Sun City Roseville Community Association, Inc. RE: Proposed Roseville Industrial Park Draft Environmental Impact Report

April 20, 2023

BY USPS First Class and EMAIL

Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Development Services – Planning
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

RE: Proposed Roseville Industrial Park Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Ms. Maples:

The Sun City Roseville Community Association Board of Directors appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that the City of Roseville has circulated for its proposed Roseville Industrial Park Project. Sun City Roseville is a senior community of 3110 homes in West Roseville. As discussed below, Sun City residents will be directly affected by the substantial impacts that this project will have if it is developed as proposed.

The City’s process is flawed. The City proposes a project contrary to its approved General Plan. The type of use proposed for this project is listed in the City’s General Plan as “incompatible” with residential uses; yet the project is proposed to be located in a completely residential neighborhood. The proposed project would undermine the security and integrity of the residential neighborhoods that the City has previously approved in West Roseville by inserting an industrial development into their midst. The proposal should be denied.

Sensible and coherent land use planning requires that planning come before development. If the City wanted to develop an industrial facility it should haye required it to be placed in an area already planned and zoned for that use. If instead the City wanted to change the allowable uses of its Reason’s Farm property, it should have begun a planning process for a General Plan amendment. The City’s failure was to begin with the specific development that it wanted, hoping later to conform its General Plan to the project. But this is not proper planning; it is backwards. Appropriate planning would have revealed the problems with placing an industrial project in the proposed West Roseville location.

Indicative of the City’s planning failure is that the proposed project is in conflict with the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Best Practices and Mitigation Measures for Warehouse Projects. These Guidelines were developed because of the significant adverse impacts these types of projects have upon the communities in which they are placed. The Guidelines advise “proactive planning” that “allows jurisdictions to prevent land use conflicts before they materialize and direct sustainable development” into appropriate areas. For example, the Guidelines state that “establishing industrial districts near major highway and rail corridors but away from sensitive receptors can help attract investment while avoiding conflicts between warehouse facilities and residential communities”.

Here, the City proposes the exact opposite: locating huge warehouse facilities on an environmentally sensitive parcel in a residential neighborhood that is many miles away from necessary major highway and rail corridors. It is hard to imagine a worse location for this proposed development, or one that is less compatible with the City’s General Plan. Most of the impacts discussed in the DEIR, including traffic and circulation, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and noise are directly caused or significantly exacerbated by this initial failure to properly locate the project in the community. These include the impacts to “sensitive receptor” communities such as Sun City Roseville that are along the routes that must be traveled by the heavy trucks going to and from the proposed project location to the major highway corridors of State Route 65 and Interstate 80.

The failure of the City’s planning process is also made clear by the extremely limited alternatives identified in the DEIR. These alternatives do not support a General Plan Amendment, which should precede the project. Beginning with the location for which the amendment is being considered, the proposed amendment and its EIR should consider alternative possible uses for that location, how those possible land uses serve the needs of the community, and how those alternative uses are or could be made consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. The current DEIR, limited by its project description, avoids this problem by ignoring it. An EIR addressing the General Plan amendment cannot simply skip over the broad scope of land use alternatives required for such an amendment, including uses that might better serve the needs of the growing, entirely residential community of West Roseville. It should certainly address the obvious alternative for the City, on this land which it, not the developer owns, to implement some version of the Reason’s Farm Environmental Preserve, for which it has developed a Conceptual Master Plan, when open space and recreational uses are needed in West Roseville.

Even as a project-specific DEIR, it is fatally flawed. It is totally inconsistent with the General Plan for the location where it is proposed. Further, it completely fails to consider alternative locations that might be more suitable. The applicant, Panattoni Development, is an international leader in the field of industrial warehouse development.

A developer of such expertise and reach is unusually well-qualified to locate potential sites for new industrial development projects, including sites consistent with the Attorney General’s Guidelines. It is inconceivable that such a qualified applicant could not identify a wider range of more suitable sites in Roseville or in the greater Sacramento area for a project of the magnitude described in the DEIR (almost 2.5 million sq. ft. of warehouse footprint). The DEIR fails even to consider any other suitable site for this proposed development.

The significant impacts to the Sun City Roseville community all are caused by this attempt to force a project into an area where it does not belong. Because the proposed industrial project is not properly located, the DEIR estimates that it will generate 1140 heavy truck trips per day, most of these on Blue Oaks Blvd. past Sun City, to get those trucks to and from the major transportation corridors of State Route 65 and Interstate 80. In fact, because of the restrictions of federal and California law, all of the longest, heaviest trucks that produce the most noise, traffic hazard risk, and air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, will be required to travel on Blue Oaks Blvd. past Sun City, first to reach their destination and then to return to the SR65/l-80 major transportation corridors. Yet the DEIR does not appear even to have identified or analyzed any project impacts east of Fiddyment Road. This failure must be corrected.

