Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. On behalf of the commissioners and staff, I'd like to welcome you to the 03/12/2026 City of Roseville Planning Commission meeting. They ask you to please put all electronic devices on silent at this time. Are agendas on the back counter. And if you plan to speak at tonight's meeting, please complete a blue speaker card and return it to a staff member. And, actually, could I get a show of hands of who would like to speak tonight at one of the issues that's on the agenda? Is there anybody? If you're planning on speaking? Could I? Okay.

Thank you. Possibly. That's fine. That's fine. I I just I'm trying to determine how much time, is what the chair's prerogative is. Okay. A reminder, Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live and replayed on Comcast fourteen and available on the city's YouTube channel. I'll now call the meeting to order. Lupe, may I please have a roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Hegler? Here. Commissioner Chris?

Here.

Commissioner Meish? Here. Commissioner Pryor? Here. Commissioner O'Nedad?

Here.

Vice chair Breshears?

Here.

And chair Hagenjust?

Here. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Lupi, may please begin staff introductions.

Good evening, commissioners. Lupi Nelson, recording secretary.

Evening. Good

Chair Hagen and Commissioners. Greg Bader, Assistant Director to the Development Services Department.

Good evening, Hagen and Commissioners. Derek Ogden, Senior Planner.

Good evening, chair Hagen Dazs and commissioners. Eric Singer, associate planner.

The public comment time period is a time for anyone who'd like to address the commission on any item not on tonight's agenda. When you address the commission, please state your name for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anyone who'd like to address the commission on any item not on tonight's agenda? Hearing none, I will close the public comment period. Next, we have the consent calendar, which consists of routine items that may be approved under one motion as recommended in the staff reports.

However, since each routine item requires a public hearing, and every one may be considered separately upon request by the audience, the planning commission, or the staff. Action on the consent calendar shall be considered a public hearing. Tonight's consent calendar consists of two items. Item 5.1, the minutes from the 02/12/2026 planning commission meeting, and item 5.2, the infill parcel 10 And 339 Sierra View Country Club Pickleball Courts one zero five Alta Vista Avenue for the record that's filed PL25Dash0531. Is there anyone on the commission or in the audience who'd like to pull an item off the consent calendar for separate discussion?

Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the consent calendar as listed? I'll make a motion to approve it. I'll second it. Commissioner Pryor has made the motion, and Commissioner Mace has seconded the motion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Unidad? Yes. Vice chair Beshears?

Yes. I'm a yes on 5.1 and on item 5.2, I don't believe that I have a conflict of interest but as a member of the club out of abundance of caution, I'd like to recuse myself.

Commissioner Pryor?

Yes.

Commissioner Mace?

Yes.

Commissioner Chris?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

And chair Hagen Dazs?

Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. There's a ten day appeal period for item 5.2. Next on the agenda is requests and presentations.

And before we begin, I want to review the meeting procedure. Tonight, we have a unique presentation before us. The commission is not being asked to take any action on the next item, but rather to provide an opportunity to for the public to comment on a draft EIR. First, we will hear the staff presentation, then I will open the public hearing, then I will open the public comment and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments regarding the content and adequacy of the Phillips Road site draft EIR, then I will close the public comment period and close the public hearing. Item 6.1 is a request to accept public comment on the contents and adequacy of the Phillips Road site draft environmental impact report for the Philip Road site project located at 6382 Philip Road.

For the record, this is file number PL24Dash1010. Eric, may we have his presentation,

please? Yes. Thank you, chair Hagintros and commissioners. As mentioned, we'll be speaking on the Philip Road site draft environmental impact report hereafter referred to as the DEIR. So as Jack and just mentioned, at this time, we are not reviewing or evaluating the project entitlements.

The purpose of tonight's item is for the Planning Commission to accept public comment on the content and adequacy of the Philip Road site DEIR per state CEQUA guidelines section fifteen two zero two. The DEIR is for a project in which, Panatone Development Company proposes to purchase and develop a property in the city of Roseville with an approximately 176 acre mixed use development. Proposed uses would include residential, retail, medical offices, and innovation center uses, as well as parks, open space, and trails. The project also includes a new electrical substation, utility extensions, and improvements to Blue Oaks Boulevard and Phillip Road. For more details on the specifics of the project, you can refer to the staff report or the executive summary of the DEIR, which is provided on the city's website.

