Roseville City Council
October 7, 2026

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
30 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
monitor from culturally affiliated Native American Tribe(s) shall be retained, if one is not currently on site. The Tribal monitor shall determine if the find is a Tribal cultural resource. The consulting THPO will make recommendations for further evaluation and culturally appropriate treatment of discovered Tribal cultural resources as necessary. Consultation with an archaeologist who meets the secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for archaeology may also occur.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 3.9-4a: Provide Paleontological Training for Construction Personnel (Phase 1 & 2)
Before construction begins, the City shall ensure that all construction workers who will be on-site during construction receive training materials provided by a qualified paleontologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications to ensure that construction personnel can correctly identify fossilized materials in the event of inadvertent discovery. The training materials could be in the form of a presentation (live or recorded) and/or written materials provided to construction workers.

Phase 1 & 2 Qualified paleontologist
and construction
contractors
Prior to construction ⎯
Mitigation Measure 3.9-4b: Implement Procedures for the Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources (Phase 1 & 2)
If any paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that all activities in the immediate area of the find are halted and that the City is informed. The City shall then retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications to evaluate the discovery, prepare a report evaluating the discovery, and include recommendations in the report pursuant to the guidelines established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, including, if applicable, development and implementation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program for treatment of the discovery.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville and a
qualified paleontologist
During construction ⎯
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2: Evaluate Site Soils (Phase 1 only) As recommended in the Phase II ESA prepared for the project site, the contractor shall implement the following measure during building demolition and/or ground disturbance in the portion of the project site that is designated as potentially contaminated in the Phase I or Phase II ESAs for the Vendor Lease Area. This measure would also be incorporated into the site’s Improvement Plans, which the City would be responsible for monitoring and enforcing. ⯈ When on-site buildings are being demolished or the site graded to prepare for future use, the affected soil shall be excavated and stockpiled on a visqueen Phase 1 only Construction contractors During construction ⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR 31 Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
sheet and sampled in four locations. The four samples shall be composited together to analyze for petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and for lead to determine proper soil disposal. If the concentrations indicate no carcinogenic constituents (and are in the range of 0 to 100 ppm), the soil can be used as fill onsite. If the range is 100 to 600 ppm, the soil can be used as road base or beneath building foundations. If the range exceeds those concentrations, disposal at a Class II landfill shall be investigated.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-3a: Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (Phase 1 & 2)
A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be developed/updated by the contractor and approved by the City of Roseville before construction begins on any component of the project. The CTMP shall be implemented during all phases of project construction and shall include, but not limited to, the following:
⯈ name and telephone number of a contact person regarding traffic complaints or emergency situations;
⯈ community notification procedures and contact information for local police, fire, and emergency response organizations and procedures for the continuous coordination of construction activity;
⯈ procedures for training the flag person(s) used in implementing the plan; ⯈ the location, times, and estimated duration of any temporary lane closures; ⯈ developing, and once approved, managing the haul route plan and construction parking management plan;
⯈ timing of disruptive construction activities; scheduling of deliveries, pick-ups and hauling of material during non-peak travel periods to the extent possible; and
⯈ the contractor will provide an estimate of truck volume and schedule. Areas will be designated by the City for the staging of all trucks. All earth-moving and ready-mix trucks will be equipped with two-way radios so that the drivers at the staging areas are linked to a person controlling traffic at the project site. Trucks will follow a city-approved route to the project site.

Phase 1 & 2 Construction contractors Prior to and during construction
⎯
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3b: Establish Evacuation Routes via a Hazard Mitigation Plan (Phase 1 & 2)
The City shall, in coordination with the Roseville Fire Department, develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan for project operation that establishes appropriate evacuation routes Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville Prior to and during
project operation
⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
32 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
for the project site. The hazard mitigation plan shall be developed prior to project operation and would be implemented throughout project operation.

Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Construction Noise Reduction (Phase 1 & 2) The City or its construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with nighttime construction activities:
⯈ All residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site shall be notified in writing of anticipated nighttime construction, including hours of operation and expected noise-generating activities, at least one week prior to the start of nighttime construction activities.
⯈ Temporary noise barriers shall be installed where line-of-sight exists between noise-generating equipment and adjacent sensitive receptors for the duration of the proposed nighttime activities. These barriers shall be designed to achieve a minimum noise attenuation of 5 dBA or more.
⯈ A construction manager shall be designated to ensure compliance with noise mitigation measures and to respond to noise complaints. A phone number or other instantaneous notification method shall be posted on site for use by the public in reporting any noise concerns.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville or
construction contractors
During construction ⎯
Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Stationary Noise Reduction Methods (Phase 1 & 2) The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts from mechanical equipment associated with the MRF:
⯈ Building façades of the MRF that are in the direct line-of-sight of sensitive receptors shall incorporate acoustical upgrades (e.g., acoustical upgraded wall assemblies) to provide a minimum noise attenuation where attenuated noise levels would comply with the City of Roseville’s City’s daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line; or ⯈ Implement alternative noise reduction measures (e.g., quieter equipment, noise/vibration dampening mounts, and distance setbacks) that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below the City’s daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of backup generators:

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville Prior to approval of
architectural plans and
during operation
⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR 33 Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
⯈ Locate the proposed backup generators as far as possible from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; or
⯈ Incorporate shielding with on-site structures, acoustical enclosures, or other design measures, such that 45 dBA Leq is not exceed at the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; or
⯈ Implement alternative noise reduction measures that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below applicable daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of equipment maintenance facility:
⯈ Limit noise generating activities associated with the operation of the equipment maintenance facility to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours only; or ⯈ The project shall orient main facility entrance to break direct line-of-sight to the nearest sensitive receptor at the property line. If such orientation is not feasible, doors shall remain closed during noise-generating activities that occur during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours; or
⯈ Implement alternative noise reduction measures that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below applicable daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Measures shall be incorporated into the project design and identified on the site plan. The City shall verify that these measures are included in the site plan before approval of the final site plan.

Transportation and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 3.16-2a: Develop and Implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program (Phase 1 & 2)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall develop and submit a Commute Trip Reduction Program for review and approval by the City’s Transportation Commission. The Commute Trip Reduction Program shall be consistent with other trip reduction strategies established in the City Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Handbook.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville Prior to issuance of
building permits
⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
34 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
Mitigation Measure 3.16-2b: Develop and Implement an Employee Sponsored Vanpool Program (Phase 1 & 2)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall develop and submit a Commute Trip Reduction Program for review and approval by the City’s Transportation Commission. The Commute Trip Reduction Program shall be consistent with other trip reduction strategies established in the City Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Handbook.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville Prior to issuance of
building permits
⎯
Wildfire
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1a: Prepare and Implement a Fire Risk Management Plan (Phase 1 & 2)
A fire risk management plan shall be prepared prior to the start of construction. The plan shall describe the potential for fires to occur as a result of project construction and operations, shall describe fire response procedures and protocols for facility staff, and shall contain measures necessary to minimize fire risks, including at a minimum those listed in Mitigation Measures 3.17-1b and 3.17-1c. The plan shall be prepared by City staff in consultation with the City of Roseville Fire Department.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville and
construction contractors
Prior to construction ⎯
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1b: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Construction (Phase 1 & 2)
During construction activities at the project site, the contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the following fire risk reduction measures:
⯈ Within a minimum 50-foot buffer from any welding/grinding operations or areas of open flame, maintain all areas clear of vegetation and other flammable materials;
⯈ Spray nearby vegetation with water, if not already cleared, using a water truck or other suitable equipment, prior to any welding or grinding operations or the use of an open flame;
⯈ All equipment, gasoline-powered hand tools, and construction and maintenance vehicles shall be equipped with spark arresters; ⯈ Equip all construction and maintenance vehicles entering the project site, including welding trucks or rigs, with minimal fire suppression equipment (e.g., ax, bucket, 5-pound fire extinguisher, shovels);
⯈ Maintain at least one half-full water truck or water tanker at each work site during all periods of work and for 1 hour after all work has ceased for the day; ⯈ Clearly mark and maintain fire-suppression materials and equipment; and Phase 1 & 2 Construction contractors During construction ⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR 35 Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
⯈ Use a dedicated fire watch during all welding activities Mitigation Measure 3.17-1c: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Operations (Phase 1 & 2)
During operational activities at the project site, the following fire prevention measures shall be implemented:
⯈ On-site buildings shall be equipped with fire detection systems and fire sprinklers that are specifically designed for the planned building uses; ⯈ Fire hydrants shall be installed around the site perimeter and within the site interior at intervals consistent with the City of Roseville Fire Code requirements; ⯈ Designated areas shall be established on the site where any truck containing burning materials can immediately be directed to discharge its load (consistent with Title 14 CCR Section 17407.1);
⯈ A hazardous waste screening program shall be developed and implemented concurrent with the initiation of waste acceptance operations to reduce the presence of flammable materials within the waste stream; and ⯈ A continuous fire break shall be established around the facility to minimize the potential for fires to spread onto adjacent lands or to enter the site from adjacent lands.

Phase 1 & 2 City of Roseville and
construction contractors
During operation ⎯
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1d: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Phase 2 Construction and Operations (Phase 2 only)
During Phase 2 construction, Mitigation Measures 3.17-1a, 3.17-1b, and 3.17-1c shall be implemented. In addition, during compost and/or biomass facility operations, the following fire prevention measures shall be implemented:
⯈ Coordinate with the Roseville Fire Department regarding guidelines on how to manage and extinguish compost and biomass fires if they occur. This includes having appropriate firefighting gear available on the site, as determined by the fire department.
⯈ Ensure material piles are managed consistent with industry standards including ensuring they are adequately ventilated and that appropriate moisture levels are maintained. Ventilation can be achieved by turning the pile or using a mechanical aeration system. Ventilation can also be improved by constructing narrower, shallower windrows or piles.
⯈ Avoid pile depths greater than 12-feet and monitor internal pile temperatures on a weekly basis.

Phase 2 only City of Roseville and
construction contractors
During construction and
operation
⎯

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
36 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR Mitigation Measures Project Phase
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing Verification
⯈ If a fire is detected, use a large, wheeled loader to open up the pile and have a fire hose available as the loader removes material to spray directly onto burning embers. Notify the fire department immediately upon identifying a fire. ⯈ For biomass operations, use an infrared temperature monitoring system, as appropriate, to provide continuous surveillance of biomass storage areas to detect hotspots and temperature anomalies that may indicate developing fires.

Carbon monoxide (CO) and smoke detectors should also be employed to identify developing fires.
⯈ For conveyor systems and pneumatic transport lines where biomass materials are in motion, use spark detection systems combined with automatically-trigger suppression systems.
⯈ In addition, the Fire Risk Management Plan identified in Mitigation Measure

3.17-1a shall be amended to include specific fire risk response protocols associated with compost and biomass facilities, as appropriate. These protocols could include, but would not be limited to, regular removal of accumulated dust from surfaces and equipment, and conducting regular safety audits and equipment inspections.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project EIR 37 This page intentionally left blank.

Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center
Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
State Clearinghouse No. 2024060953
City of Roseville
September 2026

Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ I 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................................................................1

2.2 Project Objectives..................................................................................................................................................................1

2.3 Summary Description of the Project.............................................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Discretionary Approvals ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ....................................................................................................................................... 4 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 5 7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 5

7.1 Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less-ThanSignificant Level .................................................................................................................................................................... 5

7.2 Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable.............35 8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... 47 9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 50

9.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................................................................51

9.2 Overriding Considerations ...............................................................................................................................................51

9.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................53 10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 53

Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACC II Advanced Clean Cars
ACF Advanced Clean Fleet
ACT Advanced Clean Trucks
ASP Aerated Static Pile
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BMP best management practice
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CASP Covered Aerated Static Pile
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City Council City of Roseville City Council
City City of Roseville
Corporation Yard EU Operations Facility Corporation Yard CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
EIR environmental impact report
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area
EU Environmental Utilities
GHG greenhouse gas
HRA health risk assessment
ITP incidental take permit
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRF materials recovery facility
MSW municipal solid waste
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NOP notice of preparation

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project ii Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations NOX oxides of nitrogen
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public
PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PD Planned Development
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PRC Public Resources Code
project Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project PUE public utilities easement
ROG reactive organic gases
RRTO Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations
SB Senate Bill
TAC toxic air contaminant
TSM Transportation Systems Management
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WPWMA Western Placer Waste Management Authority

Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (City), as lead agency, prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center Project (project). The EIR consists of the May 2026 Draft EIR and the September 2026 Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024060953). The EIR presents an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects that may occur from approval and implementation of the Roseville EU Operations Center Project. These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14 [CEQA Guidelines], Section 15000, et seq.). The City of Roseville City Council (City Council) is the lead agency under CEQA and local decision-making authority for the project. In that capacity, the City Council has considered the EIR and adopts these findings.
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 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 the 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).

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As set forth in the Draft EIR, the project objectives are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

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.

2.3 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The City proposes to construct and operate a new EU Operations Center in northwest Roseville. The new EU Operations Center would provide a new location for the City’s corporation yard and would include a new waste and recycling facility. 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 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. Phase 1 is evaluated at a project-level throughout the EIR and is anticipated to be operational by 2028. Phase 2 is evaluated at a project-level (for the RRTO expansion) and programlevel (for the potential future Organics Processing Facility) throughout the EIR and may be complete by 2040. Phase 2 would provide capacity for the City through 2058.

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.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 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.

2.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
Project approval requires the City, as lead agency, as well as certain responsible agencies to take discrete planning and regulatory actions to approve the project. In addition to adopting these findings and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the City will be the permitting agency for the project with regards to the tree permits, civil permits, building permits, design review, and utility connection permits to connect to the City utilities. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with PRC Section 21092 and CCR Section 15082, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 21, 2024, to inform agencies and the general public that an EIR was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies (including potential responsible and trustee agencies), the County Clerk, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that requested notice, and individuals requesting to be notified. The NOP was circulated for a 30-day review period, with comments accepted through July 22, 2024.

A noticed scoping meeting for the EIR occurred on July 10, 2024. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the project in the following environmental impact areas:
 aesthetics and visual resources;
 land use planning and agricultural resources;
 air quality;
 greenhouse gas emissions;
 biological resources;
 cultural resources;
 tribal cultural resources;
 energy;
 geology and soils;
 hazards and hazardous materials;
 hydrology and water quality;
 noise;
 population, employment, and housing;
 public services;
 public utilities;
 transportation and circulation; and
 wildfire.

The City published the Draft EIR for public and agency review on May 7, 2026. A 45-day public review period was provided, with comments accepted through June 22, 2026.

During the public review period, the City received written comments on the Draft EIR from ten commenters, including one comment letter submitted after the close of the review period. Those comments relevant to CEQA were addressed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f). In accordance with PRC Section 21092.5, the Final EIR was circulated for a 10-day public agency review period.

The Final EIR includes comments received on the Draft EIR; responses to these comments; and revisions to the Draft EIR and additional data, as necessary, in response to these comments or to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR.

As discussed below, none of the changes to the Draft EIR, or information added to the Draft EIR, constitutes “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to PRC Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 4 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with PRC Section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Roseville EU Operations Center Project includes the following documents:
 The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project;  All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP;  The Draft EIR, including all appendices, technical reports, and materials cited in the Draft EIR;  The Final EIR, including all comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments as well as appendices, technical reports, and materials cited in the Final EIR;  The MMRP;
 All findings adopted by the City for the project;
 All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project;
 Minutes and transcripts of public meetings held by the City in connection with the project; and  All other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC Section 21167.6(e).

The official custodian of the documents comprising the administrative record for the City’s decision is the City Environmental Coordinator. The location of the administrative record for the project is the City of Roseville Development Services – Planning, which is located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678. 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” The mandate and principles in PRC Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091):
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

PRC Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. The concept of “feasibility” also

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. Moreover, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.”
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][b].) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093, 15043[b]; see also PRC Section 21081[b].)
The City Council has adopted the third permissible finding with respect to all significant and unavoidable effects identified in the EIR, concluding that not all effects can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The City Council therefore must consider the feasibility of project alternatives.

