Public Comment DEIR for Phillip Road Project

Summary: The attached document is an April 30, 2026 public comment letter from Sun City residents in west Roseville regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Phillip Road Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2025060240. The commenters argue that the DEIR is “fundamentally flawed” and request that it be withdrawn, revised, and recirculated. The letter’s central argument is that the City should not evaluate the proposed project as though the required General Plan amendment is a minor procedural step. The commenters argue that the project would convert land long planned for Public/Quasi-Public, open space, flood control, recreation, habitat conservation, and restoration purposes into a mixed-use development with major industrial components. They contend that this change could transform west Roseville’s community character and create a new industrial corridor near Pleasant Grove Creek. Key issues raised include: General Plan inconsistency: The commenters argue that the proposed industrial, residential, and commercial uses are inconsistent with the site’s existing Public/Quasi-Public designation and with other General Plan elements, including air quality, circulation, conservation, open space, safety, noise, and land use. They state that the City must fully analyze the General Plan amendment before considering the project itself. Community character and Reason Farms planning history: The letter emphasizes that the broader Reason Farms lands were acquired for public purposes, including floodwater management, public recreation, boating, trails, habitat conservation, and restoration. The commenters argue that introducing intensive industrial uses near Pleasant Grove Creek would be a major departure from prior planning and would put the character of west Roseville at stake. Industrial location and truck access: The letter argues that the proposed Light Industrial designation is inconsistent with Roseville’s own development guidelines because industrial uses should be located near major roadways with convenient truck access. The commenters point out that the site is not adjacent to a major roadway and is several miles from Highway 65. Vague project description: A major theme is that the DEIR allegedly lacks an “accurate, stable and finite” project description. The commenters criticize the “Specialized Industrial” or “Innovation Center” description as too vague because it could mean a data center, battery factory, biomedical research/manufacturing facility, or some other industrial-tech use, each with different environmental impacts. Insufficient alternatives analysis: The letter argues that because the project description is unclear, the alternatives analysis is also inadequate. The commenters say the DEIR should have analyzed additional alternatives, including offsite alternatives and a less intensive development south of Pleasant Grove Creek that would preserve the open space and riparian resources north of the creek. Pleasant Grove Creek and habitat preservation: The commenters emphasize the biological value of the Pleasant Grove Creek corridor and Reason Farms lands, including habitat for special-status raptors such as white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and Swainson’s hawk. They argue that preserving the area north of Pleasant Grove Creek as open space and habitat should have been fully analyzed as an environmentally beneficial alternative. Deferred and unenforceable mitigation: The letter criticizes proposed mitigation measures as vague, contingent, and deferred. As an example, the commenters analyze greenhouse gas mitigation measures involving solar, battery storage, backup power alternatives, and offsite GHG credits, arguing that many measures lack enforceable performance standards or defer key decisions until later permitting stages. Need for recirculation: The commenters conclude that the DEIR is legally inadequate because it does not properly analyze the General Plan amendment, lacks a sufficiently specific project description, fails to provide a robust alternatives analysis, and proposes legally inadequate mitigation. They request that the City withdraw, revise, and recirculate the DEIR.