1
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received and reviewed the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Roseville for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines.[1] CDFW previously submitted comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on July 22, 2024.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, native plants, and their habitat. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may need to exercise its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Fish & G.

Code, § 1802.) Similarly for purposes of CEQA, CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

Response A3-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR.

The comment also explains that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) serves as a Trustee Agency and may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The comment states that the project may be subject to CDFW regulatory authority, including Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement requirements and, if applicable, authorization for the take of species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Draft EIR acknowledges the regulatory authority of CDFW (see Section 2.6, “Potential Permits and Approvals Required,” which lists CDFW as a potential permitting agency for a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement) and evaluates the project's potential impacts on biological resources. To the extent project implementation requires approvals, permits,

Page 2231 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR agreements, or authorizations from CDFW, including any Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement or authorization under CESA, the City will obtain such approvals and comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.

Comment A3-2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The Project site is located on Phillip Road on 243 acres of undeveloped land along the northwest boundary of Roseville, in the City of Roseville, Placer County. The Project site includes portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 017-010-033-000, 017-090-054-000, and 017-090-055-000. Although the project site is 243 acres in size, the total development area evaluated in the DEIR is approximately 150 acres positioned within the southern portion of the Project site. The Project footprint also includes approximately 3 miles along Phillip Road, from the Project site east to its terminus at Blue Oaks Boulevard.

The Project consists of the construction and operations of a new Environmental Utilities Operations Center with several components intended to provide modernized facilities to support City residents, businesses, and services. The Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to be constructed and operational by 2028, while Phase 2 may be constructed and operational by 2040.

Phase 1 Project activities include the construction of a Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations Facility, Environmental Utilities Operations Facility Corporation Yard, and Vendor Lease Area on approximately 116 acres of the Project site. Phase 2 Project activities include the construction of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility on approximately 34 acres of the Project site. Import of fill and grading within the 100-year floodplain of Pleasant Grove Creek will take place during Phase 1 Project activities, although a portion of this area is located within the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility that would not be constructed until Phase 2 of the Project.

Additionally, Project construction includes the extension of water, wastewater, data, and electrical infrastructure, as well as road improvements along the alignment of Phillip Road to the western terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard located approximately 3 miles to the east.

Response A3-2
The comment summarizes the project description provided in the Draft EIR but does not address the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required. Responses to specific comments concerning environmental issues are provided below.

Comment A3-3

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Roseville in adequately identifying and, where appropriate, mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

COMMENT 1: Western Burrowing Owl, DEIR Section 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting, page 3.5-11 Issue: Table 3.5-2 incorrectly identifies the status of western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as a state Species of Special Concern. On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission designated western burrowing owl as a CESA candidate species, affording the species the same protection as a CESA listed species, including prohibition of take of individuals.

Additionally, Table 3.5-2 concludes that western burrowing owls are not expected to occur on the Project site because current suitable habitat is limited to earthen berms that are covered by high and dense grass, precluding use by the species.

Based on a review of recent California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) submissions and CDFW project records, approximately eighteen (18) western burrowing owl occurrences have been documented within four (4) miles of the Project site over the past two (2) years. Several of these western burrowing owl observations occur within proximity to the Project site and proposed offsite infrastructure improvements along Phillip Road, within the Amoruso Ranch

Page 2232 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-11 Specific Plan, West Roseville Specific Plan, Curry Creek Community Plan, and Regional University Specific Plan Areas, as well as the Country Acres Clean Power project site.

While the DEIR recognizes dry annual or perennial grasslands, shrublands, and low-growing vegetation with the presence of fossorial mammal burrows as suitable habitat for western burrowing owls, the DEIR fails to acknowledge that western burrowing owl may also occur in agricultural areas, vacant lots, industrial areas, and associated buffers, if there are suitable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity. In addition to fossorial mammal burrows, western burrowing owls may also utilize natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes for both nesting and cover.

Given the abundance of western burrowing owls recently documented in proximity to the Project site, CDFW believes the Project may result in significant impacts to western burrowing owl that were not identified and analyzed in the DEIR. Project Phases 1 and 2 are planned to be constructed over the course of several years, and will convert approximately 150 acres of rice, hay, annual grasslands, and disturbed/developed areas within the Project site to vacant lots, industrial areas, stormwater/detention basins, and landscaped areas and buffers that may provide both suitable foraging and nesting/cover habitat for the species, and may result in owls occupying the Project site during both construction and operation. Many of the recent western burrowing owl observations in the Project vicinity have occurred on active construction sites following the fallowing of rice and initial vegetation clearing and grading activities, and those owls have utilized non-natural features such as culverts, storm drains, debris piles, and staged construction materials for cover/refugia.

Project activities that have the potential to result in take of western burrowing owls, their nests, or eggs during construction and/or operation of the Project include grading, disking, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels, stormwater facility maintenance, and burning/mowing. In addition, the following activities may destroy or degrade western burrowing owl habitat during Project construction and/or operation: eradication of host burrowers; changes in vegetation management; use of pesticides and rodenticides; destruction, conversion or degradation of nesting, foraging, over-wintering or other habitats; destruction of natural burrows and burrow surrogates; and disturbance which may result in harassment of owls at occupied burrows.

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends Table 3.5-2 be updated to reflect the western burrowing owl is currently a candidate species under the CESA.

Response A3-3
The comment states that the Draft EIR incorrectly identifies the western burrowing owl as a California Species of Special Concern rather than a candidate species under CESA. The comment also states that recent western burrowing owl occurrences have been documented near the project site and expresses concern that the project could affect western burrowing owls and their habitat. The comment recommends updating Table 3.5-2 to reflect the species' current CESA candidate status.

Table 3.5-2 has been updated to reflect the current CESA candidate status of western burrowing owl. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes. However, the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR remain valid. Prior to the 2024 field survey of the project site, queries of the CNDDB (including unprocessed data), iNaturalist, and eBird databases were conducted to identify recorded occurrences of western burrowing owl within the Pleasant Grove and surrounding eight US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles. These data sources represent the best data available, and the information from these sources was used to prepare the biological resources analysis in the Draft EIR (see the full list of sources that was used in preparation of the Draft EIR biological analysis on page 3.5-1).

A pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted on April 3, 2024, and adjacent parcels were visually surveyed from accessible public areas using binoculars and a spotting scope. No burrowing owls, occupied burrows, or other evidence of use were observed during the survey on the project site. At the time of the field survey in 2024, the adjacent parcels to the southwest consisted of active rice fields, which do not provide suitable habitat for western burrowing owl.

Page 2233 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR The comment identifies several recent western burrowing owl observations in the vicinity of the project site. As stated in the comment, the occurrences closest to the project site were documented after the rice paddies were graded for new construction projects (SMUD 2022; CNDDB 2026). Similarly, the observations to the northeast of the project site, were recorded in the construction footprint of the Amoruso Ranch during winter 2024. These observations were made during winter, indicating that these are not breeding observations but rather migrating owls wintering in the area. The nearest of these observations, 19 burrowing owls using culverts as cover, was documented in 2025 immediately south of Phillip Road within approximately 340 feet of the project site. That observation indicated that although one pair was observed during the nesting season, the owls left the site by April 2025 and there was no indication of breeding. Construction of the Country Acres Clean Power project is ongoing, and the observations from 2026 are approximately 4,200 feet south of Phillip Road, which is outside of CDFW’s 500-meter (1,640-foot) recommended survey buffer for western burrowing owls. Western burrowing owls this far from the project site would not be adversely affected by project activities.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that western burrowing owls may use a variety of habitat types when suitable burrows, cover features, and foraging habitat are present (see Table 3.5-2 on page 3.5-12). The conclusion in the Draft EIR that western burrowing owl is not expected to occur on the project site was based on site-specific conditions observed during the 2024 field survey, including the absence of suitable nesting burrows, occupied burrows, or evidence of owl use, rather than solely on the general land use designation of the site.

Current conditions at the project site do not provide habitat suitable for western burrowing owl. Existing rice and hay fields are still being farmed and would continue to be farmed until the start of project construction. The portion of the site that would not be developed would remain in rice production. Accordingly, the project site does not currently provide suitable nesting habitat for western burrowing owl, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Nonetheless, the Draft EIR has been revised to acknowledge that the species may occur in the vicinity of the project site, and new Mitigation Measure 3.5-2k has been added that requires the City to conduct preconstruction surveys for western burrowing owl and, if warranted, implement avoidance and minimization measures. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Comment A3-4
CDFW also recommends the DEIR be revised to require burrowing owl surveys to be completed by a qualified biologist in areas of suitable habitat on and within 500 meters of the Project site (if accessible) prior to ground disturbing activities, for each phase of the Project. Surveys should be conducted according to Appendix D of the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Surveys should be conducted during both the breeding (February 1 to August 31) and non-breeding seasons (September 1 to January 31). If feasible, at least one survey should be conducted between February 15 and April 15 and the remaining surveys should be conducted between April 15 and July 15, at least three weeks apart. Additionally, because burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, two surveys should be conducted within 14 days before initiating ground disturbing activities, or after a lapse between Project activities, to ensure that take of burrowing owl does not occur. The final take avoidance survey should be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

If burrowing owls are found during surveys, CDFW recommends the City establish and maintain a buffer around the occupied burrow/refugia and any identified satellite burrows/refugia to prevent take of burrowing owls. During the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) the buffer distance should be a minimum of 50 to 500 meters depending on the level of disturbance. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) the buffer distance should be a minimum of 200 to 500 meters depending on the level of disturbance. During all project activities adjacent to burrowing owl buffers, a qualified biologist should be present to monitor the behavior of the burrowing owls and have the authority to halt Project activities and adjust buffers if owls are disturbed or show signs of agitation. All buffers should remain in place until a qualified biologist confirms, through non-invasive methods, that the burrows/refugia are no longer occupied by burrowing owls.

CDFW also recommends the DEIR should be modified to state that if take of burrowing owl cannot be avoided, then the City should obtain a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and provide suitable mitigation that fully mitigates the Project

Page 2234 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-13 impacts. If burrowing owl is found and proposed to be impacted, early consultation with CDFW is encouraged, as modifications to the proposed Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain an ITP.

Please note that mitigation measures that are adequate to reduce impacts to a less-than significant level to meet CEQA requirements may not be enough for the issuance of an ITP. To facilitate the issuance of an ITP, CDFW recommends the DEIR include details pertaining to the permanent protection and perpetual management of compensatory habitat necessary to fully mitigate project-related impacts, both permanent and temporary. The type and amount of mitigation should be based on factors including an assessment of the importance of that habitat in the Project site, the extent to which covered activities will impact the habitat, and the estimate of the acreage required to provide for adequate compensation in coordination with CDFW.

Response A3-4
The comment recommends additional mitigation measures for western burrowing owl, including preconstruction surveys for each project phase, establishment of seasonal avoidance buffers around occupied burrows, biological monitoring during nearby construction activities, consultation with CDFW, and obtaining a CESA Incidental Take Permit and compensatory mitigation if take cannot be avoided.

As described in response to comment A3-3, the Draft EIR has been revised to acknowledge that western burrowing owl may occur in the vicinity of the project site, and a new mitigation measure has been added to require the City to conduct preconstruction surveys for western burrowing owl and, if warranted, implement avoidance and minimization measures. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

The project is not anticipated to result in the “take” of any state-listed species. Therefore, the project is not expected to require issuance of an ITP. If an ITP is determined to be necessary prior to project construction, the City would work closely with CDFW to provide all of the information necessary for ITP issuance. Further, new Mitigation Measure

3.5-2k (in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR) includes a requirement that if implementation of a buffer to prevent take of burrowing owl is not feasible, the City shall consult with CDFW and obtain an ITP prior to commencing project related ground-disturbing activities.

Comment A3-5
COMMENT 2: Placer County Conservation Program, DEIR Section 3.5.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, page 3.5-22
Issue: The DEIR states that the Project site is not within the Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP) plan area and the City is not a participant in the PCCP, therefore, the issue is not discussed further in the DEIR.