As noted above, despite mitigation, certain significant environmental impacts of the project will not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project.
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PRC Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” An MMRP has been prepared for the project and is being approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that has adopted these findings. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP provides a list of all adopted project mitigation measures, identifies the parties responsible for implementing such measures, and identifies the timing for implementing each measure. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final MMRP is attached to and incorporated into the environmental document approval resolution and is approved in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact.
7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

7.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED

TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a) and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant impacts identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or mitigate the identified significant effects on the environment to less-thansignificant levels. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 6 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

7.1.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact 3.1-1: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site or its Surroundings
Phase 1: Development of Phase 1 would convert approximately 116 acres of predominantly agricultural land owned by the City into municipal uses, including an RRTO Facility, Corporation Yard, and the Vendor Lease Area. The introduction of municipal uses and infrastructure in an area that is predominantly agricultural would change the existing character of the area. However, the proposed facilities would be designed to be visually consistent and would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to community design and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Nonetheless, the project would introduce waste and recycling collection trucks to the area, which occasionally contribute to litter. This could create a visual nuisance and could degrade the visual character of the project area. For these reasons, this impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: Development of Phase 2 would convert approximately 34 acres of predominantly agricultural land owned by the City into municipal uses, including expansion of the RRTO Facility and construction of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. The introduction of municipal uses and infrastructure in an area that is predominantly agricultural would change the existing character of the area. However, the proposed facilities would be designed to be visually consistent and would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to community design and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Nonetheless, the project would introduce waste and recycling collection trucks to the area, which occasionally contribute to litter. This could create a visual nuisance and could degrade the visual character of the project area. For these reasons, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Implement a Litter Mitigation Program 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.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would require implementation of a litter mitigation program to minimize litter generated by the project. Implementation of this program would include collecting and disposing of litter from the project site and affected roadways such that litter would not substantially increase beyond existing conditions.

Effects on visual character of the site and its surroundings would be minimized and the project impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare That Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area
Phase 1: Phase 1 implementation would result in an increase in the amount of light and glare on the project site, which would affect nighttime views in the area. The project would adhere to the CALGreen Building Regulations, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards, and General Plan Policy LU7.9. However, given the scale of the proposed project and the number and types of new light sources to be introduced to an undeveloped site, operation of the proposed project would represent a substantial source of new nighttime lighting in the project area, this impact would be significant.

Phase 2: Phase 2 implementation would result in development of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility and expanded RRTO facilities, which would introduce new light and glare sources and potentially affect nighttime views in the area. The project would adhere to CALGreen Building Regulations, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards, and General Plan Policy LU7.9. Most of the project lighting would be installed as part of Phase 1; however, Phase 2 would add an incremental amount of lighting and glare associated with the new and expanded facilities. This incremental change in lighting and glare would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Minimize Potential Sources of Light and Glare The City shall implement the following design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare, which are based on measures in the City’s Design Guidelines for office and industrial projects:
 Lighting sources shall have full cut off, U0 lenses and shall be located to avoid any light spillage and glare on adjacent properties and in private spaces;
 Pole mounted lighting shall be spaced for maximum energy efficiency and be no taller than 25 feet for office areas and 35 feet for industrial areas; and
 Nonreflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective (mirrored) glass shall be used for all new structures.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 would require implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare. These standards include the use of cutoff type light fixtures, restrictions on the height of pole mounted lighting, and the use of nonreflective surfaces for new structures. 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. Effects on daytime and nighttime views from new sources of light and glare would be minimized and the project impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 8 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

7.1.2 Air Quality
Impact 3.3-4: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Construction): A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to assess potential health risk exposure from construction and operation of the project. The HRA analyzed short-term diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions during construction activities and long-term on- and off-site emissions sources (e.g., on-site: equipment use, fuel dispensing, vehicle maintenance, composting, biomass gasification; off-site: diesel PM from waste delivery trucks). Based on the modeling conducted for the project-specific HRA, construction emissions would result in exceedances of Placer County Air Pollution Control District’s (PCAPCD) risk threshold of 10 per million at nearby receptors. Non-cancer risk thresholds of Health Index 1 would not be exceeded. Because construction emissions would exceed PCAPCD’s risk threshold, this impact would be significant.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Operation): 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 megawatt potential future biomass gasification facility, which could be developed at full operation (2058) of the project. Based on the modeling conducted for the project-specific HRA, Phase 2 of the project (operations alone) would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions in excess of 10 in 1 million cancer risk or a noncarcinogenic health risk greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index. When considering the combined effect of project construction with full operation, the project would result in a combined excess cancer risk of 18.5 per million, exceeding PCAPCD’s 10 per million threshold. The Hazard Index threshold would not be exceeded. Because the combined effect of project construction with full operation would exceed PCAPCD’s risk threshold, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Implement Clean Construction Fleet During all phases of project construction, all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall meet EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards, as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1039, and comply with the appropriate test procedures and provisions contained in 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068. This measure can also be achieved by using battery-electric off-road equipment as it becomes available. The City shall require the primary construction contractor(s) and its subcontractor(s) to submit copies of the valid Certificate of Reported Compliance for their fleets prior to awarding a contract. In addition, all construction equipment shall be subject to inspection for regulatory compliance. Implementation of this measure shall be required in the contract the City establishes with its construction contractors.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Applying Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 would substantially reduce diesel PM and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions associated with construction activities. Using the modeling conducted for the project, which applied statewide construction fleet emissions factors, and applying Tier 4 emissions rates to all equipment larger than 25 horsepower, cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor would be reduced from 12.5 per million to 2.0 per million for contracting cancer over a 70-year lifetime, which is below the PCAPCD thresholds of 10 per million. Figure 3.3-2 in the Draft EIR shows the cancer risk results from project construction after mitigation is applied. See Appendix B in the Draft EIR for further details. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, this impact would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 As described above, implementation of this measure would reduce construction-related cancer risk exposure to 2 per million. Combining this with operational risk alone (i.e., 6.0 per million) would result in a combined maximum cancer risk of 8.0 per million, which would be below PCAPCD’s 10 per million threshold. Figure 3.3-5 in the Draft EIR shows the cancer risk results from project operation after mitigation is applied. Figure 3.3-6 in the Draft EIR shows the cancer risk results from project construction and operation combined after mitigation is applied. Refer to Appendix B in the Draft EIR for mitigated scenario modeling. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.3-5: Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People Phase 1: Phase 1 of the project would introduce new odor sources into the area such as temporary diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment and the movement of trucks during construction. However, these odor sources would be temporary, intermittent, and dissipate rapidly from the source. Operational activities would include truck idling and municipal solid waste (MSW) and organic waste delivery and transfer. Implementation of applicable best management practices (BMPs) would minimize odors and the project would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 205, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance.

However, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to operations of Phase 1, resulting in new sensitive uses within the 2-mile buffer, the potential for the project to cause objectionable odors remains. Thus, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: Implement Facility Odor Reduction Plan Prior to commencement of operations involving municipal green waste and food organics, the City shall prepare, implement, and maintain a comprehensive Odor Reduction Plan to minimize the potential for objectionable odors affecting existing and reasonably foreseeable future sensitive receptors. The Odor Reduction Plan shall apply to all odor-generating activities at the facility and shall be implemented for the life of the project. At a minimum, the Odor Reduction Plan shall include the following elements:
 Odor source identification and controls
The Odor Reduction Plan shall identify all odor-generating sources, and for each source, the Odor Reduction Plan shall specify operational and engineering controls designed to minimize odor generation and release. Odor sources include, but are not limited to:
 receiving, unloading, sorting, handling, and temporary storage of municipal solid waste and organics within the material recovery facility and organics building enclosures;  pre-processing and mixing of feedstocks; and
 management of residual materials and recyclables prior to off-site transport.

Odor sources associated with Phase 2 of the project include, but are not limited to:
 covered aerated static pile (ASP) composting operations;  curing, screening, and product handling; and
 management of leachate or contact water, including associated contact water retention, reuse, and management facilities.
 Receiving and material recovery building requirements To address the highest odor potential activities, the Odor Reduction Plan shall require that:
 reception and sorting of organic waste occur within the building enclosure, with doors closed except during active vehicle ingress and egress;

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 10 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  the organics building enclosure be operated to minimize odor emissions, including use of enclosures, ventilation, and odor control measures as applicable (e.g., negative pressure and treatment through a biofilter, scrubber, or equivalent system, if deemed necessary);  onsite staging time for unprocessed food organics be limited to a defined maximum duration of time not beyond the time necessary to move to the next stage, with covered or contained storage; and  putrescible residuals and screened contaminants be stored in covered containers and removed from the site on a regular schedule sufficient to prevent odor buildup.  housekeeping procedures be identified to minimize odor accumulation within processing and storage areas, including routine cleaning of floors, equipment, conveyors, tipping areas, loading areas, and management of spilled or accumulated waste materials, as appropriate.  Covered aerated static pile operational controls
The Odor Reduction Plan shall include procedures to maintain aerobic conditions within covered ASP bays, including monitoring and management of aeration, moisture, pile conditions, and other compost operating parameters relevant to odor generation and control. Corrective actions shall be identified for upset conditions (e.g., power outages, aeration system failures, excessive moisture, or indications of anaerobic conditions) to promptly reduce odor potential. The Odor Reduction Plan shall also identify procedures to prevent and respond to anaerobic conditions, pile smoldering, smoking, prolonged anaerobic conditions, and other operational conditions that could increase odor emissions.
 Odor monitoring, complaints, and adaptive management
The Odor Reduction Plan shall include an odor monitoring and response program consisting of:
 installation of odor sensors throughout the site, surrounding the compost, collection, sorting, transfer, storage, areas, and any ancillary process location or odor source (e.g., stationary combustion sources, waste water retention or treatment)
 routine odor patrols during operations and under meteorological conditions conducive to odor transport;  a public odor complaint reporting system and complaint log;  defined response times for investigating and addressing complaints; and  adaptive management triggers (e.g., repeated verified offsite odor events or complaint patterns) that require implementation of additional corrective actions or operational changes. Corrective actions will vary depending upon the trigger but could include, and are not limited to, improved containment, increased treatment capacity, modified operations, increased monitoring and response, enhanced housekeeping practices, reduced material staging times, additional odor-control measures for composting operations, modifications to compost management practices, or additional engineering controls for odor capture and treatment.

If monitoring indicates that applicable controls are not met, the City shall implement corrective actions as soon as practical and within 7 days and increase monitoring and patrol frequency. The City shall also publish an annual report that summarizes complaints, response times, and measures implemented to address complaints. This report shall be kept on file at the facility and made available to the public/PCAPCD upon request.

Documentation and updates
The Odor Reduction Plan shall be kept on file at the facility, made available to the public/PCAPCD upon request, and updated as necessary to reflect changes in operations, waste streams, control technologies, or regulatory requirements.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

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

With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant after mitigation.

7.1.3 Biological Resources
Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species Phase 1: One special-status plant (Sanford’s arrowhead) may occur on the project site, associated with the drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the project site. Project construction would avoid the drainage ditch, and no direct effects would occur. In addition, eight special-status plant species may occur in association with the vernal pools that may be present in the off-site portion of the public utilities easement (PUE). The installation of utilities in the PUE may result in disturbance to or loss of special-status plants if they are present. Because the loss of specialstatus plants could substantially affect the abundance, distribution, and viability of local and regional populations of these species, this would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures and Mitigation  Prior to implementation of project activities within the PUE, and during the blooming period for the special-status plant species with potential to occur within the PUE (i.e., approximately May to October), a qualified botanist shall conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status plants within the PUE following survey methods from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018 or most recent version). The qualified botanist shall: (1) be knowledgeable about plant taxonomy, (2) be familiar with plants of the Sacramento Valley region, including specialstatus plants and sensitive natural communities, (3) have experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in CDFW 2018, (4) be familiar with the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/), and (5) be familiar with federal and state statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting.  If special-status plants are not found, the botanist shall document the findings in a report to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation shall be required.
 If special-status plant species are found during protocol-level surveys, the plant shall be avoided completely, if feasible (i.e., project objectives can still be met). This may include establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the plants and demarcation of this buffer by a qualified biologist or botanist using flagging or high-visibility construction fencing. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist or botanist and shall be large enough to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the plant.  If special-status plants are found during special-status plant surveys and cannot be avoided, the City of Roseville shall, in consultation with CDFW as appropriate depending on the particular species, develop and implement a site-specific mitigation strategy to offset the loss of occupied habitat and individual plants. Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 12 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the project site, with a preference for on-site mitigation. Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio, considering acreage as well as function and value. Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations shall include:
 The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.  Compensatory and preserved populations shall be self-producing. Populations shall be considered selfproducing when:
• plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
• reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity. • If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures shall be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long-term viable populations.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce significant impacts on special-status plants to a less-thansignificant level by requiring a protocol-level survey for special-status plants for project activities associated with installation of utilities in the PUE and implementation of avoidance measures and compensation for impacts on special-status plants.

Impact 3.5-2: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Phase 1: Implementation of Phase 1 would involve land use conversion and associated development activities such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal both within the project site and in the PUE, resulting in the overall loss of wildlife habitat. These actions could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss. This impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: Implementation of Phase 2 would involve an additional 34 acres of land use conversion. However, because the project site would need to be made suitable for development for Phase 1, the existing surface of the development area would need to be raised to be equal or higher than the flood elevation during Phase 1. Because the area of Phase 2 would also need to be raised to help achieve a buildable area concurrent with Phase 1, the area of Phase 2 would be disturbed concurrent with Phase 1. However, because the area would remain undeveloped, the site could revert to a natural state between completion of Phase 1 and the start of Phase 2 and, depending on conditions, could provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Development activities associated with Phase 2, such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal, would result in the overall loss of potential wildlife habitat. These actions could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if any are present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss. This impact would be considered potentially significant.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 Mitigation Measure 3.5-2a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Northwestern Pond Turtle, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Prior to implementation of project activities within the project site, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of northwestern pond turtles and experienced in performing surveys for northwestern pond turtle shall conduct a focused survey of aquatic habitat and upland habitats suitable for the species within approximately 1,600 feet of aquatic habitat. The qualified biologist shall inspect the project site for northwestern pond turtles as well as burrow habitat suitable for the species.
 If northwestern pond turtles are not detected during the focused survey, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation will not be required.  If northwestern pond turtles are detected, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet shall be established around any identified nest sites or overwintering sites. These nest and overwintering sites shall be monitored until the northwestern pond turtles have left the nest on their own accord.  A qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit that allows handling of reptiles shall be present during initial ground disturbance activities and shall inspect the project site before initiation of project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are detected, the qualified biologist shall move the turtles downstream and out of harm’s way.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2b: Provide Stream Setbacks, Best Management Practices Although the project would have a buffer between the edge of construction and Pleasant Grove Creek of between 930 and 1,614 feet, the following protection measure shall be implemented during construction:
 Prior to the start of construction activities on the project site, the limits of disturbance shall be established, flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and or fencing under the direction of a qualified biologist, and no project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging) shall occur beyond these areas. All workers and contractors shall be made aware that this area is an environmentally sensitive area and it is off-limits. After construction is completed, this temporary fencing shall be removed from the area.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2c: Develop and Integrate a Nuisance Wildlife Management Plan into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan
 The City shall develop a nuisance wildlife management plan and incorporate it into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan that includes BMPs to minimize attracting nuisance wildlife, ensuring the measures comply with local, state and federal regulations.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2d: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Spadefoot, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Within three days of commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of western spadefoot and experienced in performing surveys for western spadefoot shall conduct a focused survey of wetland habitat in the PUE. The qualified biologist shall inspect the project site for western spadefoot, western spadefoot tadpoles and eggs, and suitable terrestrial and overwintering habitat (i.e., burrows).  If an overwintering western spadefoot, western spadefoot tadpoles, or western spadefoot eggs are observed on the project site during the preconstruction survey, the area shall be fenced off and avoided until the eggs hatch, tadpoles develop, and/or the burrow is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. The fenced area shall be open on one side with the opening facing the nearest aquatic or upland dispersal habitat so that young or overwintering western spadefoot can freely travel from the fenced area to the aquatic or dispersal habitat. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nest area to ensure that western spadefoot do not disperse into the construction area. Monitoring shall occur until the qualified biologist determines the area to no longer be actively occupied by western spadefoot.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 14 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  A qualified biologist shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities to monitor these activities. If a western spadefoot is encountered, work shall be suspended in a 100-foot radius of the animal until the animal leaves the project site of its own volition. If necessary, a qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate procedures related to relocation, which shall include, but not be limited to, obtaining a valid and applicable CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit. Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills a western spadefoot or who finds a western spadefoot dead, injured, or entrapped must immediately report the incident to the City, who must immediately notify CDFW. Entrapped western spadefoot shall be relocated by a qualified biologist with a valid and applicable CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit if approved by CDFW. • Because western spadefoot is proposed for listing under ESA, if the species is listed before completion of project construction activities that could result in injury or mortality of western spadefoots (i.e., ground disturbance, grading, land conversion), then the City may be required to consult with USFWS under Section 7 or Section 10 of ESA. If it is determined, in consultation with USFWS, that take of this species could occur after implementation of the measures described above, then the City may be required to obtain incidental take authorization through Section 7 consultation or a Section 10 permit pursuant to ESA. In this case, the project shall not proceed until a Biological Opinion is issued by USFWS. Any conservation measures developed in coordination with USFWS during the course of formal or informal consultation under Section 7 or during Section 10 consultation would supersede the measures listed here. • Such conservation measures could include, but would not be limited to, seasonal work restrictions for initial ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist, installation of wildlife exclusion fencing, biological monitoring, and worker environmental awareness training. Additional measures could include preservation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat on-of off-site; purchase of habitat credits from an agency-approved mitigation/conservation bank; work with a local land trust to preserve land; or any other method acceptable to USFWS.  If USFWS determines that listing of western spadefoot under ESA is not warranted, or the species is not listed prior to project completion, then the above measures related to consultation with USFWS would not be applicable.