Sun City residents will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Although the DEIR states that automobile delay from traffic congestion is no longer considered a CEQA impact, the hazards created by this increase in vehicle miles traveled are highly impactful to Sun City residents. For example: the left turn lane from westbound Blue Oaks Blvd. onto Del Webb Blvd., a main entrance to Sun City, already sometimes backs up into the left through-traffic lane of Blue Oaks Blvd. This causes vehicles to stop in the left through-traffic lane, and/or to change lanes to divert around stopped vehicles. The significant increase in projected trips, especially the heavy truck trips, will increase the risk of serious accidents at that and similar problematic intersections along Blue Oaks.

In addition, the increase in vehicular traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic, will affect Sun City residents by increasing the impacts from air pollution and noise. Again, the DEIR neither identifies, nor analyzes or proposes to mitigate these impacts. With respect to noise, consider just the heavy truck traffic. 1140 heavy trucks passing Sun City on Blue Oaks Blvd. amounts to almost one heavy truck per minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This assumes that the estimates are not low, nor the traffic more concentrated. Because the trucks will tend to use air compression brakes, which are loud, to reduce speed, and then accelerate back up to speed at the signalized intersection at Del Webb Blvd., the sound impacts will be intensified in that area. Although sound walls are discussed with respect to some of the communities west of Fiddyment Road., no impacts are discussed nor is any mitigation proposed for ‘residents along Blue Oaks Blvd. east of Fiddyment Road, including Sun City residents, despite the fact that all the heavy trucks must continue on Blue Oaks to reach SR 65 and Interstate 80. These noise impacts will significantly affect Sun City residents.

Sun City, as a community of senior citizens, is a “sensitive receptor” site for air pollution impacts. Because Sun City residents are recognized as being particularly susceptible to localized air quality impacts, these impacts are of particular concern to them. Heavy truck traffic produces toxic air contaminants from diesel engine emissions, including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and respirable particulate matter, all of which are· known to cause acute health effects. Many Sun City residents have medical conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that make them especially vulnerable to these toxic pollutants. The DEIR is fatally flawed because it does not even identify, much less analyze or propose to mitigate these harmful impacts to Sun City residents. Finally, although Sun City residents are not differentially affected by greenhouse gas emissions, we strongly believe that they should be reduced and avoided wherever possible, and note that siting the project near the major highway corridors of SR 65
and Interstate 80, a feasible alternative, would reduce them significantly.

The project discussed in the Draft EIR is not suitable for the location in which it is proposed. Nor are there any meaningful “overriding considerations” that are more important than the health, welfare and neighborhood integrity of the West Roseville residential communities that will be degraded by this misconceived proposed project. Most of the harmful impacts of the proposed project can be avoided by following the advice of the Attorney General’s Office on locating warehouse/distribution projects: namely, establish industrial districts near major highway and rail corridors, and away from sensitive receptors and residential communities.

For all of these reasons the Draft EIR should not be certified. Instead, the proposed project should be abandoned or denied at this time. If the City intends to propose uses on the Phillip Road site that are different than what is in the approved General Plan, it should initiate an open planning process for that area, engaging the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods in a community dialogue regarding the best uses of the more than 1700-acre Reason’s Farm Environmental Preserve property that the City purchased.

Sincerely,
David Lamon
Board President
Sun City Roseville Community Association

City Manager executed Second Amendment to Option and Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Panattoni for Phillip Road Site

City of Roseville – Council Communication | Meeting Date: 10/19/2022

On October 19, 2022, City Manager executed Second Amendment to Option and Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Panattoni for Phillip Road Site.

BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2021, City Council approved a Memorandum of Option and Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Panattoni Development Company (Panattoni) to entitle, sell and develop a future jobs center, known as the Roseville Industrial Park. The property at 6382 Phillip Road is located within a portion of the Reason Farms property, and is an approximately 241 acre (with 176.5 developable acres) vacant greenfield parcel. The City acquired Reasons Farms in order to develop the Pleasant Grove Retention Basin Project. Since the Pleasant Grove Basin Project only required a portion of the property, it was determined the remaining portion of land would be available for other uses.