The Project site is located immediately adjacent to the PCCP Reserve Acquisition Area (RAA) and is bordered on both the north and west by two PCCP reserve system properties, the Clemetson property to the west, and the Mourier West property across Pleasant Grove Creek to the north. Together with the Reason Farms Environmental Preserve, Al Johnson Wildlife Area, PCCP Mourier East preserve, Toad Hill Ranch Mitigation Bank, and other conserved lands, these properties form an approximately 4,116-acre block of conservation lands designed to link the Pleasant Grove Creek corridor with existing and future PCCP reserve lands that provide habitat for the PCCP’s covered species.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) states that EIRs must discuss any inconsistencies between projects and applicable plans (including habitat conservation plans/natural community conservation plans). The DEIR incorrectly characterizes the neighboring PCCP reserve land as “agricultural land” (DEIR pg. 3.5-6). and as a result, fails to disclose or analyze potential direct and indirect effects to the biological resources associated with those PCCP reserve lands. Although the City is not a participant in the PCCP, CEQA requires that EIRs analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable physical effects on the sensitive biological resources of the adjacent reserve (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, subd. (a), 15358, subd. (a)(2)).

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: Because the Project site is bordered by the PCCP RAA and existing reserve lands, CDFW recommends that the DEIR be revised to include a discussion of each Project alternative’s consistency with the PCCP and how the City will ensure that implementation of the Project alternatives do not impede the PCCP’s ability to meet its permit conditions and biological goals and objectives. Particular focus in the DEIR’s analysis should be directed to:

Page 2235 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR ▶ Analysis of potential impacts to all PCCP Covered Species. ▶ Assessment of project impacts to natural communities and constituent habitat types identified in the PCCP. ▶ Identification of applicable PCCP avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. ▶ Discussion of any inconsistencies between the Project and the PCCP.

Response A3-5
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately address the project’s proximity to lands protected under the Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP). The comment states that the project site is adjacent to PCCP reserve lands and recommends that the EIR evaluate consistency with the PCCP, analyze potential impacts to PCCPcovered species and habitats, identify applicable avoidance and mitigation measures, and discuss any inconsistencies between the project and the PCCP. As stated in the Draft EIR, the project site is not located within the PCCP plan area, and the City is not a participant in the PCCP. Accordingly, the project is not subject to the PCCP’s permit requirements, conservation strategy, or mitigation framework.

Nevertheless, the Draft EIR evaluates the project’s direct and indirect impacts on biological resources consistent with CEQA, including special-status species, sensitive habitats, wildlife movement, and adjacent biological resources. Section

3.5, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR considers the existing environmental setting surrounding the project site, including nearby open space, waterways, and habitat areas and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts where appropriate. The significance determinations are based on the project’s potential physical effects on biological resources, regardless of ownership or conservation status of adjacent lands. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the analysis of Impact 3.5-4 and Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b have been revised to further evaluate and address the potential for indirect impacts on off-site wetlands resulting from project implementation. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.5-5 has been expanded to also apply to the nearby reserve properties to minimize lighting impacts. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

The City identified the project site as early as 2003 for City use. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR, the City purchased the project site (and the larger Reason Farms area) in 2003. Since the purchase, the project site has been intended for future City use, and uses not limited to a wildlife area. 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). As a public facility, the project would be consistent with the P/QP land use designation and PD zoning district.

The City acknowledges that portions of the lands adjacent to the project site were added to the PCCP reserve system after the City issued the NOP and conducted its biological fieldwork, and provide habitat values that contribute to the PCCP conservation network. Figure 2-1 in this Final EIR shows the project site in relation to the surrounding PCCP reserve system mapped in 2026.

City staff met with PCA staff in July 2026 to discuss PCA’s concerns regarding the project and the potential for conflicts with the adjacent reserve properties. PCA staff indicated that their concerns were associated with the potential for conflicts along the shared property lines associated with trash, public access, and the possible presence of domesticated animals, namely cats. City staff indicated that the project site adjacent to the reserve properties would not be accessible to the public and that there would be no housing associated with the project; thus, there would not be any pets at the project site. City staff also indicated that the City is willing to work with PCA on edge treatments to minimize the potential for conflicts that could affect the reserve properties, including the use of buffers, walls or fencing, and design changes to the orientation of the site to place uses less likely to cause impacts along the edges of the project site. Because the project design has not been completed yet, EU staff agreed to work with PCA staff in the future and share information on design to reduce the potential for impacts.

Page 2236 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-15 Source: Data downloaded from Placer Conservation Authority in 2026; adapted by Ascent in 2026.

Figure 2-1 Project Site and Surrounding Conservation Land

Page 2237 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Field observations conducted during the April 2024 biological survey of the project site indicated that portions of the western adjacent property were being actively grazed and exhibited characteristics consistent with grazed grassland conditions at the time of the survey. During the April 2024 survey, off-site areas were viewed through binoculars by a qualified biologist. Although the biologist observed low areas north of the project site, the areas were dry and lacked vegetation, and no potential regulated wetlands were observed. However, information subsequently provided by PCA in July 2026 indicates that wetlands do likely occur on adjacent lands that are now designated as PCCP reserve properties (Figure 2-2 in this Final EIR shows the potential wetlands on the Clemetson property, to the west of the project site, as provided by PCA). Regardless of the land use designation or conservation status of adjacent properties, the Draft EIR biological resources analysis evaluated the potential for project-related direct and indirect effects on adjacent habitats, special-status species (including PCCP Covered Species), sensitive natural communities, and wildlife movement corridors. Accordingly, the impact analysis was not dependent upon whether adjacent lands were characterized as agricultural land, open space, or existing or future PCCP reserve lands.

While the City acknowledges the project’s proximity to PCCP reserve properties, proximity to PCCP lands does not, by itself, require a separate consistency analysis under CEQA. The Draft EIR provides an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources that may occur on or adjacent to the project site. The Draft EIR does not identify substantial evidence that the project would impede implementation of the PCCP, interfere with reserve management objectives, or preclude achievement of the PCCP’s biological goals and objectives. Therefore, the biological resources analysis and conclusions remain unchanged. As discussed above, revisions have been made to the analysis of Impact 3.5-4 and Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b to further address potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-5 to further address potential edge effects on adjacent reserve properties; however, these revisions do not alter the significance determinations or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Also, see responses to comment letter A8 from the Placer Conservation Authority (PCA) regarding the PCCP and adjacent reserve lands.

Comment A3-6
To identify any potential inconsistencies with the PCCP and provide special emphasis on rare or unique resources in compliance with CEQA, CDFW recommends the EIR also address the following:
▶ Impacts to established or future reserve lands managed under the Placer Conservation Authority (PCA). ▶ Reduction of available reserve lands in the PCCP (with appropriate buffers and setbacks as detailed in the PCCP). ▶ Impacts to PCCP conservation zones and key habitat linkages.

Response A3-6
The comment recommends that the EIR evaluate potential effects on the PCCP reserve system, including impacts to existing and future reserve lands, reductions in available reserve lands, and impacts to PCCP conservation zones and habitat linkages. As discussed in the Draft EIR and in response to comment A3-5, the project site is not located within the PCCP plan area and is not subject to PCCP’s permit requirements, conservation strategy, or mitigation framework.

The Draft EIR evaluates the project’s potential direct and indirect impacts on biological resources consistent with CEQA and considers the project’s relationship to adjacent habitat areas and other biological resources. The City has concluded that the biological resources analysis adequately addresses the types of impacts identified by the comment and the comment does not provide substantial evidence that the project would result in significant effects to PCCP reserve lands, conservation zones, or habitat linkages beyond those analyzed in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.

Also, see responses to comment letter A8 from PCA regarding the PCCP and adjacent reserve lands.

Page 2238 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-17 Source: Data provided by Placer Conservation Authority in 2026; adapted by Ascent in 2026.

Figure 2-2 Potential Wetlands on the Clemetson Property (West of the Project Site) Comment A3-7
Although the Project is not subject to the requirements of the PCCP, because the Project site borders the PCCP RAA, CDFW recommends the City incorporate the PCCP’s Development Interface Design Requirements (PCCP Section

6.3.1.2) into the Project final design. The development interface design elements contained in the PCCP were developed to minimize the indirect effects of infrastructure and urban development projects adjacent to PCCP reserve lands, mitigation and conservation banks, and any other property protected for natural lands management.

Response A3-7
The comment recommends that, although the project is not subject to the PCCP, the City incorporate the PCCP's Development Interface Design Requirements into the project design to minimize indirect effects on adjacent PCCP reserve lands and other protected natural resource areas. As discussed in responses to comments A3-5 and A3-6, the project is not located within the PCCP plan area and is not subject to PCCP’s permit requirements, conservation strategy, or mitigation framework. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR evaluates the project’s potential direct and indirect impacts on adjacent biological resources and identifies avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as appropriate, to reduce biological impacts.

The City recognizes that the PCCP’s Development Interface Design Requirements were developed to address potential edge effects associated with development adjacent to conservation lands. These include design measures to minimize runoff, hydrologic changes, invasive species, unauthorized access, wildlife disturbance, and other indirect or long-term effects. Required measures may include educational signage, appropriate fencing and barriers, limited access points, minimized shared boundaries, wildlife-compatible road fencing, shielded low-intensity lighting, setbacks for brightly lit facilities, and non-invasive or native landscaping. These measures must remain within the development footprint, be maintained by property owners, and be enforced through project conditions, inspections, code enforcement, securities, or entitlement modifications, with additional site-specific protections applied as needed. The Draft EIR evaluated the project’s potential indirect impacts on adjacent biological resources, including special-status species, sensitive habitats, and wildlife movement. In addition, the project consists of a managed solid

Page 2239 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR waste and resource recovery facility and does not include residential development or other land uses commonly associated with many of the edge effects addressed by the PCCP interface standards.

The Draft EIR already includes measures intended to reduce indirect effects on adjacent biological resources, including, but not limited to, implementation of wildlife-friendly building design (Mitigation Measure 3.5-5, as revised in this Final EIR); limitations on outdoor lighting and light spillover (Mitigation Measures 3.1-2 and 3.5-5); avoidance and minimization measures for special-status species and nesting birds (Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2a through 3.5-2j); and other mitigation measures designed to protect adjacent environmental resources (Mitigation Measures 3.5-3, 3.5-4a, 3.5-4b, and 3.5-6). Therefore, the project has been designed and mitigated consistent with the PCCP’s Development Interface Design Requirements. The Draft EIR analysis concludes that implementation of these measures would avoid or minimize indirect impacts to adjacent biological resources. Further, the Draft EIR does not identify substantial evidence that the project would interfere with management of adjacent PCCP reserve lands, substantially degrade habitats within those lands, or impede implementation of the PCCP’s conservation objectives.

While the City acknowledges that the project is not a covered activity under the PCCP and is therefore not required to comply with the PCCP’s Development Interface Design Requirements, the City has decided to incorporate applicable Development Interface Design Requirements identified in PCCP Section 6.3.1.2.1 into the final project design as a voluntary measure to further minimize potential indirect effects on adjacent reserve lands (this portion of the PCCP is appended to this Final EIR as Appendix A). These measures will supplement the mitigation measures already identified in the Draft EIR and will help reduce the potential for edge effects such as wildlife disturbance, lighting impacts, unauthorized access, invasive species introduction, and other indirect effects on adjacent biological resources. With incorporation of these design measures and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR (as revised in the Final EIR), the project’s potential indirect impacts on adjacent biological resources would be avoided or minimized. Accordingly, the biological resources analysis and conclusions presented in the Draft EIR remain unchanged.

Also, see responses to comment letter A8 from PCA regarding the PCCP and adjacent reserve lands.

Comment A3-8

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected].

Response A3-8
The comment requests that any special-status species or sensitive natural communities identified during Project surveys be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) in accordance with CEQA and CDFW guidance. To the extent special-status species or sensitive natural communities are documented during project surveys and such reporting is warranted, survey information will be submitted to the CNDDB consistent with applicable CDFW guidance and reporting procedures.