Documentation of compliance with this mitigation measure and the coordination/consultation process with CDFW shall be provided to the City of Roseville before commencement of any project construction activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2e: Conduct Pre-construction Vernal Pool Avoidance Surveys, Protocol-Level Branchiopod Surveys, and Compensate for Loss of Vernal Pool Branchiopods  Prior to implementation of project activities in the PUE, wetland and vernal pool habitat in the PUE area shall be delineated and a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be implemented, as determined by a qualified biologist. No project activities, including staging of equipment, will occur within the no-disturbance buffer, if feasible.  If the no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, a qualified biologist familiar with vernal pool branchiopods shall conduct a focused survey for vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, following Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017), or any subsequently published guidelines. Protocollevel surveys for branchiopods require authorization from the USFWS Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
 The City of Roseville shall report all survey results to USFWS. If no vernal pool branchiopods are identified, no further mitigation shall be required.
 If vernal pool branchiopods are identified on the project site, the City shall initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS. USACE is presumed to be the federal action agency because it has jurisdiction over the aquatic habitat on the project site. If it is determined, in consultation with USFWS, that take of these species will occur as a result of project activities, then the City may be required to obtain incidental take authorization pursuant to Section 7 of ESA. The project shall not proceed until a Biological Opinion is issued by USFWS.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15  Any conservation measures developed in coordination with USFWS during formal or informal consultation under Section 7 shall be implemented.
 Additional measures may include preservation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat on- or off-site; purchase of habitat credits from an agency-approved mitigation/conservation bank; work with a local land trust to preserve land; or any other method acceptable to USFWS at a no-net-loss level.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2f: Conduct Take Avoidance Surveys for Crotch’s Bumble Bee and Implement Avoidance Measures  A qualified biologist familiar with bumble bees of California and experienced using survey methods for bumble bees shall conduct a habitat assessment and focused survey for Crotch’s bumble bees before the start of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be performed when Crotch’s bumble bee is most likely to be identified, typically from April through August when floral resources and ideal weather conditions are present and shall follow the methods in Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or any subsequent protocol approved by CDFW. Surveys shall be conducted during the colony active period closest to the start of planned construction activities. At least three (3) on-site surveys shall take place prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. Each survey shall be spaced 2-4 weeks apart during the Colony Active Period.
 The City of Roseville shall submit a survey report to CDFW within 1 month of survey completion and shall notify CDFW within 24 hours if Crotch’s bumble bees are detected.  If Crotch’s bumble bees are detected during the focused surveys, appropriate avoidance measures shall be implemented. Avoidance measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Protective buffers shall be implemented around active nesting colonies or overwintering queens until these sites are no longer active. A qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size to protect nesting colonies or overwintering queens.
 If impacts on crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided, the City shall obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) from CDFW and shall implement all measures included in the ITP to reduce the amount of take and offset the loss of individuals or their habitat from the project site and provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individuals or habitat.  Compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual bumblebees or their habitat may include:

1. Preserving existing habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity; this may entail purchasing mitigation credits and/or lands from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved entity in sufficient quantity to offset the residual significant impacts, generally at a ratio of 1:1 for habitat; and

2. Restoring or enhancing existing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site but within the range of the species in the City limits.
 The City shall prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects:
a. For preserving existing habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The City shall submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the City has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. b. For restoring or enhancing habitat within or outside of the project site, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 16 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure 3.5-2g: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Monarch Eggs, Larvae and Pupae, and Implement Avoidance Measures
 No more than 14 days prior to implementing project activities that would result in ground disturbance or vegetation removal during the time when milkweed plants could host monarch eggs or caterpillars (approximately mid-March through late September), a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for milkweed plants and inspect these plants for monarch eggs, larvae (i.e., caterpillars), and pupae. If monarch eggs, caterpillars, or pupae are found, the host plants shall be avoided until metamorphosis is completed and adult butterflies emerge and leave the host plant. If no eggs, caterpillars or pupae are detected, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation shall not be required.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2h: Conduct Focused Surveys for Special-Status Birds, Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers; and Mitigate for the Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat  To minimize the potential for loss of special-status bird species, raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, and before January 1, no further mitigation shall be required.
 If project construction activities, including tree removal, occur after January 1 but before February 1, a preconstruction survey for nesting great-horned owl shall take place. This survey shall be conducted within 500 feet of the development area where activities or tree removals are to take place. If no nesting great-horned owls are found, the qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a report summarizing the result of the survey to the City of Roseville, and construction or tree removals can move forward. If nesting great-horned owls are found, impacts on nesting great-horned owls shall be avoided by establishing a 500-foot buffer around the active nest site(s) identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer will not likely result in nest abandonment.  Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season of other birds besides great-horned owl (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for special-status birds, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted within 0.25 miles of the project site for Swainson’s hawk; within 500 feet of the project site for other special-status birds and common raptors; and within 50 feet of the project site for non-raptor common native bird nests.  Because the nests of riparian-nesting birds (i.e., song sparrow [“Modesto” population], tricolored blackbird, and western yellow-billed cuckoo) are small and difficult to find, occupancy of habitat suitable for these species (i.e., riparian woodland) shall be determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of these species and with experience identifying the calls of these species. If special-status riparian-nesting birds are observed calling, exhibiting territorial displays, carrying nest materials, carrying prey, or other signs of breeding behavior, the habitat shall be considered occupied.
 If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation shall be required.  Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer will not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer of a minimum of 0.25 miles shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk in consultation with CDFW. An avoidance buffer of a minimum of 500 feet shall be implemented for western yellow-billed cuckoo in consultation with USFWS and CDFW and for tricolored blackbird in consultation with CDFW. Buffers typically will be 500 feet for

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 other special-status birds and common raptors. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for non-raptor nests after a site- and nest-specific analysis. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size will include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. Generally, buffer size for these species will be at least 20 feet. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a special-status species shall require consultation with CDFW. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.
 The City shall mitigate for the loss of 51.63 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat by purchasing foraging habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank in the area at a 1:1 ratio for each acre of foraging habitat removed by the project. This mitigation shall occur before the approval of any grading or improvement plans for the project.
 If egret or night heron rookeries are found within trees on the project site, an avoidance buffer shall be implemented, the size of which will be determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size for large rookeries will likely be larger than for single nests due to the number of birds and nests within the rookery. Rookery trees identified on the project site shall be retained permanently.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2i Conduct Focused Surveys for Northern California Ringtail Dens and Implement Avoidance Measures
 To minimize the potential loss of ringtail and active ringtail dens, tree removal within the development area on the project site shall be conducted outside of the ringtail breeding season (not well defined, but likely approximately March 1 to July 31), if feasible.
 Within seven days before initiation of tree removal within the development area on the project site or demolishing or repurposing of the associated buildings during the ringtail breeding season, a qualified biologist familiar with ringtail shall conduct a focused survey for potential ringtail dens (e.g., hollow trees, snags) within the trees planned for removal, and buildings within the development area of the project site. The qualified biologist shall identify individual ringtails, as well as potential dens.  If individuals or occupied dens are not found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation shall not be required.  If ringtails are identified or if potential dens are found in the trees planned for removal or within one of the existing unoccupied buildings, an appropriate method, based on current professional standards, shall be used by the qualified wildlife biologist to confirm whether a ringtail is occupying the den. This may include use of remote field cameras, track plates, or hair snares. Other devices, such as a fiber optic scope, may be utilized to determine occupancy.
 If no ringtail occupies the potential den, the tree or structure may be removed.  If a den is found to be occupied by a ringtail, the tree or building may not be removed, and a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the occupied den. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the den tree or building plus a suitable buffer as determined by the biologist in coordination with CDFW. Project activities in the no-disturbance buffer shall be avoided until the den is no longer occupied as determined by the qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 18 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure 3.5-2j: Conduct Focused Bat Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures  Prior to tree removal activities and demolition or repurposing of existing buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats and bat ecology and experienced in conducting bat surveys shall conduct surveys for bat roosts in large trees and existing buildings on the project site.
 If no evidence of bat roosts is found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation will be required.  If evidence of bat roosts is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost shall be determined. Bat detectors shall be used if deemed necessary to supplement survey efforts by the qualified biologist.  A no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be established around active pallid bat or western red bat roosts, and project construction activities shall not occur within this buffer until the roosts are no longer occupied by bats as determined by a qualified biologist.
 If roosts of pallid bat or western red bat are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures shall be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) shall be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may require construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. If determined necessary during consultation with CDFW, replacement roosts shall be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site by a qualified biologist, the roost tree or building may be removed, demolished, or repurposed.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2k: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Burrowing Owl and Implement Avoidance Measures.
 A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the project site. Inaccessible areas (e.g., adjacent private property) will not be surveyed directly if access is not granted, but the biologist may use binoculars or a spotting scope to survey these areas from the project site or other publicly accessible areas. A minimum of four surveys shall be conducted to determine whether burrowing owls occupy habitats on or within 1,640 feet of the project site.

Surveys shall be conducted according to Appendix D of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) (CDFG 2012), or any subsequent updated guidance. 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. Because burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, one of the surveys, or an additional survey, shall be conducted no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities to verify that take of burrowing owl would not occur. During the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any area to be disturbed by project activities. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey was conducted.  If no burrowing owls are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City, and no further mitigation shall be required.  If a burrow occupied by a burrowing owl is found during the surveys, the City shall establish and maintain a buffer around the occupied burrow and any identified satellite burrows (i.e., burrows used to escape predators or move young into after hatching) to prevent take of the burrowing owls.  During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), the minimum buffer distance shall be 164 feet (50 m). During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), the minimum buffer distance shall follow CDFW’s recommended buffers depending on the level of disturbance.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19  The buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer would not result in take of burrowing owl adults, young, or eggs because of particular site features (e.g., topography, natural line-of-sight barriers), level of project disturbance, or other considerations. If the buffer is reduced, a qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the burrowing owls during all project activities within 1,640 feet of the burrow. If the owls are disturbed or agitated (e.g., vocalizations, bill snaps, fluffing feathers to increase body size appearance, drooping wings and rotating them forward, crouching and weaving back and forth) by the project activities, the biologist shall have the authority to halt the activities and re-establish a buffer consistent with the first bullet until the agitated behavior ceases and normal behavior resumes.
 The buffer shall remain in place around the occupied burrow and associated satellite burrows until a qualified biologist has determined through noninvasive methods that the burrows are no longer occupied by burrowing owl. A previously occupied burrow will be considered unoccupied if surveys demonstrate that no owls have used the burrow for seven consecutive days.
 Locations of burrowing owls detected during surveys shall be reported to the CNDDB.  If implementation of a buffer to prevent take of burrowing owl is not feasible, the City shall consult with CDFW and obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to commencing project related ground-disturbing activities. The impacts of taking burrowing owl shall be minimized and fully mitigated.  If take occurs, the City shall compensate for the loss of burrowing owl by establishing permanent protection and perpetual management on land that provides burrowing owl habitat. Habitat management lands for burrowing owl may be established by conservation easement or fee title, or credits may be purchased from a CDFWapproved conservation or mitigation bank. The compensatory mitigation shall satisfy permit conditions and all other permit conditions shall be implemented.
 The City shall decommission the rice fields and other active agricultural areas on the project site only after these areas have been surveyed for burrowing owls as indicated above. Decommissioning of rice fields and other agricultural areas shall include the removal of all irrigation and drainage components, including pipe culvert, rice trunks/sluice boxes, and any other debris from the area.  All demolition debris shall be removed from the site to prevent wildlife from using the debris as shelter.

Demolition debris may be stored in covered containers immediately prior to off-site transport.  Laydown materials areas shall be maintained and monitored so that materials and equipment do not attract or provide shelter habitat for wildlife. Pipes or other construction materials that could provide burrow surrogate habitat shall be kept covered or sealed.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, and 3.5-2c would reduce potential impacts on northwestern pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for the species, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of northwestern pond turtles if detected, and relocation of individual turtles by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit, implementing construction BMPs and providing stream setbacks by fencing or flagging the limits of disturbance, and developing a nuisance wildlife management plan and incorporating it into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 20 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2d would reduce potential impacts on western spadefoot to a less-thansignificant level by requiring focused surveys for the species and implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of western spadefoot if detected, biological monitoring, and relocation of individuals by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2e would reduce impacts on vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of protection measures, and compensation for loss of vernal pool branchiopods where direct or indirect impacts on the species are unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2f would reduce the potential impact on Crotch’s bumble bee to a lessthan-significant level by requiring focused surveys for bumble bees, implementing measures to avoid mortality of Crotch’s bumble bees if nests or overwintering queens are detected, obtaining an ITP for unavoidable impacts, and developing a compensatory mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW to offset the loss of individuals or occupied habitat.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2g would reduce potential impacts on monarch to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for milkweed plant, monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae and implementation of measures to avoid mortality of monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae if they are detected.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2h would reduce potential impacts on special-status birds, raptors, and other common native nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for nesting birds, implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected and compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2i would reduce potential impacts on Northern California ringtail to a lessthan-significant level by requiring focused surveys for ringtail dens prior to tree removal, demolishing or repurposing of unoccupied buildings at the site, and implementation of no-disturbance buffers around active dens in consultation with CDFW.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2j would reduce potential impacts on pallid bat and western red bat to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for bat roosts, no-disturbance buffers around active specialstatus bat roosts, and consultation with CDFW if special-status bat roosts would be removed.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2k would ensure potential impacts on burrowing owls remain less-thansignificant by requiring that active burrows on or near the project site be identified and avoided or monitored so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young.