We will not be responding to comments in person this evening. Once the public review period for the DEIR is complete on March 23, all public comments on the DEIR, including those received tonight, will be compiled to create a comprehensive list. This list will then be reviewed, and appropriate responses will be included in the final EIR. Just a brief look at where we currently stand in the sequel process for the project. So we are in the midst of the public review and comment period for the DEIR.

As previously mentioned, once the review period for the DEIR is complete on March 23, all public comments will be compiled and responded to in the final DER. The state will then have a ten day review period for all the responses to public comment that are incorporated in the final EIR, after which time the project would proceed to public hearing at the planning commission and city council where a final decision on the project can be rendered. While this flowchart shows how the public can participate in the sequel process, it's important that we delineate that there is no deadline for general comments regarding the project itself. Those can be submitted to staff at any time during the review all the way up to the public hearing and during the public hearing. In terms of public outreach for tonight's meeting, in accordance with the state's sequel guidelines section fifteen one zero five, the DEIR is being circulated for public review and comment period for, a period of forty five days from February 3 through March 23 as previously mentioned.

This public hearing serves as venue for members of the public to provide comments again on the content and adequacy of the DEIR. The public hearing notice was mailed to a 300 foot radius, published in the Press Tribune and on the Arcona website, as well as sent to a list of interested parties that has been compiled since the early stages of the project by both city staff as well as the applicant. In summation, this is planning staff's recommendation. Oral comments that are received tonight will be transcribed and responded to in the final ERR, as mentioned. And again, keep in mind that while the public review period for the content adequacy of the DEIR closes March 23, any other comments on the project itself can be submitted to planning staff at any time up to and during the public hearings for the project.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

I will now open the public hearing and the public comment period. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come forward and provide comments regarding the content and adequacy of the Phillips Roadside Draft EIR? And we have got a couple of people who have filled out speaker cards, and so I'm going to call those two people first, and then if there are any others, I'm going to ask that you keep your comments to a maximum of five minutes. Okay. So the first person up is Josh Hickson.

Hello. I'm just submitting this two page summary fact sheet into the record tonight, which previews a comprehensive review of the Philip Roadside DEIR that will be submitted before the March 23 deadline. I'm just here to tell this commission that the DEIR for the Philip Road project is, under my belief, legally defective under the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically CEQA, guideline section fifteen one two four, which requires an accurate and stable project description. The DEIR presented to you characterizes this 176 acre site as a low intensity mixed use village and innovation Tech Park. However, the engineering schematics and utility master plans buried in the technical appendices, they reveal a completely different reality.

The physical infrastructure plans are not designed for an office park or a village. It's part of them are engineered to the the precise specifications of a regional freight hub and hyperscale data center. So by analyzing the environmental impact of a low intensity office park while approving the physical infrastructure for heavy industrial use, the lead agency has drastically understated the project's noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic impacts. So I'm just gonna skip ahead here. I don't wanna waste your guys' time tonight.

Number one, there is a potential hyperscale data center, in the DEA IR, and, it models the innovation land use as a standard commercial space requiring roughly two megawatts of the average load. But chapter 3.11 discloses the project requiring a massive 49 MVA of a electrical substation. So it also admits the inclusion in chapter 3.4 of a 15 tier four diesel generator set totaling 45 megawatts of backup power, specifically to provide power to the future potential data center. Additionally, it discloses a demand for 537 acre feet per year of recycled water, specifically for data center cooling. So that's a 175,000,000 gallons of water a year.

That's 1.4 times the potable water demand of the entire rest of the project combined. Also, there's no regard to chemical blowdown impacts of a of the this impact here in regards of the sewer system. So number two, regional freight gateway. They authorize widening Blue Oaks Boulevard to a six lane facility that dedicates 22.7 acres for the Placer Parkway interchange. Crucially, it confirms Blue Oaks is a surface transportation Assistant Act terminal access route.

SDAA routes are legally designated for 53 foot heavy freight trailers. And I don't believe there's any engineering justification to build a six lane heavy freight terminal access route to serve a local mixed use residential village. So the infrastructure proves that this is intended to be a logistics hub. Number three, now keep in mind, this is I'm just a citizen making a claim here. A legal project piecemealing.