Comment A3-9

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary.

Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

Page 2240 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-19 Response A3-9
The comment states that the project would have impacts on fish and wildlife resources and advises that payment of the applicable CDFW filing fee is required upon filing the Notice of Determination. The City will comply with all applicable CEQA filing requirements, including payment of the CDFW filing fee, as required at the time the Notice of Determination is filed.

Comment A3-10

CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092 and § 21092.2, CDFW requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the proposed Project. Written notifications shall be directed to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 or emailed to [email protected].

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize and/or mitigate impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to myself.

Response A3-10
The comment requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092.2. The City will provide notices as required by applicable provisions of CEQA and will continue to coordinate with CDFW, as appropriate, during project review and implementation.

Letter A4 Placer County
Daniel Chatigny, County Executive Officer
June 22, 2026
Comment A4-1
Placer County appreciates the opportunity to engage at this stage of the process. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the County offers the following comments.

TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION

1. The proposed Project is in the vicinity of the approved alignment of the Placer Parkway plan line. As requested in comments following our review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the EIR should include an exhibit of the approved plan line for Placer Parkway in relation to the proposed Project. The EIR should also include a discussion of Placer Parkway and identify any impacts that the Project may have on/to the approved Placer Parkway plan line as well as the increased traffic volumes expected on the roadway from this project. The cumulative scenario should include traffic operations analysis of intersections along the Placer Parkway corridor and identify improvements, if needed.

Response A4-1
The comment requests that the EIR include an exhibit showing the approved Placer Parkway plan line in relation to the proposed project and discuss potential effects on the approved alignment. The comment also requests analysis of project-related traffic volumes on Placer Parkway and cumulative traffic operations at intersections along the Placer Parkway corridor, including identification of any needed improvements.

Impacts related to traffic facility operations and level of service (LOS) were removed as a required topic of analysis under CEQA by SB 743 (passed by the California Legislature in 2013 and implemented statewide in 2020). Therefore, the operations-related questions raised by the comment are outside the scope of CEQA. However, the following discussion is provided for informational purposes. The approved Placer Parkway alignment is shown in Figure 2-3 in this Final EIR, in relation to the proposed project. The project site is located on the north side of Phillip Road, and the Placer Parkway planned corridor alignment is 300+ feet south of Phillip Road. Due to this distance, there would be no conflicts.

Page 2241 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Placer Parkway is envisioned as a limited access, free flowing facility with a capacity of 70,000+ average daily traffic (ADT) in the initial 4-lane configuration and over 100,000 ADT in the ultimate 6-lane configuration, the proposed project trips would represent a negligible impact to Placer Parkway. The project site is located 2 miles from the nearest planned Placer Parkway interchange at the vicinity of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Santucci Boulevard, and 4.5 miles from the next interchange beyond that. The exact location, configuration, and connection(s) to Blue Oaks Boulevard and Santucci Boulevard are uncertain at this time and are unable to be analyzed. The traffic analysis estimates 399 peak hour trips in the 2040 cumulative scenario, 30 percent of which are estimated to access Placer Parkway at the future Blue Oaks Boulevard/Santucci Boulevard interchange. This equates to 120 vehicles/hour during the peak traffic period, which would be negligible in relation to typical 4-6 lane highway volumes and 6-lane intersection volumes.

Because the project is projected to contribute approximately 120 vehicles/hour to the future Blue Oaks Boulevard/Santucci Boulevard interchange during peak traffic periods, representing a very small percentage of future Placer Parkway peak traffic volumes, the project would not result in a measurable effect on operations at future Placer Parkway corridor intersections. Therefore, no project-specific improvements to the future Placer Parkway corridor are warranted.

Comment A4-2

2. As requested in comments following review of the NOP, the EIR needs to consider all potential impacts to County Roadways, due to the location of the Project at the City/County boundary. Along with the traffic impact analysis and mitigation related to operation of the site for multiple City division offices, the EIR should include those associated with solid waste collection vehicles needing to bring all Resource, Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) material to and from the site for final disposal or processing elsewhere.

Specifically, discussion and analysis should consider traffic impacts due to:
a. Transport of residual waste from the RRTO to a final destination for landfilling. b. Transportation of waste to and from the RRTO from jurisdictions outside of the City of Roseville. c. Transport of organic waste from the RRTO for composting elsewhere. d. Transport of recovered materials from the RRTO to markets.

The EIR should consider the impacts on the local County roadways as their existing conditions are not equipped to handle any significant increase in vehicle traffic.

Response A4-2
The comment requests that the EIR evaluate potential traffic impacts on County roadways associated with project operations, including vehicle trips generated by City offices and RRTO activities. The comment specifically requests analysis of traffic related to the transport of residual waste, organic waste, recovered materials, and waste from jurisdictions outside the City, and consideration of whether local County roadways can accommodate the resulting increase in traffic.

Page 2242 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-21 Source: South Placer Regional Transportation Authority et al. 2009 (Figure 1); adapted by Ascent in 2026.

Figure 2-3 Placer Parkway Alignment Near the Project Site

Page 2243 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-22 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Impacts related to traffic facility operations and level of LOS were removed as a required topic of analysis under CEQA by SB 743 (passed by the California Legislature in 2013 and implemented statewide in 2020). Therefore, the operations-related questions raised by the comment are outside the scope of CEQA. However, the following discussion is provided for informational purposes. As described in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, project trip generation estimates include both employee vehicle trips and truck trips associated with project operation. The transportation analysis includes approximately 586 daily truck trips associated with project operation (see Table 3.16-2 in the Draft EIR). Truck trips evaluated in the Draft EIR include the transport of residual waste from the RRTO to landfill disposal facilities, transport of recyclable and recovered materials to off-site processing facilities and end markets, transport of organic materials to composting or other processing facilities, and inbound and outbound material movement associated with operation of the facility. These activities represent the operational function of the transfer facility and are reflected in the project traffic estimates. Accordingly, the transportation analysis includes the categories of vehicle trips identified in the comment (see items 2[a] through 2[d]), including residual waste hauling, transfer of waste from jurisdictions served by the facility, movement of organic materials for processing, and shipment of recovered materials to end-use markets. This operational truck traffic is reflected in the project’s approximately 586 daily truck trips evaluated in the transportation analysis.

The Draft EIR evaluates project-generated traffic on the surrounding transportation network serving the project, including local and regional roadways that provide access to and from the site. The project site is located within the City and adjacent to the City and unincorporated Placer County boundary; the transportation analysis considers project-related travel on surrounding roadway facilities regardless of jurisdictional ownership. The analysis concludes that the project’s primary transportation impact would be an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA even after implementation of Mitigation Measures

3.16-2a and 3.16-2b. No additional significant impacts related to transportation were identified.

The County's concern regarding the ability of nearby roadways to accommodate project-related truck traffic is acknowledged. The Draft EIR analysis evaluates truck traffic associated with operation of the proposed RRTO facility and incorporates those trips into the project’s transportation forecasts. While project-generated traffic may utilize County roadways in the vicinity of the project site, roadway maintenance, rehabilitation, and repair of existing facilities are generally the responsibility of the agency with jurisdiction over the roadway and are not typically required as mitigation for development projects unless a project would cause a significant transportation impact necessitating such improvements. Existing roadway maintenance or repair needs are existing conditions and are not attributable to project-generated traffic. Consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR evaluates whether the project would result in a significant impact to the transportation system through conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) related to VMT; increased hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; and inadequate emergency access. As discussed in Section

3.16, project-related truck traffic was included in the transportation analysis, and the Draft EIR does not identify significant impacts requiring mitigation beyond those disclosed in the EIR.

Comment A4-3
According to the traffic analysis, the project traffic would increase traffic by approximately 50% on South Brewer Road. Roadways like Phillip Road and South Brewer Road are frequently flooded during winter storms, have narrow lanes, poor pavement condition, minimal signage/striping, no shoulders, no lighting, and narrow bridges. These roadways are not suitable for regular use by heavy vehicles and increased passenger cars from employee trips without significant improvements. Intersection geometry needs to be looked at as well to ensure these large vehicles can safely make all necessary turning movements. Intersections such as Baseline Road/South Brewer Road need to be analyzed for additional turn lanes for project traffic to maintain safety.

Response A4-3
The comment states that project traffic is expected to substantially increase traffic volumes on South Brewer Road and expresses concern regarding roadway suitability. The comment requests analysis of roadway and intersection

Page 2244 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-23 improvements needed to accommodate heavy vehicles and employee traffic, including evaluation of turning movements and potential turn-lane improvements at intersections such as Baseline Road and South Brewer Road.

The traffic analysis estimates 59 PM peak hour truck trips and 340 peak hour passenger vehicle trips in the 2040 cumulative scenario with approximately 10 percent of all vehicle trips using Baseline Road via South Brewer Road.

This equates to approximately 1 passenger vehicle every two minutes and 1 truck every 10 minutes during the PM peak hour. Given these relatively low traffic volumes, project traffic would not substantially alter roadway operations on South Brewer Road.

The County’s stated concerns regarding roadway width, pavement condition, flooding, signage, striping, shoulders, lighting, and bridge geometry were considered. These roadway characteristics are existing conditions. The project would not modify these facilities or introduce traffic volumes sufficient to create a significant transportation safety or operational impact. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated project access and site circulation, including accommodation of anticipated truck traffic. Based on the number of project trucks expected to utilize South Brewer Road, additional turn lanes or intersection modifications at Baseline Road/South Brewer Road are not warranted by project traffic and no significant impact was identified.

Comment A4-4

3. The County’s NOP comments requested that the transportation study prepared for the project identify any impacts or effects to the County roadways and intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis included with the EIR did not include any analysis for any county intersections or roadways. Additional analysis is required at a minimum for the following intersections: Phillip Road and South Brewer Road, South Brewer Road and Baseline Road, Baseline Road and Locust Road, Baseline Road and Pleasant Grove Road, and all Placer Parkway intersections under cumulative conditions. Traffic signal warrants should also be included for unsignalized County intersections. Include an updated trip distribution exhibit to include the unincorporated county area near the project site. The County had requested to be involved in the scope of work process for this effort with our comments on the NOP.

Response A4-4
The comment states that the Traffic Impact Analysis does not evaluate impacts on County roadways and intersections and requests additional analysis of specified County intersections, including cumulative traffic conditions along the Placer Parkway corridor. The comment also requests evaluation of traffic signal warrants at unsignalized County intersections, an updated trip distribution exhibit that includes nearby unincorporated County areas, and County involvement in the transportation analysis process.

Impacts related to traffic facility operations and LOS were removed as a required topic of analysis under CEQA by SB 743 (passed by the California Legislature in 2013 and implemented statewide in 2020). Therefore, the operationsrelated questions raised by the comment are outside the scope of CEQA. However, the following discussion is provided for informational purposes. The traffic study estimates that approximately 10 percent of project vehicles would enter or exit the project site from the west via County roadways. As described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix E of the Draft EIR), approximately 10 percent of project trips are anticipated to use South Brewer Road and Baseline Road to access destinations west of the project site, while the majority of project traffic would travel east toward the City roadway network and regional facilities. This equates to approximately 40 vehicles in the PM peak hour in the 2040 cumulative scenario. Accordingly, the project’s contribution to traffic along County roadways would be limited.

While it may be reasonable to analyze the nearest County intersections, such as Phillip Road/South Brewer Road and South Brewer Road/Baseline Road, the project’s contribution to more distant intersections, including Baseline Road/Locust Road and Baseline Road/Pleasant Grove Road, would be minimal and would not be expected to substantially affect intersection operations. Accordingly, additional analysis of those intersections is not warranted given the limited project traffic anticipated to reach those locations. Similarly, the project’s contribution of approximately 40 PM peak-hour trips is not sufficient to warrant project-specific traffic signal warrant studies at the identified unsignalized County intersections. The project would not be expected to substantially influence whether signal warrants are met at these locations.