Impact 3.5-3: Result in Degradation or Loss of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities
Phase 1: Implementation of Phase 1 may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands identified in the off-site portion of the PUE, which could result in the degradation or loss of riparian and vernal pool habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Provide Stream Setbacks, Best Management Practices, and Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat
The City shall implement the following protection measures prior to implementation of project activities (e.g., construction, staging) within 50 feet of valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site:
 Setbacks shall be established around all valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site and shall be flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and/or fencing under the direction of the qualified biologist and no project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging) shall occur within these areas. Setback distances shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the appropriate agency (e.g., CDFW), but will generally be a minimum of 50 feet. Foot traffic by personnel shall also be limited in these

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 areas to prevent the introduction of invasive or weedy species or inadvertent crushing of plants and soil compaction. Periodic inspections during construction shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to maintain the integrity of exclusion fencing/flagging throughout the period of construction involving ground disturbance.  If project implementation cannot avoid and thus may adversely affect the bed, bank, channel, or associated riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, the following measures shall apply.
 A Streambed Alteration Notification shall be submitted to CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. If proposed project activities are determined to be subject to CDFW jurisdiction, the City shall abide by the measures to protect fish and wildlife resources required by any executed agreement prior to any vegetation removal or activity that may affect the resource. Measures to protect fish and wildlife resources shall include, at a minimum, a combination of the following mitigation.  The City shall compensate for the loss of riparian habitat and habitat function and value of this habitat by:
• restoring riparian habitat function and value within the project site; • restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the project site; • purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or • preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the affected riparian habitat through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function (at least 1:1).  The City shall prepare and implement a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that will include the following:
• For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The City will provide evidence in the plan that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the City has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. • For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the project site or outside of the project site, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat.
• Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the City (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 would reduce potential impacts on riparian and vernal pool habitat to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of avoidance measures, compensation for permanent loss of these to offset the loss with a minimum 1:1 ratio, and potentially including a streambed alteration agreement with CDFW.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 22 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.5-4: Result in Degradation or Loss of State or Federally Protected Wetlands Phase 1: Implementation of Phase 1 would include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE, which could result in inadvertent fill of the identified wetlands. Fill of wetlands would remove or degrade these features, which would be a potentially significant impact. In addition, wetlands located on nearby Placer Conservation Authority reserve properties could be indirectly affected if project implementation would result in a substantial change to off-site hydrologic conditions. Such changes could adversely affect wetland functions and values, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 The City shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-3, described above.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b: Identify State or Federally Protected Wetlands, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Obtain Permits for Unavoidable Impacts on Wetlands
The following measures shall be implemented prior to initiation of project construction activities:
 The City shall retain a qualified biologist, hydrologist, or wetland ecologist to prepare a formal delineation of the boundaries of state or federally protected wetlands and other waters within the project site according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West regional supplement (USACE 2008). The qualified biologist shall also delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States, but would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (SWRCB 2019). This delineation report shall be submitted to USACE, and a preliminary jurisdictional determination shall be requested.  Where state or federally protected wetlands can be avoided, the boundary of the delineated ordinary high-water mark shall be demarcated with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). Project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) shall be prohibited within the established boundary. A qualified biologist shall periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided.  Authorization for fill of waters of the United States associated with project activities, including utility installation in the PUE, shall be secured from USACE through the Section 404, Section 10, and Section 408 permitting processes, as well as through CVFPB. Any state or federally protected wetlands that would be affected by the project shall be replaced or restored on a no-net-loss basis in accordance with the applicable USACE mitigation guidelines in place at the time of construction. In association with the Section 404 permit (if applicable) and prior to the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley RWQCB shall be obtained. For any activity that may result in discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state that may not be covered by the 401 Water Quality Certification, Panattoni shall secure a permit from the Central Valley RWQCB and provide compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of any waters of the state in accordance with State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (California Water Boards 2019), such that the project would not result in a net loss of overall abundance, diversity, and condition of aquatic resources within the affected watershed based on a watershed assessment using an assessment method approved by the permitting authority (e.g., Central Valley RWQCB or California Water Resources Control Board). The City shall comply with waste discharge requirements as described in Section 3.12, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”  The City shall notify CDFW before commencing activity that may divert the natural flow or otherwise alter the bed, bank, or riparian corridor of any stream protected pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. If project activities trigger the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent shall obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The City shall conduct project construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways or in riparian habitats associated with those

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 waterways. These measures may include but not be limited to demarcation of the construction area, biological monitoring, environmental awareness training for construction crews, and compensatory measures (e.g., restoration, long-term habitat management). Compensatory mitigation for impacts on state or federally protected wetlands, described in the prior bullet, may count towards compensation for loss of fish and wildlife resources protected pursuant to CDFW’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.  The City shall obtain a permit for the installation of utility infrastructure in the PUE, or shall obtain an amendment to existing Army Permit #200200666 which previously permitted work in the PUE. The new permit or amendment shall be obtained through USACE in coordination with USFWS and additional agencies as required. The City shall adhere to all requirements of the new or amended permit, which may include the mitigation of any wetland habitat loss in the PUE through the purchase of equivalent wetland credits at an approved mitigation bank within the project’s service area.
 The City shall prepare a hydrologic study to characterize existing site hydrology and ensure that project implementation and operation would not result in a substantial change to off-site hydrologic conditions within 250 feet from the project site’s disturbance boundary. Based on the study findings, the City shall establish and implement appropriate buffers, as warranted, to avoid substantial adverse effects on off-site seasonal wetlands.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-4a and 3.5-4b would reduce potential direct and indirect (i.e., downstream) impacts on wetlands in the PUE to a less-than-significant level by requiring protection measures to prevent discharge of silt into these features during project construction, implementation of avoidance measures for impacts on riparian habitat, delineation of wetlands on the project site and off-site PUE area, and permitting for unavoidable impacts.

Impact 3.5-5: Interfere with Wildlife Movement Corridors or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries Phase 1: Project construction and implementation could result in temporary and permanent impacts on wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, described in Section 3.1, ”Aesthetics and Visual Resources.” Implement Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 and 3.12-3, described in Section 3.12, ”Noise and Vibration.” Mitigation Measure 3.5-5: Utilize Wildlife-Friendly Building Design In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” the City shall implement the following measures:
 Buildings and other permanent structures shall be designed to minimize impacts on wildlife, including disruption to wildlife movement.
 Building design shall utilize guidelines regarding building height, materials, external lighting, and landscaping provided in the American Bird Conservancy’s “Bird Friendly Building Design” (American Bird Conservancy 2015).  The City shall place structural barriers to screen construction lighting and construction vehicular headlights that are directed perpendicular to Pleasant Grove Creek. This may be accomplished through the placement of a 5-6-

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 24 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations foot vegetated hedge or other structural method that would screen the northern portion of the project. The City shall also implement measures to minimize spillover of construction lighting onto nearby Placer Conservation Authority reserve properties, including the use of shielded fixtures, directional lighting, and other lighting controls as necessary.
 To minimize light spillage from the project during operation into Pleasant Grove Creek and the nearby Placer Conservation Authority reserve properties, outdoor lighting shall be the minimum wattage required for the particular use, shall be shielded, and shall be directed to the specific location intended for illumination to prevent stray light spillover onto sensitive riparian habitat.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 requires implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare that could affect wildlife movement and nursery sites. Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 and 3.12- 3 require the implementation of construction and stationary noise reduction methods that would minimize noise that could alter wildlife movement or nursery sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-5 would require the City to utilize wildlife-friendly design guidelines when designing the project and calls for the construction and installation of a structural barrier to screen construction and vehicular lighting associated with Phase 1 and follow BMPs to minimize light spillage into the riparian habitat. For the above reasons, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.5-6: Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances Phase 1: Chapter 19.66 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation,” contains requirements for projects that would remove protected trees. Implementation of the project would result in direct removal of or damage to trees that may be protected under the City of Roseville Municipal Code. This impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would result in direct removal of or damage to trees that may be considered protected under the City of Roseville Municipal Code. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-6: Remove and Replace Protected Trees Consistent with Chapter 19.66 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation”
The City would implement the following measures to avoid or compensate for impacts on protected trees and comply with the City of Roseville Municipal Code (Chapter 19.66).  The City shall retain an ISA-certified arborist to survey the trees within the project site and prepare an arborist report that meets the requirements under the City of Roseville Municipal Code.  Prior to the start of construction activities (i.e., ground disturbance, tree removal, staging), the City or its contractor shall apply for a Tree Permit from the City of Roseville. The application shall include the arborist report and a site plan map with information deemed necessary by the City Planning Manager. The site plan map shall include physical characteristics of the project (e.g., property lines, existing and proposed buildings and structures, existing and proposed grades), tree locations, and the location of the protected zone of each protected tree.  The number, location, species, health, and sizes of all protected trees to be removed, relocated, or replaced shall be identified. This information shall also be provided on a map or design drawing to be included in the project plans.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25  Protected trees that would be retained on the project site would be subject to tree preservation measures as outlined in the code, including protective fencing, signing, and modified ground disturbance activities (e.g., trenching with hand tools).
 The City shall compensate for the loss of protected trees using one of the following four methods, as approved by the City Planning Manager: replacement of trees, relocation of trees, revegetation, or in-lieu mitigation fees.  The City Planning Manager may allow removal of a protected tree that has been certified by an arborist to be a dead tree without any replacement or mitigation requirements.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would reduce potential impacts related to conflicts with the City of Roseville Municipal Code to a less-than-significant level by requiring a Tree Permit from the City of Roseville, implementation of tree preservation measures for protected trees that would be retained on the project site, and compensatory mitigation for removal of protected trees.

7.1.4 Cultural Resources
Impact 3.6-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources
Phase 1: Results of the records search and pedestrian survey did not result in the identification of archaeological resources within the project site. However, project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Phase 1, including off-site roadway and utility improvements, could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or PRC Section 21083.2(g). This would be a potentially significant impact.

Phase 2: Results of the records search and pedestrian survey did not result in the identification of archaeological resources within the project site. However, similar to Phase 1, project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Phase 2, including off-site roadway and utility improvements, could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or PRC Section 21083.2(g).

This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a: Conduct Records Search and Archaeological Resources Surveys for Off-Site Utilities, and Avoid Archaeological Resources
Once the final design and route of off-site utilities have been determined, and at least a month prior to the start of construction, a qualified archeologist who meets the US Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall conduct a records search and perform archeological resources surveys for the off-site utilities that have not yet been surveyed. For the purposes of this mitigation measure, all archaeological resources discovered during surveys shall be assumed to be unique archaeological resources or historical resources as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and will be recorded by a qualified archaeologist on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 primary form or equivalent documentation. Each such resource will be indicated, such as via a GIS device, through Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) mapping, with flagging tape, safety fencing, and/or signage designating it as an ESA to ensure that construction crews and heavy equipment will not intrude on these

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 26 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sites during construction. At the discretion of the City, monitoring may be done in lieu of or in addition to marking. If it is determined that the project cannot avoid impacts on one or more of the sites, then the City shall redesign the project site so that the archaeological sites will be completely avoided.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1b: Halt Ground Disturbance Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features In the event that any subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”) and concentrations of charcoal, flaked stone, glass, metal, or ceramic, are discovered during construction, all grounddisturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find (consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.7-1b). If the find is determined to be significant (i.e., because it is determined to constitute a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop, and the applicant shall implement, appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1a and 3.6-1b would reduce impacts associated with archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level because it would require the performance of a records search and pedestrian survey of the off-site PUE area, as well as professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery and protection of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources.

7.1.5 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 3.7-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Phase 1: Although Tribal consultation and the North Central Information Center and Native American Heritage Commission record searches did not result in the identification of any Tribal cultural resources, the United Auburn Indian Community expressed concern that resources could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts to Tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: Results of the records search and pedestrian survey did not result in the identification of archaeological resources within the project site. However, similar to Phase 1, project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Phase 2, including off-site roadway and utility improvements, could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or PRC Section 21083.2(g).

This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a: Prepare and Implement a Worker Awareness Training Program for Tribal Cultural Resources Prior to project-specific ground-disturbing activities, a Tribal cultural resources awareness training program will be provided to all construction personnel active on the project site. A representative or representatives from culturally affiliated Native American Tribe(s) will be invited to participate in the development and delivery of the training program in coordination with a professional archaeologist meeting the United States Secretary of Interior’s qualification standards for archaeology. The program will include relevant information regarding Tribal cultural

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 resources, including applicable laws and regulations, the consequences of violating said laws and regulations, protocols for resource avoidance, and protocols for discoveries, including who to contact in the event of a discovery and what to do upon the discovery of human remains. The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find of significance to Native Americans and protocols, consistent with Native American Tribal values.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1b: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources During ground-disturbing construction activities, if any suspected Tribal cultural resources are discovered, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, and a Tribal monitor from culturally affiliated Native American Tribe(s) shall be retained, if one is not currently on site. The Tribal monitor shall determine if the find is a Tribal cultural resource. The consulting THPO will make recommendations for further evaluation and culturally appropriate treatment of discovered Tribal cultural resources as necessary. Consultation with an archaeologist who meets the secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for archaeology may also occur.

Treatment and Documentation:

The culturally affiliated Tribe shall consult with the Lead Agency to (1) identify the boundaries of the new Tribal cultural resource and (2) if feasible, identify appropriate preservation in place and avoidance measures, including redesign or adjustments to the existing construction process, and long-term management, or (3) if avoidance is infeasible, a reburial location in proximity of the find where no future disturbance is anticipated. Permanent curation of Tribal cultural resources will not take place unless approved in writing by the culturally affiliated Tribe.

The construction contractor(s) shall provide secure, on-site storage for culturally sensitive soils or objects that are components of Tribal cultural resources that are found or recovered during construction. Only Tribal Representatives shall have access to the storage. Storage size shall be determined by the nature of the TCR and can range from a small lock box to a conex box (shipping container). A secure (locked), fenced area can also provide adequate on-site storage if larger amounts of material must be stored.

The construction contractor(s) and Lead Agency shall facilitate the respectful reburial of the culturally sensitive soils or objects. This includes providing a reburial location that is consistent with the Tribe’s preferences, excavation of the reburial location, and assisting with the reburial, upon request.

Any discoveries shall be documented on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form within 4 weeks of the discovery and submitted to the appropriate CHRIS center in a timely manner.

If articulated or disarticulated human remains, or human remains in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness are discovered during construction activities, the County Coroner and the culturally affiliated Tribe shall be contacted immediately (per PRC 7050.5). Upon determination by the County Coroner that the find is Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission will assign the Most Likely Descendent who will work with the project proponent to define appropriate treatment and disposition of the burials.

Work at the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation, evaluation, and treatment of the discovery under the requirements of the CEQA, specifically PRC Section 21084.3[b], have been satisfied.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a and 3.7-1b would reduce impacts associated with Tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level by training workers to properly handle inadvertent discovery of sensitive resources and requiring appropriate treatment and proper care of significant Tribal cultural resources, in the case of a discovery.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 28 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

7.1.6 Geology and Soils
Impact 3.9-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature
Phase 1: As identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the project site consists of geologic conditions common in the region and does not contain unique geologic features. Nonetheless, the potential to discover paleontological resources on-site still exists. Project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Phase 1, including off-site roadway and utility improvements, may result in inadvertent discovery of unique paleontological resources. If a unique paleontological resource or site is encountered during excavation, it could be damaged or destroyed if protective measures are not in place. As a result, this impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: As mentioned above, the project site consists of geologic conditions common in the region and does not contain unique geologic features. Nonetheless, the potential to discover paleontological resources on-site still exists.

Project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Phase 2, including off-site roadway and utility improvements, may result in inadvertent discovery of unique paleontological resources. If a unique paleontological resource or site is encountered during excavation, it could be damaged or destroyed if protective measures are not in place. As a result, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-4a: Provide Paleontological Training for Construction Personnel Before construction begins, the City shall ensure that all construction workers who will be on-site during construction receive training materials provided by a qualified paleontologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications to ensure that construction personnel can correctly identify fossilized materials in the event of inadvertent discovery.

The training materials could be in the form of a presentation (live or recorded) and/or written materials provided to construction workers.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-4b: Implement Procedures for the Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources If any paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that all activities in the immediate area of the find are halted and that the City is informed. The City shall then retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications to evaluate the discovery, prepare a report evaluating the discovery, and include recommendations in the report pursuant to the guidelines established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, including, if applicable, development and implementation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program for treatment of the discovery.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-4a and 3.9-4b would reduce impacts to unique paleontological resources because construction personnel would be properly trained on the discovery of unique paleontological resources, and in the event fossil specimens are encountered during construction activities, a paleontologist would be retained to evaluate the fossil and recommend appropriate actions. As a result, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the project’s potential impact associated with inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29

7.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.10-2: Result in Foreseeable Upset and/or Accident Conditions Involving Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment
Phase 1: Agricultural and farming uses could have resulted in soil and/or groundwater contamination, specifically within the area of the project site that is designated for the Vendor Lease Area. Site disturbance could expose people in the area to hazardous materials from existing soil contamination. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-2: Evaluate Site Soils
As recommended in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site, the contractor shall implement the following measure during building demolition and/or ground disturbance in the portion of the project site that is designated as potentially contaminated in the Phase I or Phase II ESAs for the Vendor Lease Area.

This measure would also be incorporated into the site’s Improvement Plans, which the City would be responsible for monitoring and enforcing.
 When on-site buildings are being demolished or the site graded to prepare for future use, the affected soil shall be excavated and stockpiled on a visqueen sheet and sampled in four locations. The four samples shall be composited together to analyze for petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and for lead to determine proper soil disposal. If the concentrations indicate no carcinogenic constituents (and are in the range of 0 to 100 ppm), the soil can be used as fill onsite. If the range is 100 to 600 ppm, the soil can be used as road base or beneath building foundations. If the range exceeds those concentrations, disposal at a Class II landfill shall be investigated.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
The site investigation required by Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 would reduce potential impacts related to potential soil and/or groundwater contamination by identifying site soils requiring remediation and abating the hazard in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. After mitigation, the project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to existing soil contamination.

