Roseville resident comments about the Phillip Road Site DEIR

Summary: The attached document is an April 30, 2026 public comment letter submitted to the City of Roseville regarding the Phillip Road Site Draft EIR. The commenter argues that the EIR understates or inadequately mitigates the project’s impacts across schools, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, land use, farmland, truck safety, and hazardous-materials transportation. The letter’s strongest theme is that the EIR allegedly treats many serious impacts as “less than significant” because fees will be paid or future facilities may be built, without requiring concrete, enforceable mitigation. The commenter argues that this approach fails to protect future residents, nearby neighborhoods, schools, and public resources. Key issues raised include: School impacts and student transportation: The commenter argues that the EIR improperly concludes school impacts are less than significant because school fees will be paid, even though the planned Amoruso Ranch school is no longer proposed. The letter says this would force hundreds of students to commute to distant schools, increasing vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and tailpipe pollution. Population and impact undercounting: The letter asserts that the EIR underestimates future population by using generic averages rather than localized West Roseville household-size data. According to the commenter, this affects the entire environmental analysis, including schools, traffic, parks, water, sewer, and public facilities. Library and fire-service concerns: The commenter objects to the EIR’s conclusion that library impacts are less than significant despite increased demand on an already burdened library system. The letter also warns against relying on future Fire Station #11 unless it is physically built, staffed, and operational before later project phases proceed. Air quality and diesel generators: The letter criticizes reliance on educational materials to reduce VOC emissions and objects to the project’s proposed use of numerous diesel backup generators. It calls for stronger measures such as battery energy storage systems, hydrogen fuel cells, solar microgrids, zero-emission construction equipment, low-VOC purchasing requirements, MERV 13 filtration, shore power for trucks, and all-electric buildings. Greenhouse gas emissions: The commenter argues that the EIR’s GHG mitigation is too weak because off-site credits appear to cover only a single year of excess emissions, while the project would operate for decades. The letter urges long-term or on-site net-zero mitigation, full electrification, rooftop and parking-lot solar, EV-ready parking, active EV chargers, transit subsidies, and a stronger transportation demand management plan. Land use, open space, and public land concerns: The letter argues that the project conflicts with General Plan Policy LU9.9 by failing to provide a distinctive open-space transition between Roseville and unincorporated Placer County agricultural land. It recommends a 200- to 300-foot undevelopable open-space buffer along the western property line. Surplus public land and community benefit: The commenter emphasizes that the site was formerly public land and argues that approval should be tied to a community benefit fund, including funding to help address the reported shortfall for the canceled Amoruso Ranch TK-8 school. Farmland conversion: The letter objects to the EIR’s treatment of Farmland of Local Importance and grazing land, arguing that the permanent conversion of the 241-acre site should require agricultural mitigation, including a 1:1 agricultural conservation easement. Traffic, truck trips, and bike safety: The commenter challenges the EIR’s VMT methodology, arguing that residential and industrial VMT should be analyzed separately. The letter also objects to the projected 130 heavy truck trips per day and recommends truck-route restrictions during school drop-off and pickup hours, a hazardous materials transportation management plan, and Class IV physically separated bikeways along truck routes.