Page 2245 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-24 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR The County also requested an updated trip distribution exhibit to include the unincorporated County area near the project site. The traffic analysis includes project trip distribution assumptions that account for travel to and from the adjacent unincorporated County area west of the project site. The existing trip distribution figures (see Figures 7 and 8 in Appendix E to the Draft EIR) already depict travel entering and exiting the project area through the adjacent roadway network. Although Figures 7 and 8 do not depict the full County roadway network west of the project site, the trip distribution assumptions used in the traffic analysis account for travel to and from the unincorporated County area. The figures were intended to illustrate the general distribution of project trips and are not the basis for the VMT calculations or impact conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

The County’s request to participate in development of the transportation analysis scope of work is acknowledged. The City considered transportation-related comments received during the NOP review process in preparing the Draft EIR and has further addressed the County's transportation comments through the responses provided in this Final EIR.

The County’s comments regarding analysis of impacts to Placer Parkway are addressed in response to comment A4-1.

Comment A4-5

4. Based on the EIR and the size of the RRTO, it is expected that the site will receive waste from jurisdictions outside of the city limits. Clearly identify where waste is expected to be collected from and transported to the Project facility. The increased traffic volumes on roadways outside of the city limits need to be analyzed in the EIR as well as considered in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The County roadways in the rural western portion of the County are not in a condition to handle any significant increase in traffic, especially the heavy vehicle trips that would be expected.

Response A4-5
The comment requests that the EIR identify the jurisdictions from which waste is expected to be collected and transported to the RRTO facility and evaluate the associated transportation routes. The comment also requests analysis of increased traffic volumes, including heavy vehicle trips, on roadways outside the city limits and their effects on County roadways.

The proposed RRTO facility is intended to provide resource recovery and transfer operations for materials managed by the City. The specific jurisdictions and service areas that may utilize the facility over time would depend on future service agreements and operational needs; however, the transportation analysis conservatively evaluates the truck and passenger vehicle trips associated with operation of the facility at full capacity irrespective of the ultimate origin or destination of individual waste streams. As discussed in response to comment A4-2 and Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, project trip generation estimates include truck traffic associated with receipt, transfer, processing, and shipment of materials handled at the RRTO, including residual waste destined for disposal facilities, recyclable materials sent to processors and end markets, organic materials transported for processing, and inbound and outbound material movement associated with facility operations.

As described in Section 3.16 and response to comment A4-4, the Draft EIR transportation analysis evaluates projectgenerated vehicle and truck trips on the roadway system expected to serve the project. The analysis incorporates the estimated heavy-duty truck trips associated with project operations and evaluates whether those trips would result in substantial transportation-related impacts. As discussed in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” the Draft EIR evaluates transportation impacts using the significance criteria identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and Appendix G. Consistent with current CEQA requirements, the transportation analysis focuses on VMT, consistency with plans, policies, and ordinances addressing the circulation system, transportation hazards, and emergency access.

The Draft EIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact and less-thansignificant impacts related to the remaining CEQA transportation issue areas. Operational traffic analyses addressing roadway and intersection performance were prepared as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Appendix E for informational and planning purposes.

The County’s concern regarding the condition of rural roadways west of the project site is acknowledged. Existing roadway maintenance, rehabilitation, and repair needs are existing conditions and are generally the responsibility of the agency with jurisdiction over the roadway. As discussed in response to comment A4-2, CEQA requires evaluation

Page 2246 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-25 of impacts caused by the project. The Draft EIR evaluates whether the project would result in a significant impact to the transportation system through conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) related to VMT; increased hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; and inadequate emergency access. The Draft EIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact and less-than-significant impacts related to consistency with circulation plans and policies, transportation hazards, and emergency access.

The comment raises a concern that project-related truck traffic could adversely affect rural County roadways west of the project site due to existing roadway conditions and the addition of heavy vehicles. Appendix E includes estimates of project-generated truck traffic and trip distribution assumptions. As described in the Traffic Impact Analysis, approximately 10 percent of project traffic is anticipated to travel west of the project site via South Brewer Road and Baseline Road, while the majority of project traffic would travel east through the City roadway network. To the extent certain County roadways may currently require maintenance, rehabilitation, or repair, those conditions are existing baseline conditions.

CEQA requires evaluation of physical environmental effects caused by the project. The Draft EIR evaluates the transportation impacts required under CEQA, including VMT, consistency with circulation plans and policies, transportation hazards, and emergency access. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Comment A4-6

5. South Brewer Road and a portion of Phillip Road west of the project site are County Maintained roadways. As requested previously in the NOP comments, the EIR should clearly identify if construction traffic will use these County roadways, along with any County roadways north of the site. If construction traffic has the potential to use these roadways, then impacts to the existing roadway surface may occur. A discussion of the existing surface condition of South Brewer Road and the County portion of Phillip Road and any Project impacts to the roadway surface should be included in the EIR. A mitigation measure should be included to provide a video/photo survey of the existing surface and a cash security deposit to the County for any necessary repairs and/or restoration of the roadways to their original pre-project condition. Prior to occupancy and use of the site, roadway surfacing should be repaired and/or restored prior to release of any security.

Response A4-6
The comment requests that the EIR identify whether construction traffic would use County-maintained roadways, including South Brewer Road and the County-maintained portion of Phillip Road, and evaluate potential impacts to roadway surfaces from construction-related traffic. The comment also requests documentation of existing roadway conditions and measures to ensure repair or restoration of any roadway damage resulting from project construction.

Construction access routes have not been finalized and may include use of Phillip Road, Blue Oaks Boulevard, and other roadways serving the project area. As discussed in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, project construction would result in temporary truck and equipment trips associated with site grading, utility installation, roadway improvements, and building construction. Construction traffic would be required to comply with all applicable City, County, and State requirements governing the transport of equipment and materials, including vehicle weight limitations, load securement requirements, designated haul routes where applicable, and any encroachment permit conditions imposed by the agency with jurisdiction over affected roadways. These requirements are intended to ensure that construction vehicles operate within established roadway design and safety parameters and to address any roadway protection measures deemed necessary by the responsible agency.

The County's concern that construction traffic could contribute to deterioration of South Brewer Road, the Countymaintained portion of Phillip Road, or other County roadways is acknowledged. Project construction would generate temporary truck trips associated with delivery of materials, export or import of earth materials (if necessary), and operation of construction equipment. However, these activities would occur over a limited construction period and would not introduce a long-term or ongoing source of heavy vehicle traffic.. To the extent that roadway condition

Page 2247 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-26 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR concerns exist on South Brewer Road, Phillip Road, or other County roadways, such conditions represent existing baseline conditions.

As discussed in response to comment A4-5 and Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” the Draft EIR evaluates transportation impacts using the significance criteria identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and Appendix G.

Consistent with current CEQA requirements, the transportation analysis focuses on VMT, consistency with plans, policies, and ordinances addressing the circulation system, transportation hazards, and emergency access. The Draft EIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact and less-than-significant impacts related to the remaining CEQA transportation issue areas.

The comment requests a pre-construction video or photographic survey, security deposit, and restoration of any project-related roadway damage. Such requirements, if determined necessary by the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadway, are typically addressed through encroachment permit conditions, improvement agreements, roaduse agreements, or other project permitting mechanisms that govern construction activities in the public right-ofway. Because the Draft EIR does not identify a significant transportation impact related to roadway surface conditions requiring mitigation under CEQA, the requested measures are not required as CEQA mitigation measures.

Accordingly, the requested measures are not necessary to mitigate a significant impact under CEQA, although the County may impose roadway protection, documentation, repair, or restoration requirements through its separate permitting and approval processes, as appropriate.

Comment A4-7

6. Based on the proposed project and the potential impacts identified above, any project improvements extending to the west along Phillip Road including pavement transitions between the City and County jurisdiction and any improvements necessary along any other County maintained roadway including South Brewer Road would be within the County’s jurisdiction. Improvements within the County’s jurisdiction should be described in the EIR or described as to why no improvements are necessary based on the project’s impacts to County roadways.

Improvements with the County’s jurisdiction would require the developer to obtain an Encroachment Permit and/or Improvement Plan approval from Placer County. These permits should be noted in the EIR sections identifying potential permits and approvals.

Response A4-7
The comment requests that the EIR describe any project-related improvements within County jurisdiction, including improvements along Phillip Road and South Brewer Road, or explain why such improvements are not necessary based on project impacts to County roadways. The comment also requests that the EIR identify required County permits and approvals, including encroachment permits and improvement plan approvals, for any improvements within County-maintained roadways.

As discussed in responses to comments A4-2 through A4-6, the Draft EIR evaluates project-generated construction and operational traffic on the surrounding transportation network. The transportation analysis includes truck and passenger vehicle trips associated with project operation and evaluates potential transportation impacts in accordance with CEQA. Based on that analysis, the Draft EIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT, but does not identify significant operational impacts to County roadways requiring roadway widening, intersection improvements, traffic signals, or other transportation improvements within County jurisdiction.

Improvements associated with the project are currently limited to those described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” and Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR. The project includes improvements to Phillip Road adjacent to the project site and eastward toward the City roadway network. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR, the project includes improvements to Phillip Road to provide access to the site (see page 2-25). To the extent any portion of those improvements would occur within or affect County-maintained rightof-way, such work would be subject to County review and approval. The Draft EIR does not identify the need for other off-site transportation improvements on South Brewer Road or other County-maintained roadways as mitigation for a significant transportation impact under CEQA.

Page 2248 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-27 The comment correctly notes that any future work proposed within County rights-of-way or on County-maintained facilities would be subject to County review and approval. To the extent project improvements, utility work, construction access, or other activities occur within Placer County jurisdiction, the City would be required to obtain all applicable permits and approvals from Placer County, which may include encroachment permits, improvement plan review and approval, or other permits as determined appropriate by the County. Accordingly, the Project Description in the Final EIR has been revised to clarify that implementation of project improvements affecting County-maintained facilities may require County-issued permits and approvals. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Comment A4-8

1. The DEIR does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

The range of alternatives considered is narrow and does not evaluate scenarios that achieve the core project objectives while substantially lessening significant environmental impacts. The DEIR fails to isolate significant impacts and did not provide an adequate evaluation of feasible project alternatives as required by the CEQA guidelines.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) finds that the proposed project will result in multiple significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a lead agency must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that can attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant impacts.

The current range of alternatives evaluated in the DEIR does not reasonably represent feasible, reduced-intensity configurations or adequately disclose to the public that most stated objectives are already met at an existing, nearby facility. Specifically, the DEIR fails to present a pathway to accomplish the primary, currently unmet municipal objectives without redundant components tied to irreversible environmental degradation.

A review of the DEIR’s impact analysis reveals that the majority of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts are directly caused by two specific project components:
a. The Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO); b. The future Organic Waste Processing Facility (OWPF).

Crucially, the existing Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) facility and the current City waste collection programs meet regional and local solid waste management objectives and are poised to meet state regulations. Because existing infrastructure achieves these goals, the environmental impacts associated with the development of the RRTO, OWPF and associated Vendor Lease Area are avoidable as these can reasonably be considered unnecessary to fulfill the City's solid waste requirements. Therefore, to comply with the CEQA "rule of reason," the DEIR must expand its alternatives analysis to include a Corporation Yard-Only alternative (ReducedScope Alternative). Based on the information provided in the DEIR, the County believes this alternative would isolate, reduce and/or eliminate the source of the project's substantial environmental impacts while still addressing municipal needs and objectives not already met.

Response A4-8
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives because it does not evaluate a reduced-scope “Corporation Yard-Only" alternative. The comment also states that most significant and unavoidable impacts are associated with the RRTO and Potential Future Organics Processing Facility components and states that existing regional waste management facilities “are poised to” meet solid waste management needs, making those components unnecessary. The comment requests that the Draft EIR evaluate a reduced-scope alternative that excludes the RRTO, Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, and related facilities.

The Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, including the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), the Reduced Development Area Alternative (Alternative 2), and the No Onsite Compost or Biomass Operations Alternative (Alternative 3). These alternatives were selected because they are capable of attaining most of the project objectives while avoiding or reducing environmental impacts and provide

Page 2249 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-28 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR meaningful comparison points to the proposed project. Because the No Project Alternative assumes continued operation of the existing Corporation Yard and use of existing waste processing facilities, it captures the fundamental premise of a Corporation Yard-Only alternative. Evaluating a separate alternative with the same operational framework would not result in substantially different environmental impacts or provide additional information necessary for informed decision-making. Therefore, the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with CEQA.

The comment’s suggested Corporation Yard-Only (Reduced-Scope) Alternative, which would exclude the RRTO, Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, and related waste management facilities, was not evaluated in the Draft EIR because it would not meet most of the project’s fundamental objectives. Specifically, it would not provide a shared location for the management of waste, recycling, and organic materials; provide the option for citywide threecart collection services to support Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance; improve the sustainability and long-term flexibility of the City's waste management operations; attract recyclables, organics, and waste from outside the City to improve economies of scale; or respond to projected future solid waste service demands and regulatory requirements. The existing WPWMA facility, stated to be poised to meet current regulations, has not yet been demonstrated to meet current regulations, nor is it poised to meet future regulations.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that several significant and unavoidable impacts are associated with development of the project. However, the alternatives analysis demonstrates that eliminating the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility alone (Alternative 3) would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), population growth, or VMT because organic materials would still require transfer and off-site processing, resulting in additional truck trips and associated emissions. Likewise, the Reduced Development Area Alternative (Alternative 2) was specifically developed to reduce environmental impacts through a smaller development footprint while still achieving most project objectives and was identified as the environmentally superior action alternative.

The Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in accordance with CEQA's rule of reason and provides decision-makers and the public with sufficient information regarding alternatives capable of reducing environmental impacts while meeting most of the project's objectives. No revisions to the alternatives analysis are required.

Comment A4-9

2. The DEIR does not adequately evaluate impacts related to planned external jurisdiction waste flows and facility to end market trips. The DEIR does not provide adequate data to accurately assess traffic and greenhouse gas impacts. The project plans to accept and process solid waste from other jurisdictions, but without knowing the exact origins of these waste flows, calculating trip lengths and emissions for an accurate environmental assessment is impossible. Similarly, the DEIR lacks specificity for adequate analysis related to RRTO recovered material to end market trips.

Response A4-9
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately evaluate traffic and GHG impacts associated with waste received from jurisdictions outside the City and the transport of recovered materials to end markets. The comment requests additional information regarding the origins of waste streams and destinations of recovered materials to support analysis of trip lengths, vehicle travel, emissions, and associated environmental impacts.

As described in the Draft EIR Section 2.2.4, “Projected Increases in Demand for Materials Handling,” future waste quantities and facility throughput were developed using projected service demand, population growth assumptions, and potential regional processing opportunities. Because future customers, waste sources, contractual arrangements, recycling markets, composting facilities, transfer facilities, and disposal facilities may change over the life of the project and are not known with certainty, the Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the project based on projected facility throughput and associated vehicle activity rather than speculative future routing scenarios.

As discussed in responses to comments A4-2 through A4-7, above, the Draft EIR transportation analysis evaluates project-generated vehicle trips associated with operation of the proposed facilities, including employee traffic,

Page 2250 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-29 collection vehicles, transfer vehicles, and other operational truck trips. The analysis is based on operational assumptions and maximum anticipated facility activity and does not depend on the precise origin or destination of individual loads.

Similarly, as discussed in responses to comment A4-11, below, the operational GHG analysis evaluates emissions associated with project throughput, vehicle activity, equipment operations, and facility operations using reasonable and conservative assumptions. Because the specific future jurisdictions, hauling contracts, or end-market destinations that may utilize the facility over its operational life are currently unknown and may change over time, the Draft EIR analysis uses reasonable planning assumptions regarding vehicle activity and travel distances rather than assuming specific future customers or destinations. CEQA does not require speculation regarding future contractual relationships that have not yet been established.

The Draft EIR acknowledges the potential for receiving materials from outside the City and includes projected throughput levels that account for such materials (see Section 2.2.4, “Projected Increases in Demand for Materials Handling”). The project’s potential impacts were evaluated based on those throughput projections regardless of where the materials originate. The transportation and GHG analyses evaluate the environmental effects associated with handling the projected throughput at the facility, including truck trips associated with receipt, transfer, processing, and shipment of materials. The GHG analysis includes assumptions regarding vehicle travel distances associated with these activities, including estimated travel distances for out-of-City waste streams and, therefore, does not assume all imported materials originate immediately outside the City limits.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR evaluates transportation and GHG impacts using reasonable estimates of facility throughput, truck activity, and vehicle travel distances rather than relying on speculative assumptions regarding specific future waste sources or end-market destinations. To the extent that future third parties decide to transport materials from locations outside the City to the facility, the environmental effects of the project are appropriately evaluated based on the projected vehicle activity associated with the facility rather than the identity of particular future customers. Similarly, the future destinations of recovered materials are not currently known; therefore, the Draft EIR analysis relies on representative assumptions regarding material transport rather than speculative endmarket locations. For these reasons, the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential transportation and GHG impacts associated with project operations, and no additional analysis is required.

Comment A4-10
Traffic Generation Impacts
The Transportation Supporting Data and Calculations concludes that the feasibility and effectiveness of the VMT mitigation measures is either insufficient or unknown at this time and goes on to say that with implementation of recommended mitigation measures the impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The VMT analysis is based on project data that lacks solid waste collection vehicle trips from locations outside of the City and/or outside of Placer County, or from the proposed project to end markets. Without this specificity, the EIR analysis is inadequate, underestimates impacts and prevents decision-makers and the public from accurately understanding the project’s impacts.

Response A4-10
The comment states that the VMT analysis is inadequate because it does not specifically account for waste-hauling trips originating outside the City or Placer County, or trips from the project to end markets. The comment further states that this lack of detail may underestimate VMT impacts and limits the public's and decision-makers' ability to fully understand the project's transportation impacts. The comment also notes that VMT impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

See responses to comments A4-1 through A4-7 regarding the County’s transportation and circulation comments.

The Draft EIR transportation analysis was prepared using the best available project information and evaluates projectgenerated travel associated with anticipated facility operations, including employee and truck trips. The precise future origins and destinations of all waste-hauling trips, including material received from outside the City or transported to downstream facilities and end markets, are not known at this time and may change over the life of the project based

Page 2251 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-30 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR on market conditions, regulatory requirements, and operational needs. Consistent with CEQA, the analysis is based on reasonably foreseeable operational characteristics rather than speculative future routing details.

The comment correctly notes that the Draft EIR concludes that VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. As discussed in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a (Commute Trip Reduction Program) and 3.16-2b (EmployeeSponsored Vanpool Program) would reduce employee-related VMT; however, the ultimate participation rates, effectiveness, and resulting VMT reductions cannot be guaranteed. In addition, a substantial portion of project VMT is attributable to mandatory truck trips associated with facility operations, which are not readily reduced through employee commute programs. Accordingly, the Draft EIR conservatively concludes that the project cannot demonstrate with certainty that VMT would be reduced below the applicable threshold, and the impact remains significant and unavoidable (see pages 3.16-24 and 3.16-25 of the Draft EIR).

Rather than understating impacts, the Draft EIR discloses this uncertainty and errs on the side of conservatism by identifying the impact as significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR provides sufficient information for decisionmakers and the public to understand the project's transportation impacts and complies with CEQA’s informational requirements. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A4-11
Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis
The project DEIR determined that Phase 1 operational GHG emission impacts would be less than significant, and that Phase 2 operational GHG emissions impacts would be potentially significant and exceed bright-line thresholds of significance. Without fully disclosing GHG emissions caused by solid waste transport by haulers from external jurisdictions, the analysis is inadequate and fails to disclose the project’s true impacts.

Response A4-11
The comment states that the GHG analysis is inadequate because it does not fully disclose emissions associated with solid waste hauling from external jurisdictions. The comment further states that omission of these trips may underestimate operational GHG emissions and does not accurately disclose the project’s true impacts.

As discussed in response to comment A4-9, the Draft EIR evaluates transportation and GHG emissions associated with projected facility throughput, truck activity, and vehicle travel using reasonable planning assumptions and does not rely on speculative assumptions regarding the identity of future customers, waste sources, hauling contracts, or endmarket destinations. The specific jurisdictions that may utilize the facility and the ultimate destinations of recovered materials may change over the operational life of the project and are currently unknown. Accordingly, the Draft EIR analysis is based on projected facility activity and associated vehicle travel rather than speculative future routing details. As discussed in response to comment A4-9, the analysis evaluates emissions associated with projected facility throughput and project-related vehicle activity. Further, as described in Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, project VMT includes the full length of trips, including travel occurring outside the City limits.

As discussed in Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” of the Draft EIR, operational GHG emissions during Phase 2 are anticipated to exceed the Placer County Air Pollution Control District's (PCAPCD) threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e) per year. The EIR identifies mobile sources, including waste collection vehicles, trucks, City fleet vehicles, and off-road equipment, as the primary contributors to operational GHG emissions. Although Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would require transition toward a zero-emission City fleet and Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would require implementation of an Emissions Capture and Control Plan for the future organics processing facility, the Draft EIR concludes that the impact would remain significant and unavoidable because project emissions would continue to exceed applicable thresholds and because the effectiveness of future technology deployment and emissions capture measures cannot be quantified with certainty (see pages 3.4-18 and 3.4-19 of the Draft EIR).

As discussed in response to comment A4-9, the Draft EIR includes emissions associated with projected projectrelated vehicle activity and evaluates those emissions based on projected facility operations rather than speculative assumptions regarding future waste sources or end-market destinations. Rather, it conservatively discloses that Phase 2 operational GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Phase 2 operational

Page 2252 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-31 emissions are identified as significant and unavoidable because they exceed the applicable PCAPCD threshold even after mitigation. The GHG analysis provides adequate disclosure of the project’s GHG impacts and complies with CEQA’s informational requirements. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A4-12

3. The DEIR analysis does not analyze reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts related to the anticipated decrease in recyclable material processed. The DEIR projects a change in waste characterization over time, predicting a change in percentages of recyclables, organics, and MSW during projected time horizons. The report does not discuss the cause for the change in waste characterization and does not analyze environmental impacts tied to a decrease in recyclable material capture and resultant increase in landfilled material. The DEIR also neglects to compare the projected waste stream characterization, and reasonably foreseeable resultant landfill diversion, to the existing program diversion.

In the near term, the DEIR anticipates the following:
▶ recyclables (blue bin) would represent 38% of the waste stream, ▶ MSW (black bin destined for landfill) would represent 39% of the waste stream, and ▶ organics (green bin material for composting) would represent 23% of the waste steam.

In future project horizons, the DEIR anticipates the following:
▶ recyclables (blue bin) would represent 28% of the waste stream, ▶ MSW (black bin destined for landfill) would represent 51% of the waste stream, and ▶ organics (green bin material for composting) would represent 21% of the waste stream.

The EIR lacks discussion regarding the anticipated decrease in recyclable material throughput which may relate to poor expected recycling program participation. Recycling program participation levels for 3-cart set outs, according to the State of Residential Recycling, The Present and Future of Residential Recycling in the U.S., (Recycling Partnership.org, 2024), is low:
▶ Only 59% of American households with access to recycling use their recycling service. ▶ Those that do recycle only put 57% of recyclable material in their recycling containers.

Low participation rates in traditional recycling systems result in an approximate 66% loss of recyclable materials.

Conversely, the existing mixed waste collection program bypasses reliance on individual compliance by processing all waste to extract recyclables. This guarantees 100% participation, which in turn ensures optimal material recovery and landfill diversion. Because the analysis fails to quantitatively compare this project against the baseline collection program—specifically regarding the reduced diversion rate and increased landfill volume—it remains deficient.