Impact 3.10-3: Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Phase 1: The City of Roseville maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (City of Roseville 2011) that serves as the official emergency plan for the city as well as a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Roseville 2023). As part of project operation, adequate emergency access routes to and from the project site would be established and emergency response would not be impaired. However, construction activities associated with Phase 1 of the project could result in temporary lane closures, increased traffic, and other roadway conditions that could interfere with or slow down emergency vehicle access and services. This impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: The City of Roseville maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (City of Roseville 2011) that serves as the official emergency plan for the city as well as a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Roseville 2023). As part of project operation, adequate emergency access routes to and from the project site would be established and emergency response would not be impaired. However, similar to Phase 1, construction activities associated with Phase 2 of the project could result in temporary lane closures, increased traffic, and other roadway conditions that could interfere with or slow down emergency vehicle access and services. This impact would be potentially significant.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 30 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure 3.10-3a: Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be developed/updated by the contractor and approved by the City of Roseville before construction begins on any component of the project. The CTMP shall be implemented during all phases of project construction and shall include, but not limited to, the following:
 name and telephone number of a contact person regarding traffic complaints or emergency situations;  community notification procedures and contact information for local police, fire, and emergency response organizations and procedures for the continuous coordination of construction activity;  procedures for training the flag person(s) used in implementing the plan;  the location, times, and estimated duration of any temporary lane closures;  developing, and once approved, managing the haul route plan and construction parking management plan;  timing of disruptive construction activities; scheduling of deliveries, pick-ups and hauling of material during nonpeak travel periods to the extent possible; and  the contractor will provide an estimate of truck volume and schedule. Areas will be designated by the City for the staging of all trucks. All earth-moving and ready-mix trucks will be equipped with two-way radios so that the drivers at the staging areas are linked to a person controlling traffic at the project site. Trucks will follow a cityapproved route to the project site.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-3b: Establish Evacuation Routes via a Hazard Mitigation Plan The City shall, in coordination with the Roseville Fire Department, develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan for project operation that establishes appropriate evacuation routes for the project site. The hazard mitigation plan shall be developed prior to project operation and would be implemented throughout project operation.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3a requires the project contractor to develop a CTMP to alleviate potential construction activity impacts during both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3a would require that adequate emergency access is provided during project construction to minimize impacts to emergency responders and evacuation access. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3b would require the City to establish appropriate evacuation routes as part of a site-specific hazard mitigation plan. After mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31

7.1.8 Noise
Impact 3.12-1: Construction-Generated Noise
Phase 1: The nearest noise-sensitive receptor is approximately 650 feet south of the project site from the acoustical center of typical construction activities. Daytime construction noise would comply with the City’s maximum allowable limits and would be exempt under the City’s Municipal Code. Daytime construction is exempt and not expected to result in sleep disturbance. However, nighttime construction, though infrequent and not occurring on consecutive nights, could result in sleep disturbances and temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, construction activities occurring during nighttime hours would result in a potentially significant noise impact.

Phase 2: Phase 2 construction activities would occur at distances equal to or greater than those in Phase 1 and would be expected to generate equal or lower noise levels during project construction. However, nighttime construction could exceed City noise standards and result in a potentially significant impact due to the potential for sleep disturbance.

Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Construction Noise Reduction Methods The City or its construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with nighttime construction activities:
 All residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site shall be notified in writing of anticipated nighttime construction, including hours of operation and expected noise-generating activities, at least one week prior to the start of nighttime construction activities.  Temporary noise barriers shall be installed where line-of-sight exists between noise-generating equipment and adjacent sensitive receptors for the duration of the proposed nighttime activities. These barriers shall be designed to achieve a minimum noise attenuation of 5 dBA or more.  A construction manager shall be designated to ensure compliance with noise mitigation measures and to respond to noise complaints. A phone number or other instantaneous notification method shall be posted on site for use by the public in reporting any noise concerns.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
With the installation of temporary noise barriers, noise levels associated with nighttime construction activities would be reduced by 5 dBA. As a result, the anticipated construction noise level of 48.8 dBA Leq would be attenuated to approximately 43.8 dBA Leq and 49.4 dBA Lmax. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-1—including temporary barriers and other BMPs—would reduce nighttime construction noise to levels below the City’s applicable nighttime noise standards of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-1, the impact of nighttime construction noise would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 32 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.12-3: Long-Term Non-Transportation Noise Levels Phase 1: The project would introduce new stationary noise sources during operation, including loading dock activities (e.g., truck and forklift operations), building mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units), equipment maintenance activities, and backup generators. Based on reference noise levels and typical equipment usage rates, these sources have the potential to generate noise levels that exceed the City of Roseville’s Municipal Code standards of 50 dBA equivalent sound level (Leq) and 70 dBA continuous maximum sound level (Lmax) during daytime hours and 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours, at the nearest sensitive receptors’ property line. Noise generated by activities such as the release of truck air brakes and equipment maintenance operations may result in exceedances of applicable thresholds, particularly during nighttime hours. In accordance with City Policy N1.5, increases in ambient noise levels may be considered significant depending on the existing noise environment, with smaller increases being potentially significant in areas with higher baseline noise levels. However, backup generators, equipment associated with materials recovery facility (MRF), and the equipment maintenance facility could generate noise levels that exceed the City’s absolute noise level and the noise increase standard. Therefore, this impact related to long-term nontransportation noise would be potentially significant.

Phase 2: Phase 2 of the project would expand the RRTO facility and add a potential future organics processing facility, but would not introduce any new or unique noise sources that would generate greater noise levels than those identified in Phase 1. However, backup generators and equipment associated with the MRF and the equipment maintenance facility could generate noise levels that exceed the City’s absolute noise level and the noise increase standard. Because noise generated during Phase 2 operations could exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Stationary Noise Reduction Methods The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts from mechanical equipment associated with the MRF:
 Building façades of the MRF that are in the direct line-of-sight of sensitive receptors shall incorporate acoustical upgrades (e.g., acoustical upgraded wall assemblies) to provide a minimum noise attenuation where attenuated noise levels would comply with the City of Roseville’s City’s daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line; or  Implement alternative noise reduction measures (e.g., quieter equipment, noise/vibration dampening mounts, and distance setbacks) that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below the City’s daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of backup generators:
 Locate the proposed backup generators as far as possible from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; or
 Incorporate shielding with on-site structures, acoustical enclosures, or other design measures, such that 45 dBA Leq is not exceeded at the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; or  Implement alternative noise reduction measures that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below applicable daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

The City shall implement one of the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of equipment maintenance facility:
 Limit noise generating activities associated with the operation of the equipment maintenance facility to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours only; or

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33  The project shall orient main facility entrance to break direct line-of-sight to the nearest sensitive receptor at the property line. If such orientation is not feasible, doors shall remain closed during noise-generating activities that occur during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours; or  Implement alternative noise reduction measures that are demonstrated, by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be equally effective in reducing noise levels to below applicable daytime thresholds of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime thresholds of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Measures shall be incorporated into the project design and identified on the site plan. The City shall verify that these measures are included in the site plan before approval of the final site plan.

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the methods identified in Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 would reduce the noise levels of the proposed stationary equipment associated with the MRF and backup generators to below the City’s noise level daytime standards of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax and nighttime standards of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax as well as ensure that the proposed equipment maintenance facility would not generate noise levels exceeding the City’s nighttime standards of 45 dBA Leq and resulting in a substantial increase in noise. Thus, implementing Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

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

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

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 34 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure 3.17-1b: Implement Fire Prevention Measures during Construction During construction activities at the project site, the contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the following fire risk reduction measures:
 Within a minimum 50-foot buffer from any welding/grinding operations or areas of open flame, maintain all areas clear of vegetation and other flammable materials;  Spray nearby vegetation with water, if not already cleared, using a water truck or other suitable equipment, prior to any welding or grinding operations or the use of an open flame;  All equipment, gasoline-powered hand tools, and construction and maintenance vehicles shall be equipped with spark arresters;
 Equip all construction and maintenance vehicles entering the project site, including welding trucks or rigs, with minimal fire suppression equipment (e.g., ax, bucket, 5-pound fire extinguisher, shovels);  Maintain at least one half-full water truck or water tanker at each work site during all periods of work and for 1 hour after all work has ceased for the day;
 Clearly mark and maintain fire-suppression materials and equipment; and  Use a dedicated fire watch during all welding activities.

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

Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impacts of the project to lessthan-significant levels, and are adopted by the City. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35

7.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
The following potentially significant environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with the inclusion of all proposed feasible mitigation measures, as discussed below.

7.2.1 Land Use Planning and Agricultural Resources
Impact 3.2-2: Result in the Conversion of Farmland
Phase 1: The project site has been used historically for agricultural purposes and is designated by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, and Other Land. The conversion of Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, or Other Land is not considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Prime and Unique Farmland is considered Important Farmland and its conversion is considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Phase 2: Implementation of Phase 2, like Phase 1, would result in the conversion of Unique Farmland to nonagricultural use. As described for Phase 1, the conversion of Unique Farmland is considered a significant impact under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Compensate for Important Farmland Conversion The following mitigation measure would be implemented to mitigate the project’s conversion of approximately 1 acre of Prime Farmland and 105 acres of Unique Farmland (a total of 106 acres of Important Farmland).

Prior to project construction, the City (Environmental Utilities Department) shall place a conservation easement on the Unique and Prime Farmland located within the project site but outside of the project development footprint, which includes 6 acres of Prime Farmland and 84 acres of Unique Farmland (as shown in Table 3.2-2 in the Draft EIR). This permanent, on-site easement would mitigate for the loss of 90 acres of Important Farmland. Though there are no specific requirements for additional off-site preservation of farmland, the City will seek opportunities to provide for farmland conservation outside of the city within Placer County. This may be accomplished through the purchase of land or an easement, or providing funding for, Important Farmland conservation in Placer County. Should the City’s effort to create the on-site conservation easement prove impossible or impractical, the City may pay in-lieu fees to mitigate the equivalent farm value of farmland as close to the project area as feasible.

Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate, though not to a less-than-significant level, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 36 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

7.2.2 Air Quality
Impact 3.3-3: Long-term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors Phase 2: Phase 2 would involve the operation of additional square footage at the RRTO Facility and the operation of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, which could include a future composting and/or biomass facility. Similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 of the project would result in operational emissions from the use of on-site equipment and buildingrelated energy as well as from mobile sources associated with employee commutes and operational truck travel. Based on the modeling conducted, operational emissions from Phase 2 and full operations would exceed PCAPCD thresholds of 55 lb/day for reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX, and the threshold of 82 lb/day for respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) (Table 3.3-5 in the Draft EIR). This impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Reduce Fugitive Dust From Composting The following mitigation measure would be required if the City constructs and operates the composting component of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. To minimize fugitive PM₁₀ emissions from composting operations, including the use of an Aerated Static Pile (ASP) or a Covered Aerated Static Pile (CASP) system, the City shall implement the following dust control measures during all compost feedstock handling, pile building, screening, and on-site material movement activities:
 Moisture Control: Maintain compost feedstocks and active piles at optimal moisture levels to reduce dust generation during pile construction, loading, and unloading.  Water or Suppressants: Apply water or environmentally safe dust suppressants to stockpiles and material handling areas as needed to minimize visible dust emissions.  Wind Barriers or Vegetative Buffers: Install fencing, berms, or vegetative windbreaks around the perimeter of the composting and feedstock handling areas to reduce windblown dust generation.  Enclosed or Covered Operations: Where feasible, enclose or provide wind-sheltered structures for high-dustgenerating activities such as grinding or screening.  Monitoring and Response: Implement a visible dust observation program during active operations. If visible dust is observed beyond the property line, operations contributing to dust shall be temporarily suspended until effective dust control measures are applied.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b: Permitting-Level Ambient Air Quality Evaluation for Composting and/or Stationary Biomass Facility
The following mitigation measure would be required if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, which could include a future composting and/or biomass facility. Prior to issuance of a building permit or air quality permit for the installation or operation of the composting and/or any stationary biomass energy generation system, the City of Roseville shall prepare a permitting-level emissions evaluation, in coordination with PCAPCD. The evaluation shall:
 Estimate all criteria air pollutant emissions based on the proposed technology type, combustion or conversion process, equipment specifications, fuel throughput, stack parameters, and emission factors;  Quantitatively estimate daily and annual emissions in accordance with PCAPCD Rule 502 New Source Review; and  Identify and evaluate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and other emission control measures or procure emissions offsets to reduce emissions, in accordance with PCAPCD emissions limits contained in Rule 502.

The ambient air quality evaluation shall be submitted to PCAPCD for review and the City shall incorporate identified BACT controls and/or emissions offsets, if necessary, to ensure that emissions achieve all emissions limits contained in PCAPCD’s Rule 502. Implementation of control technology and final site design shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate, though not to a less-than-significant level, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the identified dust control measures in Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a would substantially reduce fugitive PM₁₀ emissions from potential future composting operations by requiring site-specific best practices such as moisture control, traffic management, and suppression of dust-generating activities. Onsite dust suppression can generally achieve up to 75 percent reduction from onsite moving equipment, resulting in 6 lbs/day (Phase 2) and 11 lbs/day (Full Operation) associated with onsite equipment movement/material loading and unloading during composting, reported in Table 3.3-5 in the Draft EIR under the Biomass Composting category (SMAQMD 2020).

However, considering the PM emissions are dominated by the gasification process and those alone exceed the thresholds, a 75 percent reduction in onsite PM emissions from material transfer would not bring total emissions down to below the thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b would require a permitting-level specific evaluation of the anticipated daily and annual emissions associated with the potential future on-site composting and/or biomass facility. Understanding that technology advances over time, the specific technology and associated emissions with the potential future composting and/or biomass facility is likely to be different than what was evaluated in the EIR; thus, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b requires that based on the specific technology chosen in the future, including potential cogeneration features and emissions controls, that the facility meet all PCAPCD permitting requirements including emissions limits/offsets established by PCAPCD’s permitting process. Nonetheless, because ROG, NOx, and PM emissions may continue to exceed thresholds, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.3-5: Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People Phase 2: Phase 2 of the project would include the construction and operation of additional square footage at the RRTO and the construction and operation of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Phase 2 of the project would introduce new odor sources into the area such as composting and/or biomass operations. Construction odor sources would be temporary, intermittent, and dissipate rapidly from the source. Although Phase 2 would include implementation of odor minimization design features, implementation of an Odor Impact Minimization Plan as required by CCR Title 14 Section 17863.4, and compliance with applicable PCAPCD BMPs, specific details relating to the anticipated future technology for the biomass facility and specific BMPs for each odor source have not been identified at this time. Therefore, Phase 2 could produce objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, described above.

Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate, though not to a less-than-significant level, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 38 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an Odor Reduction Plan be established for the life of project operations, and specifically, the Odor Reduction Plan would be designed to address all potential odor sources. The Odor Reduction Plan would also require ongoing monitoring and adjustments, should odor issues arise.

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

7.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.4-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Phase 1: Phase 2 of the project is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 1,106 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) from construction activities, which would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. However, Phase 2 operational emissions of 13,980 MTCO2e/year would exceed the bright-line threshold. In addition, full operation of the project (2058) is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 17,862 MTCO2e, which would also exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, implementation of Phase 2 would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions related to global climate change. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks and Equipment The City shall expedite a transition to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission vehicles for all vehicle fleets that the City owns (i.e., no net increase in anthropogenic emissions [renewable diesel counts toward compliance]), with the applicable City fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2039 to coincide with Phase 2 becoming operational. The City shall ensure use of a “clean fleet” of vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 7) as part of Phase 2 operations as follows:
 For any vehicle (Class 2 through 6) domiciled at the project site, the following “clean fleet” requirements apply:
 50 percent of the fleet shall be zero emissions by the year 2035,  100 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by January 1, 2040.  "Domiciled at the project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (1) parked or kept overnight at the project site more than 70 percent of the calendar year or (2) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). This applies to City vehicles and fleets that the City has direct control over, but not personal employee vehicles.  For on-site diesel-powered equipment, the following shall be required:
 During Phase 2 operations, all on-site diesel-powered equipment shall use 100 percent renewable diesel fuel.

Alternatively, as comparable zero-emission equipment alternatives (e.g., renewable natural gas, electric) to diesel-powered equipment become available and existing equipment are replaced, they shall be replaced with such equipment.