The PSA initially allowed Panattoni one year to conduct its due diligence with respect to the property and complete the entitlement process.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-395

APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO OPTION AND PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND PDC SACRAMENTO LPIV, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a Second Amendment to Option and Purchase and Sale Agreement for the unimproved property located at 63 82 Phillip Road, Roseville, CA, by and between the City of Roseville and PDC Sacramento LPIV, LLC, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Second Amendment is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this 19th day of October, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS: Houdesheldt, Alvord, Roccucci, Bernasconi
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: Mendonsa

Email correspondence between City of Roseville and HCD regarding California Surplus Land Act (SLA)

Subject: RE: Surplus Land Act: Possible Surplus Land Disposition-6382 Phillip Road

Based on the information provided, it appears the proposed disposition of the site may be in conflict with the SLA, but I’d like to set up a meeting with you and your team to discuss where this project currently stands (you mentioned it was on hold) and so we can provide guidance.

Reason Farms Conservation Easement Deed by the City of Roseville (“Grantor”) in favor of Placer Land Trust (“Grantee”)

RECITALS:
A. Granter is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property in the County of Placer, State of California, commonly lmown as the Reason Farms Environmental Preserve, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”).

B. The Property possesses wildlife and habitat values (collectively, “Conservation Values”) of great importance to the people of the City of Roseville, the County of Placer, the State of California, and the United States.

C. This Conservation Easement Deed covers·· 222.67 acres of real property more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Mitigation Property”). The Mitigation Property contains 6.112 acres of preserved vernal pool/swale for the Roseville Energy Park Project (“REP”), 11.5 acres of preserved grassland for the REP, and 191.729 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat/Critical Habitat for the West Roseville Specific Plan Project (“WRSP”). The Mitigation Property will also be used to restore 0.552 acres of vernal pools and create 0.746 acres of seasonal wetlands for the REP. A total of 12.031 acres of Mitigation Property supporting upland/grassland has not been allocated to any specific mitigation project. This includes.11.2 acres of upland/grassland that is also designated as critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp, and 0.831 acres of upland/grassland with no critical habitat designation. The future use of these 12.031 acres as mitigation would be subject to separate approvals as discussed in Section 5 below and is in no way intended to oblige or imply acceptance of these 12.031 acres of the Mitigation Property as acceptable future mitigation acreage.

D. This Conservation Easement Deed is being executed and delivered pursuant to the the settlement agreement for Defenders of Wildlife and Butte Environmental Council v. Norton, et al., Case No. 04-2478 DFL DAD, Eastern District of the United States District Court as described in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion 1-1-05-F-0061 (the “WRSP Biological Opinion”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit (the “WRSP Permit”) and permit amendment (“Amendment”) (Regulatory Branch Number 200200666) issued for WRSP, and pursuant to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the West Roseville Specific Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment – State Clearinghouse No. 2002082057. This Conservation Easement Deed is also being executed and delivered pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion 1-1-05-F-0105 (“REP Biological Opinion”), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, Regulatory Branch Number 200300637 (“REP Permit”), and the
California Energy Commission Preliminary Staff Assessment Roseville Energy Park Application for Certification (03-AFC-l). WRSP and REP are both located in the City of Roseville, Placer County California. All of these documents allow that mitigation/conservation requirements may be satisfied through the establishment of a conservation easement deed on the Mitigation Property. The Biological Opinions (Exhibit C), the Permits and Amendment (Exhibit D), and the Reason Farms Environmental Preserve Operations and Management Plan (Plan) (Exhibit E), dated June 14, 2005, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth (the “Conservation Instruments”).

E. The City is allowing the WRSP project proponent to mitigate the WRSP through the recordation of this Conservation Easement Deed at the Mitigation Property according to the provisions of the Reason Farms Conservation Agreement and Letter Amendment (“Agreement”). The Agreement is attached as Exhibit F.

F. The Mitigation Property provides or is capable of providing significant ecological and habitat values that benefit endangered, threatened, and other species ( collectively, “Conservation Values”), as set forth in the Conservation instruments, including: foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and potential habitat for vernal pool species such as vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi).

G. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, restoration, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of these species within the United States pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq. (“BSA”), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§661-666c, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. §§742(f), et seq., and other provisions of Federal law.

H. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACOE”), an agency within the United States Department of the Anny, has jurisdiction over Waters of the Unites States, meaning that Area defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as a feature under the regulation of the Federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”), and which is authorized by Federal law to administer the Federal Clean Water Act,§ 404, and other provisions of Federal law.

I. Grantor intends to convey to Grantee the right to preserve, protect, sustain, and enhance and/or restore the conservation values of the Mitigation Property in perpetuity.

J. Grantee is a publicly supported, tax exempt private nonprofit organization and a qualified organization under sections 501(c)(3) and 170 (h), respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Internal Revenue Code”), and Section 815.3 of the California Civil Code, and whose primary purpose is the permanent preservation of natural and agricultural lands in the Placer County region.