Consequently, the assessment underestimates the project’s environmental impacts and potential solid waste regulatory compliance issues, while preventing decision-makers and the public from understanding the project’s full effects.

Response A4-12
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the environmental effects of projected changes in waste stream composition, including a decrease in recyclable materials and an increase in materials sent to the landfill. The comment requests comparison of the proposed waste management approach to existing diversion practices and evaluation of the resulting impacts on landfill diversion, solid waste management, regulatory compliance, and associated environmental effects.

The comment’s conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the waste characterization information presented in the Draft EIR. The percentages presented in the Draft EIR for future planning horizons do not represent a projected decline in recycling program effectiveness, recycling participation, or material recovery rates. Rather, they reflect the anticipated composition of material delivered to and processed at the proposed RRTO based on projected future waste generation, contractual commitments, population growth assumptions, and the expected allocation of material among multiple regional facilities available to the City over the planning horizon. The estimates were developed for

Page 2253 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-32 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR facility sizing and throughput analysis and should not be interpreted as a forecast of reduced diversion performance or reduced compliance with State recycling mandates.

It should be noted that one of the project objectives is to 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 1383. The implementation of such a service would be expected to actually increase the recovery of recyclables and organic materials within the City by reducing the material contamination that occurs with a single bin collection system.

As described in Section 2.2.1, “Existing Operations,” of the Draft EIR, the City currently generates approximately 33,000 tons per year of recyclable materials and 33,000 tons per year of organic materials, representing approximately 22 percent each of the total materials collected. Municipal solid waste accounts for approximately 56 percent of the total materials collected. Although the comment correctly cites the projected future waste composition percentages, it incorrectly compares these projections to existing operations. The Draft EIR estimates that recyclable materials processed under the future collection system would increase from approximately 22 percent to 28 percent of the waste stream, while municipal solid waste would decrease from approximately 56 percent to 51 percent. These projections do not indicate reduced recycling or increased landfill disposal.

The project would not alter the amount of recyclable or organic material generated within the City. Rather, the project would provide infrastructure necessary to process source-separated recyclable and organic materials collected through the City’s state-mandated three-container collection system. Accordingly, the Draft EIR does not identify a project feature that would reasonably be expected to reduce recyclable material recovery or increase landfill disposal relative to conditions that would otherwise occur under applicable State law.

The comment references national recycling participation statistics and suggests that implementation of a three-cart collection system may result in lower recovery rates than the City’s current system. However, the project is intended to comply with State requirements, including SB 1383 and applicable CalRecycle regulations (see Section 2.2.2, “Changes in Solid Waste Management Regulations,” and Section 3.15, “Public Utilities”). The project is not the policy decision establishing the City’s collection methodology.

Further, the Draft EIR evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable solid waste regulations and landfill capacity requirements. As discussed in Section 3.15, “Public Utilities,” of the Draft EIR, the project would enhance the City’s capability to recover recyclable and organic materials through dedicated processing systems and provide the infrastructure necessary to manage future waste streams in compliance with State requirements. The project would not eliminate recycling opportunities, reduce diversion programs, or otherwise cause physical changes that would increase landfill disposal (see Impact 3.15-3 on pages 3.15-16 through 3.15-18).

Finally, the purpose of the waste characterization data presented in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR is to establish anticipated processing demand and facility capacity needs, not to forecast future community-wide diversion rates. Because the project would not directly or indirectly cause the reduction in recyclable material recovery alleged by the comment, no additional impact analysis concerning speculative reductions in diversion or increases in landfill disposal is required.

Comment A4-13

4. The DEIR does not analyze urban decay and other reasonably foreseeable indirect socioeconomic, physical environmental and public health consequences stemming from the proposed RRTO and OWPF which are redundant to existing regional infrastructure. California courts have identified urban decay as the physical manifestation of a project’s potential socioeconomic impacts and identified the need to address the potential for urban decay in environmental documents. Development of RRTO and OWPF could result in regional economic impacts that threaten public health and safety. The financial instability created by the unnecessary duplication of services threatens the regional waste management system in the following ways:
▶ Threatens Essential Infrastructure and Public Health: Diverting waste streams from WPWMA’s established public infrastructure will significantly dilute its revenue, jeopardizing fiscal stability and long-term viability.

Undermining WPWMA’s financial health could result in operational cutbacks, service disruptions, tipping fee

Page 2254 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-33 increases, or facility closures which could lead to unmanaged waste accumulation, illegal dumping, and severe public health, safety, and vector hazards, which the DEIR does not evaluate. ▶ Eliminates Regional Disposal Options: A catastrophic failure of the WPWMA system would leave County residents and the region entirely without a viable local disposal (landfill) option, increasing the risk of unmanaged waste or illegal dumping.

Response A4-13
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not evaluate potential urban decay, socioeconomic, and public health impacts associated with the proposed facilities. The comment also states that duplicating existing waste management infrastructure could weaken WPWMA’s financial stability, potentially leading to service disruptions, disposal capacity losses, illegal dumping, and related public health and safety concerns.

Under CEQA, economic and social effects are not treated as environmental impacts unless they would result in a reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15131). While physical deterioration associated with urban decay may, in some circumstances, constitute an environmental impact subject to CEQA, such analysis is required only where there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a reasonable possibility that a project would cause urban decay or related physical environmental effects. As discussed below, the record does not support a reasonable conclusion that the project’s potential economic impacts would result in the physical environmental impacts identified in the comment.

The project would provide an additional facility for the processing and transfer of solid waste, recyclables, and organics generated within the City and surrounding region. The project would not close existing waste management facilities, reduce permitted disposal capacity, or prevent waste generators from using existing facilities, including those operated by WPWMA. Therefore, even assuming the project could affect the distribution of waste streams among regional facilities, such changes would not, by themselves, result in a reduction of available waste management infrastructure or disposal capacity.

The physical impacts identified in the comment would depend on a chain of assumptions, including reduced waste deliveries to WPWMA facilities, resulting financial distress, service reductions or facility closures, and subsequent unmanaged waste accumulation or illegal dumping. The record does not support a conclusion that this sequence of events is reasonably foreseeable. Rather, the outcomes described in the comment would depend on uncertain future market conditions, waste flows, business decisions by independent entities, and regulatory actions that are uncertain and outside the City's control.

The project and regional waste management facilities would continue to operate within an existing regulatory framework governing solid waste handling, processing, disposal, environmental protection, and public health. The record contains no evidence that approval of the project would result in inadequate waste management capacity, interruption of disposal services, or conditions that would create a public health hazard. Moreover, because existing disposal and processing facilities would remain available to serve the region, the project would not eliminate local disposal options or create conditions that would reasonably be expected to result in unmanaged waste accumulation or illegal dumping. Absent substantial evidence supporting a reasonable foreseeability of these outcomes, CEQA does not require further analysis of the speculative economic effects identified in the comment.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR appropriately evaluates the project’s reasonably foreseeable physical environmental impacts and is not required to analyze the speculative socioeconomic effects identified in the comment. Based on the record, the project would not be expected to result in urban decay, public health impacts, or other indirect physical environmental impacts described in the comment.

Comment A4-14
A Reduced-Scope Alternative is Necessary for DEIR Adequacy.

Based on the information provided in the DEIR, limiting the project scope exclusively to the Corporation Yard component would:
▶ Significantly reduce or entirely eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

Page 2255 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-34 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR ▶ Resolve many areas of local controversy and address public issues raised during the environmental review period. ▶ Successfully meet core project objectives by providing necessary municipal infrastructure without creating unnecessary environmental burdens.

Response A4-14
The comment states that the Draft EIR should evaluate a reduced-scope alternative limited to the Corporation Yard component. The comment further states that this alternative would substantially reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts, address community concerns and areas of controversy, and still meet the project's primary objectives.

As discussed in response to comment A4-8 regarding the alternatives analysis, the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, including the No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Area Alternative, and No On-site Compost or Biomass Operations Alternative. These alternatives were selected because they are capable of attaining most of the project objectives while reducing environmental impacts.

As further explained in response to comment A4-8, a Corporation Yard-Only Alternative was not evaluated in the Draft EIR because it would not meet most of the project's fundamental objectives, including providing an integrated location for waste, recycling, and organic materials management; supporting long-term compliance with solid waste regulations; improving operational flexibility and sustainability; and addressing future waste management service needs. In addition, the Draft EIR's alternatives analysis demonstrates that reduced-scope alternatives do not necessarily eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts while still meeting the majority of project objectives. The Reduced Development Area Alternative was developed specifically to reduce environmental impacts and was identified as the environmentally superior action alternative.

Therefore, the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of feasible alternatives and provides sufficient information for decision-makers and the public. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A4-15
In summary:
▶ The DEIR should be revised to fully evaluate a Reduced-Scope Alternative consisting solely of a Corporation Yard, with no RRTO, OWPF or Vendor Lease Area components.
▶ The DEIR should consider whether a Reduced-Scope Alternative would substantially lessen environmental impacts while meeting the project's fundamental objectives. ▶ If supported by the environmental analysis, the Reduced Scope Alternative should be identified as the environmentally superior and preferred alternative for decision-maker consideration.

Response A4-15
The comment requests that the Draft EIR be revised to evaluate a Reduced-Scope Alternative consisting only of the Corporation Yard and excluding the RRTO, Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, and Vendor Lease Area components. The comment states that the EIR should determine whether such an alternative would substantially lessen environmental impacts while still meeting the project's fundamental objectives and, if so, identify it as the environmentally superior and preferred alternative.

See responses to comments A4-8 and A4-14 regarding the alternatives analysis. As discussed therein, the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, including the No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Area Alternative, and No On-site Compost or Biomass Operations Alternative. A Corporation Yard-Only Alternative was considered conceptually but was not carried forward for detailed analysis because it would not meet most of the project's fundamental objectives, including providing integrated waste, recycling, and organics management services; supporting future regulatory compliance and operational flexibility; and addressing long-term solid waste management needs.

The Draft EIR also evaluates alternatives specifically intended to reduce environmental impacts while retaining the ability to achieve most project objectives. The Reduced Development Area Alternative was identified as the

Page 2256 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-35 environmentally superior action alternative. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, a Corporation Yard-Only Alternative would not meet most project objectives and, therefore, was not considered a feasible alternative for detailed evaluation. Accordingly, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A4-16
In regard to jurisdictional boundary considerations related to this feedback, and in addition to the County’s unincorporated boundary, impacts to the County’s Service Area (or CSA 28) will also need to be evaluated for potential service and fiscal implications.

Response A4-16
The comment requests that the EIR evaluate potential service and fiscal impacts on County Service Area 28 (CSA 28), in addition to impacts on the County’s unincorporated area, resulting from the proposed project.

CEQA requires analysis of a project's physical environmental effects. Fiscal, economic, and social effects, including potential impacts on revenues, service demand, or finances of local governmental entities such as Community Service Areas, are generally not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 provides that economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. While economic or social effects may be considered where they are linked to a physical change in the environment, the comment does not identify, and the City is not aware of, any such physical environmental effect that would result from potential fiscal or service implications to CSA 28.

The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to public services and utilities in Sections 3.14, “Public Services,” and

3.15, “Public Utilities.” These analyses consider the project’s potential impacts on public services and utility systems, and these impacts were determined to be less than significant. The comment does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating that any fiscal or service-related effect on CSA 28 would result in a significant physical environmental impact beyond those already analyzed in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, additional analysis of fiscal or socioeconomic effects on CSA 28 is not required.

Comment A4-17

1. The City of Roseville General Plan requires coordination with neighboring jurisdictions regarding project impacts.

Applicable policies include:
a. Policy LU6.4 - To the extent feasible, coordinate land use planning and public improvements with neighboring jurisdictions.
b. Policy LU6.5 - Encourage early consultation with adjacent jurisdictions and refer development proposals that may have an impact to these jurisdictions to the respective agencies for their review and comment. Respond and comment on development proposals in other jurisdictions that may have an impact on Roseville to minimize such impacts and ensure consistency and compatibility with existing and planned development in the City.