This shall be enforced through bi-annual reports submitted for review by the City, submitted to the Placer APCD if so directed.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Prepare an Emissions Capture and Control Plan The following mitigation measure will be required if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Prior to the approval of final design plans and issuance of any building or operating permits for a composting or biomass gasification facility developed under the project, the City shall prepare an Emissions Capture and Control Plan that shall demonstrate incorporation of best available methane capture and control technology that is reasonably expected to be commercially available and technically feasible at the time of facility construction (anticipated prior to 2040). At a minimum, the plan shall:
 Technology Benchmarking: Identify and evaluate technologies anticipated to represent Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Maximum Achievable Control Technology for methane and other short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., advanced biofilters, composting with negative aeration and gas collection, anaerobic digestion with biogas upgrading, or comparable capture systems).
 Design Requirements: Include design features to achieve at least 95 percent capture efficiency of methane generated within process areas of the biomass gasification facility, or the highest level of capture demonstrated to be achievable at the time of permitting, whichever is greater. For composting operations, methane generation will be mitigated through implementation of BACT to optimize aerobic conditions and/or provide biofiltration appropriate to the technology application selected for the project.  Control System Integration: Ensure captured methane is directed to beneficial use (e.g., renewable natural gas production, combined heat and power) or, if beneficial use is not feasible, to destruction through flaring or equivalent high-temperature oxidation consistent with BACT for the biomass gasification facility. Composting technology deployment will provide controls consistent with BACT, as described in the Design Requirements above.  Performance Verification: Incorporate monitoring, reporting, and verification protocols (continuous monitoring or periodic testing) to demonstrate ongoing compliance with methane capture and control performance standards.

Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate, though not to a less-than-significant level, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would establish a zero-emissions City-owned fleet target. Based on emissions modeling and project-specific information, approximately 70 percent of vehicles that would be operated would be City-owned and, therefore, emissions associated with these vehicles could reach zero emissions with implementation of this mitigation. For Phase 2, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 3,858 MTCO2e/year (i.e.,

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 40 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 70 percent * 5,512 MTCO2e/year = 3,858 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 10,122 MTCO2e/year. For full buildout, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 6,430 MTCO2e/year (i.e., 70 percent * 9,185 MTCO2e/year = 6,430 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 11,433 MTCO2e/year. In both project phases, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a, project-generated emissions would continue to exceed PCAPCD’s 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold.

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

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

7.2.4 Population, Employment, and Housing
Impact 3.13-1: Potential to Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth Phase 1: The proposed project would improve the City’s waste management operations by allowing City services to increase as a result of increased projected demands for solid waste and recycling services. Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the project would generate temporary jobs (up to 60 construction workers) and 439 new permanent jobs that could induce population growth. Although the City’s population is growing, current and projected growth has been anticipated and planned for in the City of Roseville’s General Plan. Thus, this increase in population or housing demand from new or existing workers relocating to the area because of the project would be within the scope of growth projections of the City of Roseville General Plan. The project would require the extension of existing infrastructure and development of new infrastructure, which could induce unplanned population growth or increase housing demand in the area, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
There are no available mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41

7.2.5 Transportation and Circulation
Impact 3.13-1: Potential to Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth Phase 1: The project would generate additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), associated with additional trucks and passenger vehicles travelling to the site each day. The project would have an average VMT per service population under existing-plus-project conditions of 44.1, which exceeds the applicable threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population. Because the project would exceed the City’s VMT per service population threshold, which is a 15 percent reduction from the citywide average, this impact would be significant.

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

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

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

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

Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate, though not to a less-than-significant level, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
A description of the individual effects of each mitigation measure’s effect on project VMT is provided below.

Although the information on the potential reduction in VMT from each measure is provided, it should be noted that the VMT-reducing benefits of implementing each measure are considered the maximum VMT benefit and are

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 42 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations not additive when multiple measures are applied. There may be diminishing returns when certain measures are implemented together to reduce VMT. For each measure applied, it is likely that a lesser effect would be observed (CAPCOA 2021: 36).

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

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

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

7.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Visual Character and Quality) The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, industrial, and other development and would result in similar visual changes. For example, many of the cumulative developments would be adjacent to agricultural/grazing and open space areas and could degrade visual quality by placing urban development adjacent to these areas. The cumulative developments and the proposed project would therefore together cause substantial degradation of visual quality, especially where there would be abrupt transitions between open space and agricultural/grazing areas and development. These would be cumulatively significant impacts on visual quality and character.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 Facts in Support of Findings
As described in Impact 3.1-1, the proposed facilities would be designed to be visually consistent and would comply with General Plan policies related to community design and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Similar design requirements would be placed on other developments in Roseville to reduce visual impacts. As described for Impact

3.1-1, to reduce the project’s impact on visual character from operation, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would require implementation of a litter mitigation program to minimize litter generated by the project. Implementation of this program would include collecting and disposing of litter from the project site and affected roadways such that litter would not substantially increase beyond existing conditions. The project impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with mitigation incorporated. However, the project would combine with other cumulative projects to result in urban land uses adjacent to agricultural/grazing and open space areas, which would substantially degrade the area’s visual quality. Therefore, the incremental impacts of implementing the project, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, would result in a cumulatively significant impact related to visual character or quality of the area. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Light and Glare)
The cumulative projects involve substantial residential, commercial, and industrial development and would result in creation of daytime glare and nighttime light sources. For example, the Country Acres Clean Power Project to the southeast would involve solar power development that could result in glare from solar panels. The Creekview Specific Plan would involve residential development that would create extensive sources of glare and light in areas that currently have scattered and dispersed sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting. The developments and the proposed project could cumulatively create a substantial source of daytime glare and nighttime light. These would be cumulatively significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
As described for Impact 3.1-3, to reduce the project impact of glare and lighting from operation, Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 would require implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 44 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Land Use and Agricultural Resources (Important Farmland Conversion) The cumulative context for agricultural resources includes the project region (i.e., project site, the City of Roseville, Placer County). Cumulative agricultural land impacts could occur in conjunction with development proposed in the City of Roseville and Placer County. The City of Roseville General Plan EIR (2020) states that buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant impact involving the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses; however, development within the county would result in the continued loss of farmland in the region. Cumulative development and the proposed project could cumulatively create a substantial conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses. These would be cumulatively significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, implementation of the project would result in conversion of Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would require compensation for Important Farmland conversion. However, no new farmland would be made available to reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. The project impact related to conversion of farmland would be significant and unavoidable.

Because the project would have significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources, it would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to agricultural resources. The cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Air Quality (Long-term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors) No single project would generate enough emissions to cause an air basin to be designated nonattainment.

Cumulative impacts related to project operation are discussed under Impact 3.3-3. As discussed in Impact 3.3-3, the operational emissions associated with full project buildout would exceed the applicable thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Because the PCAPCD thresholds of significance are directly tied to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, projects that do exceed these thresholds would contribute to adverse health effects. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants and would result in adverse health impacts.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 45 Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a and 3.3-3b require the City to implement dust control measures and conduct permittinglevel ambient air quality evaluation, respectively, if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a and 3.3-3b would reduce criteria pollutants and ozone precursors emissions, but it cannot be determined with certainty at this time whether the PM10 emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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

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

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

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

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 46 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The discussion of GHG emissions associated with the project and related infrastructure for Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in the Draft EIR is inherently a cumulative impact analysis. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from one project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions. The analysis of Impact

3.4-1 concluded that the level of construction GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project would not exceed PCAPCD’s bright line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. However, Phase 2 operational emissions (2040) and full operation of the project (2058) would exceed the bright-line threshold and, therefore, would be substantial and cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a requires the City to use low- or zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and equipment, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b requires the City to prepare and implement an Emissions Capture and Control Plan.

Implementation of on-site GHG reduction measures required by Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce GHG emissions below applicable PCAPCD thresholds and on-site methane emissions controls required by Mitigation Measure

3.4-1b would further reduce GHG emissions. However, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would reduce emissions to below PCAPCD’s threshold, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Due to this uncertainty, it is possible that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would be less effective and the thresholds could be exceeded. Further, although Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Given this uncertainty, the EIR analysis conservatively assumes that emission thresholds could still be exceeded with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Transportation and Circulation (Vehicle Miles Traveled) The discussion of VMT impacts associated with the project in Impact 3.16-2 addresses VMT generated by the project based on an efficiency threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans. As described in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa (LCI [formerly known as OPR] 2018: 6).” Therefore, the VMT impacts identified in Impact 3.16-2, are inherently cumulative. As discussed in Impact 3.16-2, implementation of the project would result in VMT per service population exceeding the City’s VMT threshold. The VMT impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 47 Findings
There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project would outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact. See Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b require the implementation of a commute trip reduction program and an employee sponsored vanpool program, respectively. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.16-2a and 3.16-2b would contribute to the reduction of project-generated VMT from employee trips, the feasibility and effectiveness of each mitigation measure are currently unknown and cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these measures would achieve VMT reductions to meet the applicable threshold. The VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the cumulation impact would be significant and unavoidable.
8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The EIR identified and considered the following reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed project which would be capable, to varying degrees, of reducing identified impacts:
 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Area Alternative
 Alternative 3: No On-site Compost or Biomass Operations Alternative These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the proposed project identified in the EIR, as well as consideration of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the proposed project as described in the EIR.

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

Mixed waste, recyclables, and compostable waste generated by the City would continue to be sent to the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) facility or another viable processor for the foreseeable future. The City would not implement a three-cart waste, recycling and green waste collection service program per the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) SB 1383 requirements. Existing EU Operations would continue to be located at the Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard (2005 Hilltop Circle).

Finding
For the reasons set forth below and more fully described in the EIR and in the record of proceedings, the City finds that Alternative 1 is infeasible. While this alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative, as it would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Roseville EU Operations Center Project, this alternative fails to meet the project objectives. Therefore, the City declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 48 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Rationale
The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives, including those related to providing a shared location for the management of City resources and waste, improving the sustainability of the City’s waste management operations, consolidating multiple EU divisions at a single location, or providing a secondary corporation yard.

Currently, mixed waste, recyclables and compostable waste generated by the City are sent to the WPWMA facility. If the project is not developed, the City may decide to send its mixed waste, recyclables, and compostable waste to another viable processor located further from the WPWMA facility. This would generate impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and VMT that would not occur with the proposed project due to longer haul distances travelled; however, because an alternative disposal site has not been identified, the magnitude of these impacts cannot be known at this time. Further, the City may not implement a three-cart waste service program consisting of waste, recyclables, and organic wastes, each collected from generators in separate carts. The three-cart collection program would facilitate compliance with CalRecycle’s SB 1383 requirements as a programmatic pathway to being in compliance with the elevated diversion requirements. To be in compliance with the state, the City would need to rely on WPWMA or other processors to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. WPWMA is intending to seek compliance with SB 1383 by way of the single cart collection system, termed the ‘One-Big-Bin’, paired with a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility. Such programs are included in the law as possible pathways to compliance. If other entities are considered as possible processing providers for the City’s materials, an analysis of the provider’s facility and program would need to be performed to determine the viability of the pathway to compliance with SB 1383.

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

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

Alternative 2 was developed to reduce the project’s impacts on agricultural resources (Prime and Unique Farmland) and hydrology/water quality (development within 100-year floodplain).

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 49 Finding
For the reasons set forth below and more fully described in the EIR and in the record of proceedings, the City finds that Alternative 2 is undesirable. While Alternative 2 would meet most of the basic project objectives, it would not meet the objectives to the same extent as the proposed project due to the fact that this alternative includes less available facility space to accommodate City growth and associated operational needs. Impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be reduced or similar to the proposed project; however, Alternative 2 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG, population growth, or VMT. Therefore, the City declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Rationale
Alternative 2 would achieve most of the basic project objectives by providing a shared location for the waste, recycling, and organic material but would not achieve all of the project objectives, as it would reduce available facility space to accommodate City growth and associated operational needs. The proposed operations center is one of several attempts by the City to establish a permanent corporation yard to serve its needs, each of which has been outgrown. The City had a Corporation Yard at the Diamond Oaks golf course, another at the present fairgrounds site, and currently operates out of the Hilltop Circle site developed in the early 1990s. Thus, there would likely be a need for future expansions if the project is undersized to meet future demands.

Due to its reduced footprint, Alternative 2 would reduce (but would not avoid) the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to Important Farmland. This alternative 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. In addition, Alternative 2 may result in greater impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources due to the addition of multi-level parking garages and buildings.

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

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

Regulations require MSW, organics, residue from recyclables processing, or any materials being sent for secondary processing to be removed within 48 hours, unless an alternative storage time has been approved. The organic waste

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 50 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations unloading area would be located on the commercial users, or west side of the building where City and franchise haulers would be directed for unloading.

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

Finding
For the reasons set forth below and more fully described in the EIR and in the record of proceedings, the City finds that Alternative 3 is undesirable. Because this alternative would require the City to rely on other entities to perform the organics composting and/or biomass processing functions, it would not as effectively meet several of the project objectives and would not meet several other project objectives at all. Some impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be reduced; however, other impacts would be similar to or greater than the proposed project. Further, Alternative 3 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to population growth. Because it would not substantially reduce the project’s significant impacts and may result in greater impacts for some resource areas, the City declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

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

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

Due to its reduced footprint, Alternative 3 would reduce (but would not avoid) the project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to Important Farmland. This alternative would nonetheless result in the conversion of Important Farmland (although less acreage than the proposed project).

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. 9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the Findings above, the City Council’s approval of the Roseville EU Operations Center Project will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and there are no feasible project alternatives which would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council chooses to approve the project because, in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 51 In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings of fact and the project, the City Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the project as well as the public testimony and record in proceedings in which the project was considered. The City Council has balanced the project’s benefits against the unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby determines that the project’s benefits outweigh the significant unmitigated adverse impacts.

9.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The proposed Roseville EU Operations Center Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts; 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).

9.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
In the City Council’s judgment, the project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The City Council finds that each of the enumerated benefits is individually meritorious and taken together provide substantial public benefits that are sufficient to justify approval of the project.

9.2.1 Essential Public Services and Infrastructure
The City proposes to construct and operate a new EU Operations Center in northwest Roseville. The new EU Operations Center would include a corporation yard as well as a waste and recycling facility. The project would provide critical solid waste, recycling, and organics management infrastructure, ensuring continued compliance with state mandates such as landfill diversion and recycling requirements (as described in further below in Section 9.2.2, “Legal and Regulatory Compliance”).

A larger corporation yard would allow the City to provide additional space for its municipal vehicle fleet (including waste collection vehicles) and provide flexibility for conversion of its fleet to electrified vehicles (if required by pending/future state regulations). Additional storage space offered by the larger corporation yard would also enable the City to respond to anticipated maintenance and repair demands as the City infrastructure ages. In addition, the new corporation yard would improve operational efficiency, reliability, and safety for municipal public works, solid waste, and fleet operations.

Currently, the City’s EU Department operations are located at the Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard, which is located on 55 acres at 2005 Hilltop Circle. The Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard also supports the following departments: Electric, Public Works, Parks, Fire, and Police. The Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard is constrained by Dry Creek or existing development and land not owned by the City on all sides, which limits its ability to be capable of meeting its forecast space needs to continue to serve its current tenants due to the increasing demands for the various departments, increasing demands for City services (in general), changing regulations, and other planning considerations.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 52 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

9.2.2 Legal and Regulatory Compliance
The project would enable the City to comply with state solid waste, recycling, air quality, and climate regulations, avoiding potential penalties or service disruptions. In addition, the facility would be designed to meet current and future regulatory standards, ensuring resiliency and adaptability over its operational life.

COMPLIANCE WITH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
The project would provide a waste and recycling facility that would enable the City to manage its waste and recyclable materials locally while maintaining compliance with state requirements such as, but not limited to, SB 1383, Assembly Bill (AB) 939, AB 32, and AB 1826.

Changes in state law have transformed waste management in California. Beginning with AB 939, which was enacted in 1989, municipal waste managers are required to implement recycling programs. More recently adopted regulations have targeted waste reduction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air quality emissions associated with the management of solid waste residues. More specifically, SB 1383 requires local governments to divert a majority (75 percent) of organic wastes (e.g., food waste, green/yard waste, food soiled paper, and paper and cardboard) from landfills. SB 1383 requires consideration and potential modification of current infrastructure to meet organic waste diversion targets and requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that they have access to capacity through facilities, contracts, franchise agreements, or other documented arrangements. For additional details regarding solid waste management regulations, see Section 3.15, “Public Utilities,” in the Draft EIR.

