Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. As our chair is absent excused, I will be acting as chair for this meeting. On behalf of the commissioners and staff, I would like to welcome you all to the August 13, 2026, City of Roseville Planning Commission meeting. Please put all electronic devices on silent at this time. Agendas and speaker cards are located in the lobby. If you plan to speak at tonight's meeting, return your speaker card to a staff member. As a reminder, Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live, replayed on Comcast 14, and available on the city's YouTube channel. Firstly, I would like to welcome our newest commissioner, Commissioner Prost. You are very welcome. And now I would like to call the meeting to order. Lupe, may we have a roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Hagler?

Here.

Commissioner Chris? Here. Commissioner Meish? Here. Commissioner Pryor?

Here.

Commissioner Probst?

Here.

Commissioner Unidad?

Here.

And Chair Hagen-Jos is absent, excused.

Thank you. I would like to call on Commissioner Unidad to join us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you.

States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Please begin staff introductions.

Good evening, Commissioners. Lupe Nelson, Recording Secretary.

Good evening, Commissioners. Joe Speaker, Assistant City Attorney.

Good evening, Commissioners. Lauren Hawker, Planning Manager.

Good evening, Chair Pryor and Commissioners. Derek Ogden, Senior Planner.

Good evening, Chair Pryor and Commissioners. Eric Singer, Associate Planner.

And good evening, Commissioners. Matt Todd, Principal Engineer.

The public comment period is a time for anyone who would like to address the Commission on any item not on tonight's agenda. When addressing the Commission, please state your name for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anyone who would 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 staff reports. However, since each routine item requires a public hearing, each 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 one item, which is item 5.1, minutes from the June 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Is there anyone on the Commission or in the audience who would like to pull this item off the Consent Calendar for discussion? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as listed?

I'll make the motion. Second.

Go ahead. Commissioner Hagler has made the motion, and Commissioner Meish? Seconded the motion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Kriz?

Yes.

Commissioner Probst?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

Commissioner Unidad? Yes. Commissioner Meish? Yes. And Chair Pryor?

Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. Next on the agenda is requests and presentations. Before we begin, I want to review the meeting procedures. First, we will hear the staff presentation. Then I'll take questions from the Commission. Then I'll open the public hearing. The applicant will make a presentation. Then I will open the public comment, and the public will have an opportunity to speak. Then I will close public comment. If needed, the applicant will be given an opportunity to provide a rebuttal. Then I will close the public hearing. The Commission may then ask questions of staff and finally the Commission will consider this item and make a decision based on the information provided in the report from staff and the testimony presented during tonight's hearing. Item 6.1 is a request to approve a conditional use permit, design review permit, and tentative subdivision map for 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard. For the record, file number PL25-0496. Eric, may we have your presentation, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair Pryor. So as mentioned, we'll be discussing the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center. The project site is identified as 11 vacant parcels labeled JM41 within the Sierra Vista specific plan, hereafter referred to as the SVSP, with one additional parcel identified as parcel W20 within the West Roseville specific plan or WRSP. They are located at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Fitment Road. The site has a zoning and land use designation of community commercial and the site is surrounded by low density single family residential uses to the north and south, multifamily residential to the west and commercial uses to the east and northeast with an open space corridor to the east as well. Now, one important thing to keep in mind during tonight's discussion of the project is that this parcel was always designated for the types of commercial uses that are currently being proposed. Additionally, the surrounding land uses have remained the same since the SVSP's adoption in 2010. The conceptual plan within the SVSP provides an initial concept design for a commercial center of up to 250,000 square feet worth of development. That is actually more than four times the square footage that's in the current proposal. The SVSP Environmental Impact Reporter anticipates and mitigates the potential environmental impacts of a development of this scale. A little bit on the entitlement history for the site and one of the adjacent sites. In 2021, the City Council approved several entitlements that allowed for the construction of a coffee kiosk on Parcel W20, located at the northwest corner there that's located within the WRSP. That project was ultimately never constructed. In 2022, the City Council approved several entitlements to adjust the boundary between JM41 and the adjacent parcel, JM30 to the west there. Ultimately, this adjustment was more so to allow parcel JM41 and W20 to function as one cohesive commercial center. and lastly in 2025 the planning manager approved an objective design standards application for a multi-family housing development on parcel jm 30 consisting of 192 units across eight three-story buildings in terms of the proposal before you the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit design review permit and a tentative subdivision map to reconfigure the existing 12 parcels into eight parcels and allow for construction of a seven building commercial shopping center with retail and restaurant uses, as well as a fueling station, totaling approximately 58,000 square feet, along with the associated access, parking, lighting, and landscape improvements. The reconfigured parcels are sized to accommodate each of the seven buildings with their corresponding parking areas. And there is no development proposed on the eighth parcel, which is approximately three acres in size, located at the site's south end. Specific tenants are unknown at this time. It is known that for building one, located primarily on parcel W20 there on the northwest corner, it is proposed specifically as a coffee shop user, which would be consistent with the prior approval for that parcel. As mentioned, a conditional use permit is required for the construction of drive-throughs when adjacent to residential uses as well as the fueling station. As part of the required analysis for the CUP, a noise study has been conducted. For the fueling station, a health risk assessment was conducted and will be part of the required permitting for the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. Per those studies, no significant environmental impacts were identified that are not already mitigated within the SVSP Environmental Impact Report. In terms of site access, circulation, and parking, access is proposed at four different spots along the Fitment, Pleasant Grove, and Upland frontages, one driveway from Fitment, two from Pleasant Grove, and one from Upland. The technical memorandum that was provided by Farron Piers, you can see that as attachment three of your staff report, recommended several frontage improvements for the project, including things like acceleration and deceleration lanes on Pleasant Grove and southbound Fitment, as well as a left turn ingress lane on northbound Fitment. The recommendations within the memo have been incorporated into the design of the project, as well as conditions of approval for the project. In terms of parking, based on the city zoning ordinance parking standards for the proposed uses, the project would be required to provide a total of 261 parking spaces. You can see the breakdown of each of those uses in table one of the staff report. The project is providing a total of 327 parking spaces, which is well above the total parking requirement. The drive-through lanes have been designed to meet the city's minimum queue length standards, and the project includes several internal pedestrian pathways and would include the completion of sidewalks and landscaping along Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Finament Road after the completion of the access improvements. Lastly, all trash enclosures have been placed throughout the site in convenient locations to meet the city's trash collection approach standards. In terms of the design of the buildings themselves, it's defined by the applicant as a modern Western Highlands architectural theme with a blend of modern and traditional elements. It's designed to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. It is consistent with other developments that you would see throughout the city. The building facades feature various rectangular forms and varied roof lines, as well as varied building materials, including IFAS, cement fiber siding, stone veneer and masonry block, wood accents, and standing seam metal roof accents. Architecture for the restaurants, retail buildings, and fuel station would be in the same style as the grocery anchor tenant with the same materials and colors. Building heights range from approximately 20 feet for the fueling station and the restaurants to 42.5 feet for the grocery store's south elevation, which are all below the 50-foot maximum building height for the CC zoning designation. The roof lines would provide sufficient screening of mechanical rooftop equipment and site lighting has been conditioned to not exceed 15 feet in height to ensure avoidance of light impacts on adjacent properties. Overall, the project's design is consistent with the city's community design guidelines. In terms of the landscape plan, along both frontages, the project is proposing a mix of existing landscaping that would remain as well as a combination of new trees, shrubs, and ground cover. On the western edge of the property, a 16-foot landscape buffer would work in conjunction with a proposed six-foot masonry wall. With the combination of trees and shrubs, we'd provide significant screening on the back of the site from the future multifamily development on parcel GM30. Additionally, the minimum 50% parking lot shading requirement will be satisfied with this landscape plan and the drive-through lanes for the restaurant uses that front Pleasant Grove and Fitament are required to be screened with three-foot wall as well as 36-inch tall shrubs planted between the wall and the sidewalk to screen for headlights of vehicles in the drive-throughs. In terms of public outreach for the project, early notification was posted on the Roseville Coalition and Neighborhood Association's website, as well as on the city's projects of interest page. On June 17th of this year, the applicant held an open house that was attended by one member of the public asking general questions of the project. In terms of tonight's meeting, notice was published in the Roseville Press Tribune, was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, as well as posted on the ARCONA website. To date, five total comments have been received, four of which were received after publication of the staff report. All were forwarded to the commission as well as published on the city's website. The majority of the letters that we received had concerns regarding traffic, lighting, and public safety. One letter in particular from the Protect Roseville Neighborhoods presents concerns that address the adequacy of using an addendum as the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. Their concerns were related to the following specific areas, access to the site as well as traffic safety, potential noise impacts from the commercial uses that are adjacent to residential, the adequacy of the air quality analysis presented in the health risk assessment, and lack of adequate analysis of cumulative impacts from the build-out of commercial land uses, again, adjacent to residential sites. Staff provided a response to comments and the applicant provided a separate response to comments. Both can be seen as additional attachments to the staff report as well as posted to the Commission's agenda page. In terms of the environmental review for the project, the PRN letter did not ultimately change staff's conclusion that an addendum to the SVSP EIR is the appropriate level of environmental review. It's in accordance with CEQA section 15164 and this is due to the following reasons. Firstly, regarding the access as conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the recommendations of the access study And the city engineer has ultimately concluded that the access design is adequate and will function safely. Regarding the noise concerns, the noise analysis appropriately evaluated the project for compliance with the city's adopted noise thresholds and the largest predicted increase in noise in any of the existing sensitive receptor locations is still less than the city's required thresholds. Regarding the air quality analysis, only the gas station is a potential source of significant toxic air contaminants or TACs that would require the preparation of a health risk assessment. The HRA was prepared using the methodology that's required by the California Air Resources Board as well as the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. The HRA and the addendum have adequately and appropriately addressed potential impacts related to the potential TACs. Lastly, regarding the cumulative impacts of the project, the SVSP EIR evaluated the cumulative impacts of all of these land uses located next to one another. The addendum demonstrates that the project level studies still conclude that those impacts remain within the scope of that original EIR. Ultimately, the project would not result in new or significantly more severe environmental impacts than those that were previously considered as well as mitigated within the original SVSP-EAR. So ultimately the addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. So in conclusion, staff finds that the project is consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the zoning ordinance, the general plan, the Sierra Vista specific plan, and the West Roseville specific plan, as well as the community design guidelines. The site is appropriately designed, would not be detrimental to public health and safety, and the required findings of fact can be made. So these are our recommended actions, and that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much, Eric. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff at this time?