Response A4-17
The comment states that the City of Roseville General Plan includes policies such as Policy LU6.4 and LU6.5, supporting coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.

The City acknowledges General Plan Policies LU 6.4 and LU 6.5, which encourage coordination with neighboring jurisdictions regarding land use planning, public improvements, and development proposals that may affect those jurisdictions. The City has coordinated and continues to coordinate with Placer County and other affected agencies regarding the proposed project. Consistent with these policies, the City provided notice of the Draft EIR and opportunities for review and comment to affected agencies and jurisdictions through the CEQA process, including the Notice of Preparation and the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR. The City also routinely coordinates with County staff on projects that may affect both jurisdictions through interagency consultation, sharing of project information, and staff-level coordination regarding land use, infrastructure, and service-related issues.

Page 2257 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-36 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR The City’s circulation of the Draft EIR for public agency review and its consideration of comments received from Placer County and other agencies are consistent with the coordination and consultation objectives of General Plan Policies LU

6.4 and LU 6.5. The City has considered the comments received and has provided responses, as required by CEQA.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan’s policies regarding interjurisdictional coordination.

Comment A4-18

2. The County supports the PCA comment letter (submitted under separate cover) which identifies concerns with the project being built immediately adjacent to reserve properties that will be impacted by the project. The City of Roseville General Plan has policies for open space that are directly applicable as well:
a. Policy OS1.6 - Take into account natural habitat areas when designating access to and preserving open space areas. Identify alternate locations and design for access where sensitive habitat areas have the potential to be adversely impacted.
b. Policy OS1.8 - Maximize opportunities for preservation and maintenance of open space resources, including establishment of private open space areas. Consider coordination with non-profit organizations and investigate the potential for conservancy ownership and/or management of open space areas. c. Policy OS1.12 - In new development, properties adjoining open space should be oriented toward this open space in order to reduce maintenance, security, and aesthetic concerns. Not more than 50 percent of residential and non-residential properties, as measured by the length of adjoining parcel boundaries, should back up to adjacent open space.
d. Policy LU1.5 - Promote land use patterns that result in the efficient use of urban lands and preservation of open space, as specified in the Open Space and Conservation Element. e. Policy LU7.6 - Encourage project designs that place a high priority and value on open space, and the preservation, enhancement and incorporation of natural resources and other features including consideration of topography, vegetation, wetlands, and water courses.

Response A4-18
The comment supports concerns raised in a separate comment letter regarding potential effects on adjacent reserve and open space properties and requests evaluation of those impacts. The comment also references applicable General Plan policies related to open space preservation, habitat protection, project design adjacent to open space areas, and coordination to preserve and maintain natural resources.

See responses to comment letter A8 from PCA regarding adjacent reserve lands. The City acknowledges the County’s support of PCA’s comments regarding the project’s proximity to adjacent reserve properties. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize potential effects on adjacent open space and habitat resources to the extent feasible and is consistent with the intent of the cited General Plan policies.

City staff met with PCA staff in July 2026 to discuss ways to minimize potential impacts on PCA’s planned preservation efforts on the Clemetson and Mourier West properties adjacent to the project site. Consistent with General Plan Policies OS1.6, OS1.8, and LU7.6, the City has considered the relationship between the project and adjacent open space resources and has incorporated measures intended to reduce the potential for conflicts between project operations and nearby open space areas. Consistent with Policy LU1.5, the project has been located on land designated for Public/Quasi-Public uses while maintaining substantial open space and conservation areas adjacent to the project site.

The project site will be closed to general public access, particularly in the areas adjacent to PCA’s reserve properties, which would reduce the potential for disturbance of sensitive habitat areas consistent with Policy OS1.6 regarding protection of natural habitat areas. In addition, the project includes a sizable area south of Pleasant Grove Creek that would provide separation and buffering between project operations and the Mourier West Property. In addition, the City will implement buffers, fencing, and edge treatments to minimize the potential for litter, debris, and materials associated with facility operations to migrate onto the adjacent reserve properties (see Section 2.4.5, “Landscaping

Page 2258 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-37 and Security”). Lighting would be designed to minimize off-site spillover and glare onto neighboring open space areas as described in Section 2.4.5, “Landscaping and Security,” and Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources.” As described in response to comment A3-7, although the project is not required to comply with the PCCP’s Development Interface Design Requirements, the City has decided to incorporate applicable Development Interface Design Requirements identified in PCCP Section 6.3.1.2.1 into the final project design as a voluntary measure to further minimize potential indirect effects on adjacent reserve lands (this portion of the PCCP is appended to this Final EIR as Appendix A). These measures will supplement the mitigation measures already identified in the Draft EIR and will help reduce the potential for edge effects such as wildlife disturbance, lighting impacts, unauthorized access, invasive species introduction, and other indirect effects on adjacent biological resources. With incorporation of these design measures and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR (as revised in the Final EIR), the project’s potential indirect impacts on adjacent biological resources would be avoided or minimized.

Further, the City is committed to continued coordination with PCA during project design and implementation and will share design details with PCA as the project progresses so that opportunities to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with adjacent reserve lands can be identified and addressed. The City will also continue to evaluate appropriate edge treatments, screening, and operational measures adjacent to reserve areas which is consistent with Policies OS1.8 and LU7.6 encouraging preservation of open space resources and incorporation of natural resource considerations into project design.

The comment also cites Policy OS1.12, regarding the orientation of development adjacent to open space. The project site is designated for public/quasi-public uses and is not a residential subdivision. Accordingly, Policy OS1.12 is of limited applicability to the project. Nevertheless, the project incorporates buffers, landscaping, fencing, lighting controls, and operational measures intended to reduce maintenance, security, aesthetic, and compatibility concerns along project boundaries adjoining open space and reserve lands (see Section 2.4.5, "Landscaping and Security," in the Draft EIR). Therefore, the project is consistent with the intent of the cited General Plan policies.

Comment A4-19

3. Materials recovery facilities have the potential to create significant odor issues. Potentially applicable mitigation measures should be considered:
a. Ongoing system-wide assessments;
b. Greater use of odor reducing agents;
c. Incorporation of odor masking agents during the use of misters; d. Improvements to, and scaling up of, aerated static pile composting; e. Visual and wind break barriers;
f. Community Education, Odor Response Network, and Neighborhood Monitoring; g. General odor controls, such as tree lines, meteorological monitoring, odor monitoring; and h. Dedicating Authority personnel to ongoing odor inspection, management and supervision.

Response A4-19
The comment expresses concern that materials recovery and composting operations could generate odors and recommends consideration of additional odor-control measures, which appear to be those applied to the WPWMA, a mixed waste facility and landfill with more exposed waste than this project would include. As described on pages 3.3- 39 and 3.3-40 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 requires specific operational and engineering controls for all identified odor-generating sources, ongoing odor monitoring and adaptive management including routine patrols under specific meteorological conditions, adaptive management triggers, and installation of odor sensors throughout the site. In addition, this measure requires increased monitoring and patrol frequency if routine monitoring indicates that applicable controls are not met.

Page 2259 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-38 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR In response to other comments (including from PCAPCD), Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 has been revised as shown in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 provides flexibility to incorporate additional engineering and operational controls as warranted based on facility design, operational experience, regulatory requirements, and observed odor conditions. The mitigation measure is intentionally performance-based and requires the Odor Reduction Plan to identify and implement specific operational and engineering controls appropriate to the final facility design and operations and their associated odors. The final facility design and operating procedures would also be subject to review and approval by PCAPCD and other applicable regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process.

The comment does not demonstrate that mitigation measures beyond those already incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, as revised, are necessary to reduce odor impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no further revisions are required in response to this comment.

Comment A4-20

4. Screening – the facility should incorporate screening features – berms, landscaping, walls – to protect future County residents that live next to it.

Response A4-20
The comment requests that the project incorporate screening features, such as berms, landscaping, and walls, to help buffer and screen project operations from future adjacent County residential development.

As described on page 2-19 of the Draft EIR, the project incorporates perimeter landscaping, setbacks, and fencing to provide buffering and visual screening between project operations and surrounding land uses. Landscape setbacks and fencing would be provided along the perimeter of the site, including along Phillip Road and Pleasant Grove Creek, and new landscaping would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Perimeter and internal fencing would generally consist of six-foot-tall chain-link fencing or equivalent, and additional screening may be installed where appropriate.

Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” of the Draft EIR also explains that landscaping would soften views of the site and provide a buffer between the project and neighboring uses. In addition, project facilities would be designed to be visually compatible with surrounding and planned development areas and would be required to comply with applicable Roseville General Plan policies and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Project design features would include a coordinated color palette, articulated building walls, architectural treatments on publicfacing elevations, and screened mechanical equipment. The Community Design Guidelines also include standards for landscaping, screening, and lighting to enhance visual quality and reduce impacts on adjacent properties. See discussion of Impact 3.1-1 for additional details.

Accordingly, the project already incorporates screening and visual buffering measures intended to reduce visual impacts on adjacent existing and future land uses. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A4-21

5. If oak woodland will be removed, the City must comply with City of Roseville General Plan policy:
a. Policy LU7.8. - The location and preservation of native oak trees and oak woodlands shall be a primary factor in determining site design, building location, grading, construction and landscaping, and in establishing the character of projects through their use as a unifying element in both new and existing development.

Response A4-21
The comment states that if the project would remove oak woodland resources, the City must comply with General Plan Policy LU 7.8, which requires that the location and preservation of native oak trees and oak woodlands be a primary consideration in site design, building placement, grading, construction, landscaping, and overall project design.

To the extent individual oak trees may be affected during final design or construction, the City would comply with applicable City policies and requirements regarding the protection, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to native oak trees, including General Plan Policy LU 7.8 and any applicable tree preservation requirements.

Page 2260 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-39 Since publication of the Draft EIR, tree surveys were conducted in May 2026 to document existing tree resources within and adjacent to the project study area, evaluate tree condition and structural characteristics, identify trees that may qualify for protection under applicable City regulations, and provide planning-level information regarding potential tree constraints and opportunities for preservation (Helix Environmental Planning 2026). Based on the survey results, Impact 3.5-6 has been revised to reflect the existing tree resources within the study area. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Section 2.5, “Project Construction,” of the Draft EIR states that “construction would comply with the City’s tree mitigation policy if protected trees are identified in any of the construction areas.” As project design advances, the City would seek opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts on existing trees where practicable, with priority given to the preservation of mature native oak trees. Any protected oak trees affected by project implementation would be subject to the City's tree protection and mitigation requirements. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the intent of Policy LU 7.8.

Comment A4-22

6. Future adjacent residents should be protected for light/glare. The Roseville General Plan policy addresses lighting with the following policies:
a. Policy LU7.9 - Control artificial lighting to avoid spill-over lighting onto adjacent properties. Use antireflective architectural materials and coatings to prevent glare.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment and we are happy to meet with you to discuss our comments.

Response A4-22
The comment requests that future residents adjacent to the project be protected from light and glare impacts and cites General Plan Policy LU 7.9, which requires artificial lighting to be controlled to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties and the use of anti-reflective architectural materials and coatings to prevent glare.

As described under Impact 3.1-2 in the Draft EIR, the project would be required to adhere to the California Energy Code and Green Building Regulations, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards, and General Plan Policy LU7.9 to reduce light spillage and glare on adjacent properties and in private spaces. Further, Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 (Minimize Potential Sources of Light and Glare) would require the City to implement design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare, which 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 Draft EIR concludes that adherence to these standards and compliance with applicable regulations would limit impacts such that skyglow and light spillage would not substantially increase beyond existing conditions, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Letter A5 Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Yushuo Chang, Planning & Monitoring Section, Supervisor June 22, 2026
Comment A5-1
The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (District) thanks you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project (Project) for your consideration. The District has the following comments.

1. In subsection 2.4.3 under the Vendor Lease Area on page 2-18 it is mentioned that the current buildings on site could be renovated for use by prospective vendors.