COMPLIANCE WITH AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
The project would provide a facility to meet state requirements to electrify the City’s EU medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

The City is preparing for the fleet and mobile equipment changes necessary to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) and Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) Regulations. Starting in 2035, the City anticipates it will only be allowed to purchase zero emission vehicles. The City will also be required to replace all propane forklifts beginning in 2026 to 2028. While the exact dates and requirements of these regulations or other regulations like them are subject to change, the new EU Operations Center needs to be able to accommodate the specific operational needs of the zero emission vehicles and consider any effects these regulations will have on the number of vehicles and forklifts required to provide the required services. For example, zero emission trucks may not be able to perform the same amount of work on a daily basis as their internal combustion engine counterparts, resulting in the need for a greater fleet size and, correspondingly, the appropriate fueling or charging infrastructure.

For additional details regarding air quality regulations, see Section 3.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in the Draft EIR.

While the abovementioned regulations are still generally in place, recent policy direction at the Federal level has affected portions of the regulations and has the potential to alter requirements in the future, including potentially removing enforcement requirements. For example, Public Law No. 119-16, enacted in June 2025, formally rescinds the State’s ability to enforce the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC II) regulation. The implications of Public Law 119-16 on the State’s capability to enforce its independent fuel economy standards are uncertain at this time, as the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government on June 12, 2025, to challenge Public Law 119-16 (in addition to Public Laws 119-15 and 119-17). Currently, requirements for zero-emission vehicle purchases for private fleets (e.g., port and rail yards) have been relaxed; however, ACT and ACF requirements for government fleets remain in effect. In addition, while California has repealed parts of the State’s waiver request for ACF to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the requirements for State and local government fleets remain in place and the active lawsuits are still in progress. Therefore, it is likely that vehicle and equipment emissions requirements will continue to evolve in the near future. Notably, the mobile source emissions calculations and estimates disclosed in the project analysis do not account for the regulatory updates because emission factors have not been updated by CARB at this time.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 53

9.2.3 Environmental Benefits
The new EU Operations Center would be designed to incorporate best available technologies, including energyefficient buildings, cleaner fleet fueling/charging infrastructure, stormwater treatment systems, and enhanced recycling and materials recovery operations. Specifically, the project would be designed and constructed in full compliance with the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). Water conservation features would be incorporated wherever feasible to minimize potable water use, including the installation of ultra-low-flow plumbing fixtures, automatic sensor controls, and reduced-flow aerators, consistent with current CALGreen Water Efficiency standards. In addition, the project would comply with all mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including applicable energy efficiency requirements.

In addition, the project would support long-term waste reduction, recycling, and organics diversion goals, thereby reducing reliance on landfills and supporting statewide greenhouse gas reduction objectives.

9.2.4 Economic Benefits
The project represents a long-term investment in the City’s public infrastructure, avoiding escalating costs associated with deferred maintenance, reliance on off-site solid waste and recycling facilities operated by other entities, or noncompliance with regulatory requirements. Further, City ownership and operation would provide long-term cost control and fiscal stability for waste and public works services.

Project construction and ongoing operations would generate local employment opportunities and economic activity.

A range of 40-60 construction workers would be onsite throughout construction of both Phases 1 and 2. In terms of long-term employment, Phase 1 would employ 439 new employees and Phase 2 would employ 92 new employees, for a total of 531 new employees. In addition, it is estimated that 165 existing employees would be relocated from the Hillip Circle Corporation Yard to staff Phase 1 project components, resulting in a total of 696 employees at full operational buildout.

9.3 CONCLUSION
Considering all the factors, the City Council finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations associated with the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's significant unavoidable effects and, thus, the adverse effects are considered acceptable. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
10 REFERENCES
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.

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 Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

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.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 54 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 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.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officer Association.

CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

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. 2020 (August 5). City of Roseville General Plan 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified August 5, 2020. Available: https://www.roseville.ca.gov/development_services/planning/general_plan.php.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

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.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 55 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.

USACE. See US Army Corps of Engineers.

USFWS. See US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ascent
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project 56 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally left blank.

August 31, 2026

ROSEVILLE EU OPERATIONS
CENTER – TRAFFIC IMPACT

ANALYSIS
Roseville, CA

Roseville EU Operations
Center – Traffic Impact
Analysis
Roseville, CA
Prepared for:

Ascent Environmental, Inc
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Prepared by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2510 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
Mychal Loomis, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP –Project Principal
Anusha Musunuru, PhD – Project Manager
Qiming Sun, Analyst
Mingmin Liu, PE - Analyst
Sravya Kamalapuram – Analyst
Project No. 28453
August 31, 2026

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Contents Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page i

CONTENTS
Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1 Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... 2 CEQA Transportation Analysis.............................................................................. 2 Local Transportation Analysis............................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6 Project Description ................................................................................................ 6 Study Area............................................................................................................ 13 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 16 Roadway Network............................................................................................... 16 Transit Facilities..................................................................................................... 18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................ 20 Crash History......................................................................................................... 20 CEQA Evaluation .................................................................................................... 22 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 22 CEQA Transportation Analysis............................................................................ 26 Local Transportation Analysis ................................................................................ 32 Analysis Methodologies ...................................................................................... 32 Project Traffic ....................................................................................................... 34 Existing Traffic Operations................................................................................... 41 Opening Year Traffic Operations....................................................................... 50 Cumulative Year Traffic Operations.................................................................. 73 Site Access............................................................................................................ 94 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 95

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Contents Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location.......................................................................................................................8 Figure 2: Project Location ..........................................................................................................................9 Figure 3: Project Site Plan.........................................................................................................................12 Figure 4: Study Intersections ....................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Truck Route Map .......................................................................................................................19 Figure 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Map ......................................................................................21 Figure 7: Opening Year Trip Distribution .................................................................................................39 Figure 8: Cumulative Year Trip Distribution.............................................................................................40 Figure 9: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ..............................................................................................44 Figure 10: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes.............................................................................................46 Figure 11: Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control at Study Intersections............................48 Figure 12: Opening Year No Project AM Peak Hour Volumes.............................................................55 Figure 13: Opening Year No Project PM Peak Hour Volumes .............................................................57 Figure 14: Opening Year Lane Configuration and Traffic Control at Study Intersections................59 Figure 15: Opening Year Plus Project AM Peak Hour Volumes............................................................62 Figure 16: Opening Year Plus Project PM Peak Hour Volumes............................................................64 Figure 17: Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis for Intersection of Phillip Road and Passenger Vehicle Driveway......................................................................................................................................70 Figure 18: Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis for Intersection of Phillip Road and Truck Driveway 70 Figure 19: Cumulative No Project AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................75 Figure 20: Cumulative No Project PM Peak Hour Volumes..................................................................77 Figure 21: Cumulative Year Lane Configurations and Traffic Control at Study Intersections..........79 Figure 22: Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Volumes................................................................84 Figure 23: Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................86 Figure 24: Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis for Intersection of Phillip Road and Passenger Vehicle Driveway......................................................................................................................................91 Figure 25: Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis for Intersection of Phillip Road and Truck Driveway 91

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Contents Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Proposed Project Summary of Components at Build-out in 2040 ........................................10 Table 2: City of Roseville VMT Thresholds ...............................................................................................27 Table 3. Project TAZ VMT and Citywide Baseline VMT ..........................................................................28 Table 4: Level of Service Definitions for Intersections ...........................................................................33 Table 5: Estimated Quantity of Annual Materials Managed at the RRTO and Project Annual Tributary Traffic for Materials Receipt and Removal ............................................................................34 Table 6: Number of Employees during each phase of construction for combined RRTO and EU Operations Facility Corporation Yard ....................................................................................................35 Table 7: ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rate for ITE Land Use Code 710: General Office Building for Weekday....................................................................................................................................................35 Table 8: Overall Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate (Based on ITE Land Use Code 710 for General Office Building)..........................................................................................................................................36 Table 9: Existing Traffic Operations .........................................................................................................42 Table 10: Opening Year No Project Traffic Operations........................................................................52 Table 11: Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Operations ......................................................................66 Table 12: Recommended Improvements..............................................................................................71 Table 13: Intersection Operations with Recommended Improvements – Opening Year Plus Project ........................................................................................................................................................72 Table 14: 95th percentile queues Results with Recommended Improvements – Opening Year Plus Project ........................................................................................................................................................72 Table 15: Cumulative No Project Traffic Operations ............................................................................81 Table 16: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Operations...........................................................................88 Table 17: Recommended Improvements Under Cumulative Year Plus Project Conditions ...........93 Table 18: Intersection Operations with Recommended Improvements – Cumulative Year Plus Project ........................................................................................................................................................93

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Summary
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center (proposed project). The proposed project is being led by the City of Roseville (city) and includes developing a 150-acre portion of a 243-acre parcel at 8100 Phillip Road in Roseville, California. The proposed project would contain new facilities and services that would allow the city to cost effectively meet statelevel waste management legislation requirements and city sustainability goals, while providing space to grow for those services as well as relocating staff and services currently operating at the city’s corporation yard, located at 2020 Hilltop Circle in Roseville, California.

Kittelson used the VMT thresholds that are set forth in the VMT guidelines for evaluating the VMT of the proposed project. For evaluating traffic operations, i.e., level of service (LOS) for identifying operational deficiencies within the study area, Kittelson complied with the LOS goals and policies outlined in the City of Roseville General Plan1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is currently owned by the city and is largely agricultural and leased for rice and hay farming. The proposed project is located east of South Brewer Road, between Pleasant Grove Creek to the north and Phillip Road to the south. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided via Phillip Road.

The proposed project would include two primary components:
◼ a Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO) facility to manage the city’s waste, recycling, and organics materials; and
◼ a Corporation Yard that would house various EU Services and an Equipment Maintenance Facility relocated from the existing Hilltop Circle Corporation Yard.

The project is planned to be developed in two phases. Phase 1, expected to be completed by 2028, will include the initial construction of the RRTO building, consisting of a large multipurpose facility and an administration building to support RRTO staff and management functions. This phase will also include an entrance/exit scale plaza, an administrative office with employee parking, and a Vendor Lease Area.

The entire project, including the Corporation Yard (EU Service Center and Equipment Maintenance Facility), is assumed to be fully constructed by 2040. 1 https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Services/Plannin g/City%20of%20Roseville%20GP.pdf

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Site Access
The project would provide two access points on Phillip Road, one designated for passenger vehicles and the other for trucks. Based on the findings of the analysis in this report, the passenger vehicle driveway should include two outbound lanes (one left-turn and one right-turn) and would be stop-controlled for opening day but would require a signal in the future. The truck driveway can have a single outbound lane and stop-controlled but would operate at LOS D in the future scenario unless Phillip Road is widened to four lanes.

TRIP GENERATION
The information on the trip generation rates for RRTO facilities is not readily available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Therefore, Kittelson used the trip generation on the number of employees and the number of trucks anticipated for the project. The ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Code 710 (General office building) rates were used to estimate the number of trips made by employees and truck trips were estimated based on average truck tonnage. The truck trips and employee trips were combined to obtain the total number of daily trips generated by the project. The proposed project is expected to generate 2,748 daily trips with 363 AM (289 inbound and 74 outbound) peak hour trips and 339 PM (83 inbound and 256 outbound) peak hour trips in the opening year of 2028. At full buildout in 2040, the project is expected to generate 4,040 daily trips with 506 AM (376 inbound and 130 outbound) peak hour trips and 478 PM (139 inbound and 339 outbound) peak hour trips.

CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The proposed project would have less than significant environmental impacts in three of the four categories in the CEQA checklist for transportation impacts (conflicts with policies, hazards, and emergency access).

For the category of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) in terms of VMT per service population, the project would exceed the City’s impact thresholds for non-residential land uses and is deemed to have a significant impact.

The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project’s VMT impact:

1. Implement a Commute Trip reduction program

2. Provide an employee sponsored Vanpool program.

3. Contribute to implementation of extending transit network coverage and hours in Roseville, including potential transit service to the Project area The feasibility and effectiveness of the VMT mitigation measures is either insufficient or unknown at this time. The project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per service population thresholds. With implementation of the project and the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable under project and cumulative conditions.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The local transportation analysis identifies the effects of the project on traffic operations in terms of vehicle delay and level of service (LOS), queuing issues and signal warrants. Where adverse intersection operations are found because of the project, improvements are recommended to the intersections to reduce the effect of the project on the local transportation system.

Study Area
The City of Roseville confirmed the inclusion of 36 study intersections for the traffic operations analysis. These intersections represent key locations for site access and signalized intersections along corridors likely to be used by project-related traffic. In scenarios with the project, the two project driveways were also evaluated.

Traffic Operations Analysis Scenarios
The local transportation analysis examined traffic operations at the study intersections for the following scenarios in the AM and PM peak hours:
◼ Existing Conditions
◼ Opening Year (2028) No Project Conditions2
◼ Opening Year (2028) Plus Project Conditions
◼ Cumulative Year (2040) No Project Conditions
◼ Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project Conditions
Existing Traffic Operations
◼ Of the 32 currently signalized intersections, 8 intersections operate at LOS D or worse during the AM peak hour and 6 intersections operate at LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour.

Additionally, all the all-way stop-controlled Intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours.

Opening Year No Project Traffic Operations
◼ With the planned lane configurations and traffic volumes for the opening year, 9 out of 32 signalized intersections operate at LOS D or worse during the AM peak hour, and 8 are projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour.

Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Operations
◼ All intersections are expected to maintain the same level of service (LOS) as under the no project scenario, with two exceptions:
– Intersection 3 (Fiddyment Road & Blue Oaks Boulevard) is projected to degrade from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
– Intersection 12 (Westbrook Boulevard & Pleasant Grove Boulevard) is also expected to degrade from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
2 Opening year volumes are calculated by adding Panattoni project trips to the existing count data. Opening year plus project volumes include existing counts, Panattoni project trips, and the proposed project trips as well.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
◼ For Fiddyment Road & Blue Oaks Boulevard, an overlap phase to provide northbound rightturn movements with a green arrow during westbound left-turns was analyzed and found to improve operations to LOS C for the PM peak. However, this would restrict westbound Uturns which currently are desired to maintain circulation for the larger roadway network.

Therefore, no improvements are recommended, and this location would degrade to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
◼ Modifications to the intersection of Westbrook Boulevard & Pleasant Grove Boulevard to restore operations to LOS C or better are provided in the Recommendations section. ◼ The Passenger Vehicle Driveway intersection is expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour, and it meets the Peak Hour Signal Warrant. With signal installation, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during both the peak hours.
◼ The Truck Driveway intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour, and it does not meet the Peak Hour Signal Warrant.

Cumulative Year No Project Traffic Operations
◼ With the proposed lane configurations and traffic volumes, all intersections are expected to be signalized, with 19 intersections projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the AM and PM peak hours.

Cumulative Year With Project Traffic Operations
◼ All intersections are projected to operate at the same LOS as under the Cumulative No Project scenario.
◼ The unsignalized intersections of Phillip Road at the Passenger Vehicle Driveway and Truck Driveway are expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. ◼ Under cumulative plus project conditions, the Phillip Road and Passenger Vehicle Driveway intersection meets the Peak Hour Signal Warrant, while the Phillip Road and Truck Driveway intersection does not meet the signal warrant criteria.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPENING YEAR PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ID Intersection Lane Changes
Traffic Control
Change
3 Fiddyment Rd & Blue Oaks Blvd No feasible improvements are identified at this location
12 Westbrook Blvd & Pleasant Grove Blvd Add an additional southbound left turn lane
None
37 Phillip Road & Passenger Vehicle Driveway None Add a signal 38 Phillip Road & Truck Driveway No feasible improvements are identified at this location
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2025

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
With the recommended improvements, the intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS in the opening year with the project. All queues are expected to be accommodated within the available storage and taper lengths without interfering with through traffic.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUMULATIVE YEAR PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ID Intersection
Lane
Changes
Traffic Control
Change
37 Phillip Road & Passenger Vehicle Driveway* None Add a signal 38 Phillip Road & Truck Driveway No feasible improvements are identified at this location
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2025
With these improvements, the Phillip Road and Passenger Vehicle Driveway intersection is expected to operate at LOS A (AM) and LOS D (PM) in cumulative conditions. No feasible improvements are identified at the Truck Driveway intersection.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Introduction
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) has prepared this Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Roseville Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center project to determine the expected transportation-related effects of the project. The scope of the study was developed in coordination with the City of Roseville (city). The project encompasses a 150-acre portion of a 243-acre site located at 8100 Phillip Road in Roseville, California. The project site (regionally located as shown in Figure 1) is located east of S Brewer Road between Pleasant Grove Creek to the north and Phillip Road to the south. It is designed to include new facilities and services to help the city efficiently comply with state waste management legislation and achieve its sustainability goals. Additionally, the project will provide room for future growth and accommodate the relocation of staff and services currently based at the city’s corporation yard at 2020 Hilltop Circle in Roseville.

