Public Comment Letter on Phillip Road Project DEIR

Summary: The attached document is an April 12, 2026 formal public comment letter regarding the Phillip Road Site Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, File #PL24-1010. The commenter urges the Roseville City Council to deny the project as currently proposed, decline to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and at minimum require a materially revised project with recirculated environmental review if necessary. The letter’s central theme is that the proposed “Balanced Plan” is not merely a large development proposal, but a project that asks the City to convert city-owned Public/Quasi-Public land, amend the General Plan, approve a Development Agreement, and accept significant adverse environmental impacts on a creek-traversed site while key public-interest questions remain unresolved. Key issues raised include: Unanswered public-interest questions: The letter asks why this city-owned parcel, traversed by Pleasant Grove Creek and associated with floodplain, bypass-channel, stormwater-retention, open-space, and passive-recreation planning, was deemed surplus land. It also questions why the site is being characterized as “infill” when the record suggests it may function more like edge-area urbanization or infrastructure-extending development. Public land and Surplus Land Act history: The commenter emphasizes that the City granted an exclusive negotiation path to a private developer before, in the commenter’s view, fully evaluating lower-impact public-serving alternatives. The letter also highlights the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Surplus Land Act enforcement history, including a Notice of Violation and settlement agreement, as grounds for heightened scrutiny. Statement of Overriding Considerations not justified: The letter argues that because the DEIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts in areas such as transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and aesthetics, the City should not approve the project through a Statement of Overriding Considerations unless it can make a compelling evidence-based finding that the benefits outweigh the harm. The commenter says the current record does not support that conclusion. General Plan transportation and trail consistency: The letter argues that internal paths, paseos, and Class 1A bikeways are not enough to demonstrate consistency with Roseville’s General Plan goals for an integrated transportation network. The commenter calls for a binding multimodal plan with safe creek crossings, direct connections to adjacent specific plan areas, and continuous bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Student safety near West Park High School: A major theme is that Blue Oaks Boulevard should not be evaluated only as a traffic corridor. The letter argues that if the project contributes to widening, traffic growth, or more complex crossings, the City must evaluate how students will safely walk or bike to and from West Park High School. The commenter calls for enforceable school-route safety measures such as protected bicycle facilities, safe crossings, refuge areas, signal timing, and traffic calming. Creek-adjacent site intensity and quality of life: The letter argues that a site adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek, floodplain conditions, wildlife areas, and major planned residential communities should be treated with exceptional care. The commenter warns that residents would experience impacts as daily congestion, degraded air, increased noise, reduced access to open space, and diminished neighborhood livability. Need for lower-intensity alternatives: The commenter urges the Council to favor an environmentally superior path, including a materially reduced-intensity alternative with stronger open-space emphasis, better multimodal connectivity, stronger creek and habitat protections, and clearer mitigation commitments. Requested action: The letter requests that the City deny the General Plan amendment and rezone, decline to certify the DEIR, reject any Statement of Overriding Considerations on the present record, require a school-route safety analysis, require enforceable multimodal and trail planning, and make explicit findings about the public-land, surplus-land, and water-rights/share issues.