The demolition or remodeling of any structure may be subject to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for asbestos, which may include inspection for the presence of asbestos by a certified asbestos inspector and mediation or removal of asbestos materials prior to demolition activity and notification and surveys be provided to the U.S. EPA. The District recommends that related demolition or remodeling activities to be comply with

Page 2261 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-40 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR the above U.S.EPA requirements. More information on Asbestos in Building Materials along with contact information can be found on the District’s website at https://www.placerair.org/1598/Asbestos-in-Building-Materials Response A5-1
The comment states that any demolition or renovation of existing buildings proposed for vendor use may be subject to US EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements for asbestos. The comment recommends that project-related demolition or remodeling activities comply with applicable asbestos inspection, notification, abatement, and removal requirements. The City will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to asbestos-containing materials, including the NESHAP requirements administered by the US EPA. Prior to any demolition or renovation activities, required asbestos inspections, notifications, and abatement measures, if necessary, would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. Compliance with these requirements is mandated by law and would ensure that potential impacts associated with asbestos are appropriately addressed. No changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A5-2

2. Under Section 3.3-1 “PCAPCD Rule 228 Fugitive Dust” on page 3.3-17, the DEIR lists the provision of Section 104 “Partial Exemptions”. Please note that only specific equipment which requires a permit from the PCAPCD would be exempt from Rule 228, not the complete facility. The two exemptions of the Section 104 exemptions would apply only to the proposed Project operations which are independently and separately under a District operating permit.

Response A5-2
The comment states that the Draft EIR’s discussion of PCAPCD Rule 228 (Fugitive Dust) should clarify that the exemptions listed in Section 104 (Partial Exemptions) apply only to specific equipment operating under a PCAPCD permit and do not exempt an entire facility from Rule 228 requirements. The comment states that any exemption would apply only to those project operations that are independently and separately regulated under a PCAPCD operating permit. The project would be required to comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules and regulations, including Rule 228 and any other requirements governing construction and operational activities. Any exemptions provided under Rule 228 would apply only as specified by PCAPCD and would not exempt the project as a whole from applicable fugitive dust control requirements. Compliance with PCAPCD rules and permitting requirements would be addressed during project implementation, as applicable. The comment does not alter the conclusions of the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR, and no revisions to the impact analysis are required.

Comment A5-3

3. Under Impact 3.3-5 Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People while there may be temporary diesel exhaust emissions during construction, there can be diesel exhaust emissions during operation during both Phase 1 and 2, along with other odors from the facility operations. With some homes in the vicinity of the proposed facility, it should be noted that objectionable odors investigations will occur, by the PCAPCD, regardless if a substantial number of people are affected. Each individual odor compliant would be investigated by the District.

Response A5-3
The comment states that, in addition to temporary diesel exhaust emissions during construction, the project could generate diesel exhaust and other odors during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations. The commenter further states that PCAPCD investigates all odor complaints, regardless of whether a substantial number of people are affected. As discussed in the Draft EIR, odor impacts were evaluated in accordance with CEQA significance criteria, including whether the project would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (see Impact 3.3-5 beginning on page 3.3-34). As summarized on page 3.3-9 of Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances and because future sensitive uses are planned within these distances, the Draft EIR determined that there would be a potential for the project to cause objectionable odors during operations.

Page 2262 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-41 Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 requires the City to prepare, implement, and maintain a comprehensive Odor Reduction Plan to minimize the potential for objectionable odors affecting nearby sensitive receptors. The Odor Reduction Plan would be established for the life of project operations and designed to address all odor sources. With specific odor control measures in place, off-site odor emissions would be limited and controlled. In response to other comments (including comments from PCAPCD), Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 has been revised, as shown in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR. As revised, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 provides flexibility to incorporate additional engineering and operational controls as warranted based on facility design, operational experience, regulatory requirements, and observed odor conditions. The mitigation measure is intentionally performance-based and requires the Odor Reduction Plan to identify and implement specific operational and engineering controls appropriate to the final facility design, operational characteristics, and associated odor sources. The final facility design and operating procedures would also be subject to review and approval by PCAPCD and other applicable regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process, including incorporation of applicable permit conditions related to odor control.

In addition to compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, as revised, the City will comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules, regulations, permit conditions, and operational requirements related to air quality and odor control. The City also recognizes that PCAPCD investigates odor complaints on a case-by-case basis regardless of the number of individuals affected. The comment does not demonstrate that mitigation measures beyond those already incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, as revised, are necessary to reduce odor impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Accordingly, no further revisions are required in response to this comment.

Comment A5-4

4. On page 3.3-32 under “Operations”, the 2nd sentence describes that “Full operation would include the maximum anticipated waste throughput of 660,00 tpy of waste, including 210,000 tpy of organics”. The District believes that the anticipated waste throughput should be 660,000 and not 660,00 tpy. Please correct it.

Response A5-4
The comment identifies a typographical error in the Draft EIR on page 3.3-32 under the “Operations” discussion.

Specifically, the comment states that the maximum anticipated waste throughput is stated as “660,00 tpy” and recommends correcting the value to “660,000.” This text has been revised to correct the typographical error. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Comment A5-5

5. On page 3.3-32, “Combined Construction and Operations” describes that the modeling inputs assuming that 90 percent of traffic would move west from the site, while 10 percent heads east. Figure 7 and 8 in Appendix E “Transportation Supporting Data and Calculations” shows that the Project’s trip distribution would be 90 percent of traffic moving to east from the site and 10 percent heads west. This appears to be a typo and the District recommends revisiting the traffic assumptions for the HRA modeling analysis to ensure it is consistent with the Project’s traffic analysis.

Response A5-5
The comment identifies a potential discrepancy between the traffic distribution assumptions used in the health risk assessment (HRA) and those shown in Appendix E and recommends verifying that the HRA modeling is consistent with the project’s traffic analysis. The HRA modeling used the correct project traffic distribution assumption, which reflects that approximately 90 percent of project-related traffic would travel east of the site and 10 percent would travel west, consistent with the project’s traffic analysis presented in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The statement in the Draft EIR indicating that 90 percent of traffic would travel west and 10 percent east is a typographical error. This clarification does not affect the HRA results or the conclusions of the air quality analysis. This text has been revised to correct the typographical error. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Page 2263 of 3079 ends

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Roseville
2-42 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR Comment A5-6

6. On page 3.3-39, under the Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 “Implement Facility Odor Reduction Plan”, the second bullet under “Receiving and material recovery building requirements” states that the exhaust gas ventilation filtering system. Please note that these proposed mitigation components would require a District operating permit.

Response A5-6
The comment states that the exhaust gas ventilation filtering system identified in Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 for odor control would require an operating permit from PCAPCD. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 identifies examples of potential odor control measures that may be implemented, as appropriate, to minimize odor emissions from project operations. To the extent any odor control equipment or associated project operations are subject to PCAPCD permitting requirements, the City will obtain all required permits and comply with applicable PCAPCD rules, regulations, and permit conditions. The comment does not identify an inconsistency in the environmental analysis or mitigation measure, and no changes to the Draft EIR are required.

Comment A5-7

7. On page 3.3-40, under “Odor monitoring, complaints and adaptive management”, the first sentence states that the City shall implement corrective actions for odor control within 7 days. The District recommends the City shall act as soon as possible in conjunction with the District’s cooperation.

Response A5-7
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 requires corrective actions for odor control to be implemented within 7 days when monitoring indicates applicable controls are not being met. The comment recommends that the City take corrective action as soon as possible and coordinate with PCAPCD in responding to odor issues.

In response to other comments (including comments from PCAPCD), Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 has been revised, as shown in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR. As revised, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 requires implementation of an Odor Reduction Plan and establishes procedures for odor monitoring, complaint response, adaptive management, and corrective actions. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 continues to establish a maximum timeframe for implementing corrective actions and does not preclude the City from responding more quickly when warranted.

The City intends to investigate and address odor issues as promptly as practicable and will coordinate with PCAPCD, as appropriate, regarding odor complaints and corrective measures. As revised, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 provides a clear and enforceable framework for odor monitoring, response, and corrective action. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

Comment A5-8

8. On page 3.3-41, the fifth bullet point mentions a wastewater pond. Is this the same as the leachate or compost water basins mentioned on page 2-24 under Stormwater Management? The District recommends adding additional description for it.

Response A5-8
The comment states that the fifth bullet on page 3.3-41 references a wastewater pond and asks whether it is the same feature identified as the leachate or compost water basins described under the Stormwater Management section on page 2-24. The comment recommends providing additional description of the feature. The term “wastewater pond” on page 3.3-41 of the Draft EIR is used in the context of the Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) requirements contained in CCR Title 14, Section 17863.4, which identifies “wastewater pond controls” as an example of an odor management measure that may be applicable at composting facilities. For the proposed project, this term is intended generically to encompass any water management features associated with organics processing that could have odorgenerating potential, such as leachate collection, contact water management, or similar process-water storage and handling facilities. It does not identify a separate project feature beyond those described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.

Page 2264 of 3079 ends

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Final EIR 2-43 Comment A5-9

9. The Proposed Project includes several components that will need stationary source permits from the District.

However, the DEIR does not include discussion for the District’s permitting program. Please update the discussion within Section 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting under “Local” for “Placer County Air Pollution Control District” to include additional District’s rules applicable to the Proposed Project:

Rule 214, Transfer of Gasoline into Stationary Storage Containers Rule 501, General Permit Requirements Rule 502, New Source Review
Rule 503, Emission Statement
Rule 507, Federal Operating Permit Program
Response A5-9
The comment states that the project would require stationary source permits from PCAPCD and states that the Draft EIR's discussion of the local regulatory setting should be updated to include additional applicable PCAPCD permitting requirements and rules. The regulatory setting discussion in Section 3.3.1 of the Draft EIR has been revised to include descriptions of PCAPCD Rule 214, Rule 501, Rule 502, Rule 503, and Rule 507, as recommended. These rules govern PCAPCD permitting requirements, new source review procedures, emissions reporting, and federal operating permit requirements for applicable stationary sources. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes.

The City recognizes that certain project components may require permits from PCAPCD and will comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules, regulations, permit requirements, and permit conditions in effect at the time of project implementation. Compliance with applicable permitting requirements is required by law and would occur during project design, permitting, construction, and operation, as appropriate. The addition of these rules to the regulatory setting provides further context regarding the applicable regulatory framework but does not alter the air quality analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Comment A5-10

10. On page 3.3-9, the DEIR states that “PCAPCD also adopted the 2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan Analysis and federal Negative Declarations for 16 Control Technique Source Categories.” It was prepared to satisfy the planning requirement for meeting the 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standard (0.075 ppm). Another RACT SIP was adopted by the PCAPCD Board in 2020 to satisfy the planning requirement for the 2015 federal 8-hour ozone standard (0.070 ppm). Please update the discussion with corrective information.

Response A5-10
The comment states that the Draft EIR references PCAPCD's 2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis, which was prepared to address the 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standard. The comment states that PCAPCD subsequently adopted a 2020 RACT SIP to satisfy planning requirements for the more stringent 2015 federal 8-hour ozone standard and recommends updating the regulatory setting discussion accordingly.

The Draft EIR has been revised to update the discussion of PCAPCD’s RACT SIP Analysis to reflect the adoption of the 2020 RACT SIP, which was prepared to satisfy planning requirements associated with the 2015 federal 8-hour ozone standard. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR for the text changes. This revision will ensure that the regulatory setting discussion reflects the current air quality planning framework. The updated information does not affect the air quality analysis, significance determinations, or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Comment A5-11

11. On page 3.3-19 “Biomass Gasification Facility”, it proposes a future biomass facility which could be a 2.5 MW facility and an annual throughput of biomass fuel of 30,000 tons is assumed in the modeling. The DEIR does not specify where these biomass fuels originate from (where grown and harvested and have to be transported from).

Appendix C “Operational On-Road Vehicle Emissions Phase 2” assumes the one-way trip length for fuel trick is

Page 2265 of 3079 ends

Roseville City CouncilOctober 7, 2026

Roseville City Council
October 7, 2026