The contents of the transportation impact analysis are consistent with policies provided in the City of Roseville Traffic Impact Study Standards (from the Design and Construction Standards section 4) and the General Plan, including two major components:
◼ The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the transportation analysis evaluate impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) pursuant to Senate Bill 743 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a). In addition, for CEQA, this TIA addresses the project’s potential to increase hazards due to project design features, consistency with circulation system plans and policies, impacts to bike/pedestrian/transit facilities, and impacts to emergency access.
◼ The Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) has been prepared for the City of Roseville for planning purposes. The LTA portion of this report evaluates other transportation issues such as intersection capacity and operations, which are not part of the environmental evaluation under CEQA, to support City’s decision making around transportation facilities.

This introduction includes descriptions of the Roseville EU Operations Center, transportation study area and analysis methodologies.

The project would be located on Phillip Road on 243 acres of undeveloped land along the northwest boundary of Roseville, in the City of Roseville, Placer County. This project is approximately 9.0 miles from State Route (SR) 99, 7.0 miles from SR 65 and 10.0 from Interstate (I)

80. The city proposes to construct and operate a new Environmental Utilities (EU) Operations Center to address the City's growing demands for municipal services, State requirements to electrify the city’s waste collection vehicles, as well as changing solid waste regulations. The project includes two primary components: a Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations facility, to manage the city’s waste, recycling, and organics materials; and a Corporation Yard that would house various EU divisions that would be relocated from the existing Corporation Yard on Hilltop Drive. The project would be developed in phases over the next 12 years (2028-2040).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
As shown in Figure 2, the proposed project site is located on Phillip Road (near its western terminus at South Brewer Road) on 243 acres of undeveloped land along the northwest limit line

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
of the City of Roseville, in Placer County is located east of S Brewer Road between Pleasant Grove Creek to the north and Phillip Road to the south. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided via Phillip Road.

The proposed project would include the following components:
◼ The Resource Recovery and Transfer Operations (RRTO), which include the following:
– A MRF to segregate recyclables into their source commodity, – MSW receipt and transfer, and
– Organic waste receipt, pre-processing, and transfer.
◼ An EU Operations Facility Corporation Yard (Corporation Yard) consisting of the following two functions:
– EU Services, which would include:
• Business Services and Management,
• Technical Services,
• Stormwater Division,
• Water Utilities, and
• Storage (covered and uncovered) for Water Utilities, Refuse and Stormwater Division, Technical Services.
– An Equipment Maintenance Facility for all EU divisions, which would include:
• Equipment maintenance facilities,
• Equipment washing facilities,
• Equipment fueling facilities,
• Equipment charging facilities, and
• Administrative offices for Equipment Maintenance,
◼ A Vendor Lease Area for prospective Vendors to commit materials to the RRTO to improve economies of scale.
◼ A Potential Future Organic Processing Facility, which would consist of:
– Potential Future Compost Facility, if deemed necessary, and/or – Potential Future Biomass Facility, if deemed necessary.

The project would be developed in two phases. The initial phase would include the first phase of the RRTO building, which will include one large multipurpose building that would serve all three waste streams (recyclables, municipal solid waste, and organic waste) along with an administration building to serve the RRTO’s employee and management needs. The initial phase will also include an entrance/exit scale plaza, an administration office with employee parking, and a Vendor Lease Area.

The Corporation Yard (EU Service Center and Equipment Maintenance Facility) is anticipated to be built in phases with full construction buildout assumed to occur by 2040.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Figure 1: Regional Location
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Figure 2: Project Location
Source: Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Description by HDR, January 16, 2025.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Existing Site Uses
The proposed project site owned by the city is currently largely agricultural and is leased for rice and hay farming. Several structures are located on the site, which are remnants from a past pheasant club, farm uses, and former residence. These structures may be demolished prior to development or some of them may be repurposed. For example, the former residence may be used as a temporary office or could be used by a vendor as the Vendor Lease office.

The site is within an area of city-owned property known as the Warnick or Plunkette property, adjacent to Reason Farms. The Al Johnson Wildlife Area is located to the east of the site and is part of an area planned to accommodate the city’s stormwater Regional Retention facility and potential recreation uses. Pleasant Grove Creek is located along the site’s northern boundary.

Other surrounding land uses include agriculture. The Creekview Specific Plan, West Roseville Specific Plan, the Regional University and Community, and Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan areas are located near or within a two-mile radius and are in various stages of development. These surrounding land uses represent a total of 13,630 residential units at buildout.

Proposed Site Uses
The proposed project is to be constructed on approximately 150 acres on the south end of a 243-acre city-owned parcel that is bordered by Phillip Road on the south and Pleasant Grove Creek on the north. The proposed project groups site components into five primary service/facility functional areas, Table 1 shows the estimated building and site areas for each of the functional areas at ultimate build-out, which is estimated to be in 2040.

Table 1: Proposed Project Summary of Components at Build-out in 2040 Facility Component
Approximate Building Area
(SF)
Approximate Site Area
(acres)
RRTO 322,000 40
EU Services Center 132,400 37
Equipment Maintenance Facility 60,000 34
Vendor Lease Area 10,000 5
Potential Future Organics Facility 37,000 34
Total 561,400 150
Source: Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Description by HDR, January 16, 2025.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Project Access
As shown in the proposed site plan in Figure 3. The main entry to the project site for passenger vehicles and RRTO material arrivals would be located on Phillip Road, at the southeast corner of the site. A separate driveway for truck access would be located west of the main entry. Both driveways were assumed to have a single inbound lane, single outbound shared left-right turn lane, and be stop-controlled at the driveways.

Phillip Road is planned to be improved from its current condition along the frontage of the project site and east to the westerly terminus of Blue Oaks Boulevard. The improvements are expected to meet the City's standard for 48-foot right-of-way collector/commercial street requirements, with a sidewalk construction along the north side. The project would also include an internal vehicular circulation system providing access to a surface parking lot.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Figure 3: Project Site Plan
Source: Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Description by HDR, January 16, 2025.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13

STUDY AREA
The study area for the project includes transportation facilities that would be expected to be affected by the development of the project. The study area includes:
◼ Project access driveways on Phillip Road
◼ Signalized intersections along routes likely used by project traffic ◼ Future intersections planned to be built by cumulative conditions ◼ Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity of the proposed Roseville EU Operations Center development
Study Intersections
The Roseville EU Operations Center local transportation analysis (LTA) evaluates peak hour traffic operations at 36 study intersection locations (Figure 4). The study intersections include:

1. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard*

2. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Hayden Parkway

3. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road

4. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Diamond Creek Blvd/Prairie Woods Way

5. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard

6. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Walgreens Driveway/Roseville Parkway

7. Blue Oaks Boulevard and New Meadow Drive

8. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard

9. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fidelity Way

10. Blue Oaks Boulevard and Washington Boulevard

11. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Santucci Boulevard

12. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard

13. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Market Street

14. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Fiddyment Road

15. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard

16. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Country Club Drive

17. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard

18. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Washington Boulevard

19. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Hallissy Drive/Gold Coast Drive

20. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Roseville Parkway

21. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Highland Point Drive

22. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and SR 65 SB Ramps

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14

23. Pleasant Grove Boulevard and SR 65 NB Ramps

24. Baseline Road and Santucci Boulevard/Watt Avenue

25. Baseline Road and Westbrook Boulevard

26. Baseline Road and Market Street

27. Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road

28. Baseline Road and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard

29. Baseline Road and Foothills Boulevard

30. Westbrook Boulevard and North Brookstone*

31. Westbrook Boulevard and South Brookstone*

32. Fiddyment Road and Angus Road/Parkland Way

33. Fiddyment Road and North Hayden Parkway

34. Fiddyment Road and Crawford Parkway/Old Coach Drive

35. Fiddyment Road and South Hayden Parkway

36. Fiddyment Road and Village Green Drive/Del Webb Boulevard The intersections marked with an asterisk (*) were stop-controlled when the data collection was done in 2024 and analyzed accordingly under existing conditions. These intersections have been signalized in 2025 and are analyzed as signal control for Opening Year and Buildout conditions.

In addition, project driveway intersections on Phillip Road are included in the with project scenarios.

1 3 24 25Blue Oak Blvd 14 18 Pleasant Grove Blvd Baseline Rd 12 Santucci Blvd
Westbrook Blvd
Fiddyment Blvd Blue Oak Blvd
Washington Blvd Pleasant Grove Blvd 29 Main Rd
Foothills Blvd SITE
Westbrook Blvd Pleasant Grove Boulevard PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD Fiddyment Blvd 27
State Highway 65
State Highway 65 Phillip Rd
Watt Ave 10
Fidelity Wy 9
Brookstone Dr
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd
Diamond Creek Blvd
2 4 5
Roseville Pkwy 6
New Meadow Dr 7
Foothill Blvd 8 21 20
Market St 13 11 15 16
Country Club Dr 17
Hallissy Dr 19 2223 26 28 32 33 34 Crawford Pkwy 3536
Roseville Pkwy 3031
Hayden Pkwy
Angus Rd
Prairie Woods Way
Highland Pointe Dr
Gold Coast Dr
Del Webb Blvd
Village Green Dr Old Coach Dr
H:\28\28453 - Roseville Utility Operations Center\report\figs\28453_Figs_v2.dwg May 01, 2025 - 12:00pm - mliu Layout Tab: Study Intersections Study Intersections 4Figure
# STUDY INTERSECTION EXISTING ROADWAY STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT SITE LEGEND

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Existing Conditions
This section provides a description of the existing roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of the transportation system within the project study area.

ROADWAY NETWORK
The existing roadway network in the project study area is composed of state highways and local streets.

State Routes
California State Route 65 (SR 65) provides regional access to the project study area.

SR 65 is a north-south highway in California that passes through multiple counties, including Placer County, where it runs through the city of Roseville. In Roseville, SR 65 serves as a crucial transportation corridor, linking the city to Interstate 80, Lincoln County, and Yuba County. It plays a key role in regional traffic flow and development by providing access to commercial centers, residential areas, and shopping destinations such as the Westfield Galleria at Roseville. Within Roseville, it is typically a four-lane road with a posted speed limit of 65 mph.

Local Streets
In addition to state routes, several major arterials and local streets provide access to or serve the project site in the study area.

Blue Oaks Boulevard serves as a major east-west arterial connecting the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. It starts at Westbrook Boulevard in western Roseville and spans 6.5 miles, terminating at Sunset Boulevard in Rocklin. Between Westbrook Boulevard and Fiddyment Road, the roadway comprises one lane in each direction, separated by a two-way turn lane, with posted speed limits ranging from 45 to 50 mph. East of Fiddyment Road, Blue Oaks transitions into a six-lane, median-divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The SR 65/Blue Oaks Boulevard interchange is located approximately eight miles east of the project site, providing access to Interstate 80—a major east-west freeway that stretches from the Bay Area into Nevada—just three miles to the south.

Westbrook Boulevard is a north-south arterial beginning slightly north of Blue Oaks Boulevard and extending 1.8 miles to Pleasant Grove Boulevard. In the future, the roadway will connect from Baseline Road in the south to Sunset Boulevard West in the north, within the unincorporated Placer County. The completed section features two lanes in each direction, separated by a landscaped median, with a posted speed limit of 40 mph.

Fiddyment Road is another north-south arterial, starting at Baseline Road and extending north through Roseville into unincorporated Placer County and the City of Lincoln. Between Pleasant Grove Boulevard and the northern city limits (1.5 miles north of Blue Oaks Boulevard), Fiddyment consists of two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Beyond the city limits, the roadway transitions into a two-lane, undivided rural road.

Pleasant Grove Boulevard is an east-west arterial traversing the city of Roseville. It begins at Santucci Boulevard in the west and extends approximately 9 miles to the city limit and becomes

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Park Drive. West of Wood Creek Oaks Boulevard, the roadway typically features two lanes in each direction, separated by a landscaped median. East of Wood Creek Oaks Boulevard, it transitions into a six-lane road with a raised median. The posted speed limit of the entire corridor is 45 mph. It intersects State Route 65 approximately 5 miles east of Fiddyment Road, offering direct access to regional destinations and connecting to Interstate 80 further south.

Baseline Road is a major east-west arterial serving Roseville and the surrounding areas of Placer County. It starts from Lincoln Street in the east and becomes Riego Road passing the west limit of Placer County. The roadway functions as a primary connector between rural, suburban, and urban areas, providing access to residential neighborhoods, agricultural lands, and commercial developments. In Roseville, Baseline Road typically consists of one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes, along with a center two-way left-turn lane. However, the segment between Santucci Boulevard and Market Street is being widened to two lanes in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane. In addition, the segment between Market Street and Fiddyment Road is expected to be widened to two lanes in each direction by October 2026. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. This roadway plays a crucial role in facilitating east-west travel and supporting regional mobility across multiple jurisdictions.

Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard is a north-south arterial in Roseville, serving as a key corridor for residential and local traffic. It begins in a single-family area north of Blue Oaks Boulevard and extends south to Baseline Road. The roadway typically features two lanes in each direction, separated by a landscaped median, with a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 mph. Woodcreek Oaks provides access to several residential neighborhoods, parks, and schools. It serves as an important alternative route to more heavily traveled north-south roadways like Foothills Boulevard and Fiddyment Road, enhancing connectivity between suburban areas and major east-west corridors.

Foothills Boulevard is a major north-south arterial that connects residential, commercial, and industrial areas within Roseville. The roadway begins at Pleasant Grove Boulevard in the north and extends southward, passing through commercial centers, industrial zones, and business parks before connecting Baseline Boulevard/Main Street near the city’s southern boundary.

North of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Foothills Boulevard generally consists of two lanes in each direction with a landscaped median, while south of Pleasant Grove, it expands to three lanes in each direction to accommodate higher traffic volumes. The posted speed limit is generally 45 mph.

Washington Boulevard is a key north-south corridor running through central Roseville, providing access to historic districts, downtown Roseville, and major employment centers. The roadway begins at Blue Oaks Boulevard in the north and extends southward through the city, where it intersects with key arterials such as Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Main Street, and Junction Boulevard. Washington Boulevard provides two lanes in each direction and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

August 31, 2026 Roseville EU Operations Center – Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Truck Facilities
According to the City of Roseville Truck Routes Map shown in Figure 5, Santucci Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (between Santucci Boulevard and Fiddyment Road) are designated as existing California legal truck routes. Blue Oaks Boulevard, Westbrook Boulevard, Baseline Road (west of Foothills Boulevard), Foothills Boulevard (north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and south of Baseline Road), Washington Boulevard (between Blue Oaks Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard), and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard) are classified as existing terminal access (STAA) truck routes, permitting both "Green" STAA trucks and "Black" California legal trucks.

TRANSIT FACILITIES
The following section describes existing transit services near the study area.

Public Transit
The City of Roseville Transit system provides public transportation services within Roseville, California, offering fixed-route buses and dial-a-ride options for residents. Each local route is identified by a letter, and the system is designed to enhance mobility and reduce traffic congestion by serving key destinations such as shopping centers, schools, and employment hubs. Roseville Transit also collaborates with regional transit agencies, such as Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit, to provide seamless regional travel options for commuters.

Routes D, M, R, and S use the roadways within the study area.

Route D provides service between the Civic Center Transfer Point and Hughes Park, traveling along Woodcreek Oaks Avenue, Foothills Boulevard, Junction Boulevard, and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, with connections to schools and residential areas. Weekday service operates from 5:42 AM to 6:35 PM with hourly departures. Saturday service runs from 7:42 AM to 4:35 PM, also on an hourly schedule.

Route M connects the Galleria Transfer Point to Pleasant Grove and Market Street, serving key locations along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Weekday service operates from 5:56 AM to 9:52 PM on an hourly basis. Saturday service runs from 7:56 AM to 4:56 PM, also on an hourly schedule.

Route R runs between the Louis Orlando Transit Center and Foothills at PRIDE Industries, traveling along Foothills Boulevard. This route connects employment centers and residential areas but operates only twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon on weekdays. It does not operate on weekends.

Route S provides service between the Galleria Transfer Point and the Santucci Justice Center.

Service is available during peak hours: 7:35 – 9:25 AM, 11:05 AM – 2:25 PM, and 4:10 – 5:25 PM.

This route does not operate on weekends or on days when the justice center is closed.