I make this claim based on the 60 inch sewer pipe, which can convey over 25,000,000 gallons per day. Now the DEIR claims that the project will generate only 0.4. So this pipe is operating at less than 2% capacity. It's mathematically undeniable that this intercept or is sized to service land outside of this project proposal, which is an expansion that is omitted from this environmental review. Number four, there is a motivated seller conflict.

The city of Roseville is the lead agency, but it's also the property owner out operating under a September 2024 settlement agreement with HCD regarding Surface Land Act violations. So you have a direct financial compulsion to entitle and sell this land to avoid or cover statutory penalties, which explains why industrial scale infrastructure is being shoehorned into a PQP in full site. So I think I'm just gonna leave it at that. My closing comment is under sequel guidelines section one five zero eight eight point five. An EIR must be recirculated when significant new information reveals that a new significant environmental impact could result from the project.

So because I because the DEIR currently impacts are based on a village, but they lay the groundwork for something else, It just I don't believe it can be legally finalized. So I urge the commission to redirect staff, pause the process, correct the project description, and recirculate the DIR for public review after the actual intended industrial uses and full infrastructure capacity is properly modeled. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. And the handout that you gave will be part of the public record as well as your comments. Thank you. I'd like to invite Kevin Carmichael to come forward.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. My name is Kevin Carmichael. I'm with Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo. I'm here on behalf of Placer County residents for responsible development. Placer County residents are concerned that the impacts of this proposed project are not outweighed by the economic and job benefits that this project will provide.

Submitted comments on the DEIR for that was prepared for the prior version of the the industrial only version of this project several years back due to the significant failures of that EIR, failures to disclose the project's impacts on the community. And Placer residents is concerned that the EIR prepared for this project may have some of those same issues. Now we are still reviewing the EIR, and we'll submit comments if we determine that this document has similar issues as the prior. We also submitted a request for an extension of the DEAR comment period to the planning planning department today on the grounds that several air modeling documents and data relied on in the air quality analysis have not yet been made available to the public for review. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and offer a comment? Yeah. One. Please. Please just state your name and your residence.

Sure. Sure. I live in West Roseville. Good evening. I'm Roseville Planning Commission, neighbors, and friends.

My name is Olga Neder Gerber. So according to City of Roseville, a specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the development of a defined geographic area that includes a mix of uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, schools, parks and open space. Specific plans typically include more detailed information than the general plan about land use, traffic circulation, affordable housing programs, resource management strategies, development standards and a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Specific plans contain detailed regulations, conditions, programs and design criteria unique to that area and serve to implement the general plan. Roseville has 17 specific plan areas as shown on your website.

All these specific plans have been adopted by the City Council after an extensive review process by City staff, commissions and the public. And that's the reason, exactly the reason we would like this city to require a specific plan for the Phillip Road site. Because specific plan, first of all, is a statutory authorized tool to implement general plan policy at the district's care. It materially strengthens CEQA defensibility by providing a unified project description and tiering framework. It secures enforceable area wide mitigation phasing and financing for backbone infrastructure.

And lastly, it preserves long term general plan consistency and predictable mobility. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and offer a comment? Please come forward and identify yourself and offer your comment.

My name is Ann Newman, and I'm with the Sun City Roseville community. And we've had, you know, several meetings regarding this project, and we're still concerned about the issues that were previously mentioned by the other speakers. And, also, we feel that there wasn't enough information provided to make an accurate assessment. And then also we're concerned about that biohazard level, if there is gonna be any biohazards be to be used. And we're also concerned about the data centers and, you know, how they're gonna affect the community and the and the utility rates. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone else? Going once? Going twice? Three times. I will now close the public comment period and close the public hearing. Next on the agenda is the commissioner and staff report. Are there any reports from staff?

Yes. Tonight, I can tell you that we don't currently have any items for the March 26 meeting, so you're gonna get a week off in a couple weeks. I can't tell you yet. We're still deciding, we'll probably decide by the mid next week whether we have something for April 9. As soon as we know, I will get an email out to you all to make sure that you can get that on your schedule. I am fairly confident that we will have a meeting on the April 23. So you can

put that in your vote.

And I think that's all I have for tonight. Okay.

Are there any questions or comments from the Commission at this point? May I have a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to

adjourn. Second.

Commissioner Hagler has made the motion to adjourn and Commissioner Bershears has seconded the motion. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Thank