I just had one question. If there were to be a lawsuit on this over the adequacy of the environmental document, is the City of Roseville, or how is or is not the City of Roseville at risk?

So I can take that question. So that's something that we address in our project applications. And so that is something that as part of the applicant's responsibilities and in their application, they would defend and indemnify the city for purposes of a CEQA action or some type of action. So we work obviously very closely to make sure that the project before you meet all of the requirements is required by law, but that's a safeguard that's in place to account for that scenario.

So the city's not at risk?

That's correct. Under CEQA, the city would be named because of the approving body, but that risk is mitigated through those indemnity and defense provisions.

Thank you.

Regarding traffic, because that's always one of the concerns of residents, on the corner of Upland and Pleasant Grove, can you confirm if there will be a traffic light built on it, and when will it be built?

Yes. A traffic signal is part of the conditions of approval of this project, and so when this project moves forward, they will construct that traffic signal.

Thank you. You're welcome. And that's at Upland and Pleasant Grove?

That's correct.

Are there any other questions from commissioners?

Just a real quick one. The southern parcel that didn't identify any land use in that, so that's kind of isolated over there on the other side of the power line easement. What would happen with that next or...

Yeah, thanks for the question. So that is underneath the power line easements as you mentioned. So it is kind of a fairly limited types of land uses that could go there. So the owners of this property or potential buyers, the applicant will not be purchasing that portion of the site. But there is potential down the road that somebody could come back and look to develop a commercial use on that site in the future.

Okay, but it lines up with the open space on the other side of the filament. Right. Yeah, so okay. Thank you. So it's not part of this project at this point?

Correct. Any other questions?

No.

All right, thank you. I will now open the public hearing. I would like to invite the project representative for this item to address the commission.

Good evening, I'm Chris Stewart on behalf of Warburg Partners. With me this evening are Adam Decker and Joe Decker from Warburg Partners, Christina Berglund from Remy Moose Manley, and Brooks Badley from Kimley Horn. We hope among the five of us, that we could answer your questions. Thank you very much, Eric, for your presentation. We don't have much to add to that. I'd like to address a comment from Commissioner Gris. That site south of the project would remain zoned community commercial. It's not an open space. I just wanted to clarify. It seemed like there was a misunderstanding there. Thank you. We have reviewed the conditions of approval. and we're in agreement with those, including the condition modified tonight for the reimbursement to the West Roseville plan. And we hope that you'll agree with us that this project is designed well and fits in with the context of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and approve the project. If you have questions, we're here. Thank you.

All right, commissioners, are there any questions for the project representative at this time?

Well, I'll ask you. It's either you or staff. Regarding the drive-throughs, I don't go through them usually. I just remember the old parody days where the cashier was yelling through the speaker and the customer was yelling back, back and forth. I'm assuming technology has gotten better where I guess the microphone for both you can hear and where you don't have to have a yelling match between the two.

Yes, technology, I don't know when the last time you've been there, but technology has advanced a lot in terms of the acoustics of those drive-throughs. Sometimes there's an overhang on those intercom systems, so to speak, that shield the noise and the drive-through alignment is designed to avoid impacts to adjacent uses.

The way I looked at the... the one schematic, it looks like the speakers for at least on the two businesses are going more out to the street. The line of sound would be more toward the street on one unpleasant Grove and one on fitment.

That's correct.

So that'll reduce any noises for the residents in the area, correct?

Yes. The, The noise impacts were evaluated in the acoustical analysis done for the project, took into consideration the speakers associated with the drive-throughs.

All right. Commissioners, are there any other questions for the representative?

I understand this project is built to suit. There's no tenant that is already identified yet. The question is, you're really so confident with that place that it will be rented?

That's correct. The tenants have not been identified yet. The project has been designed as a unit in the design review. It's been designed to be a cohesive project so it all interrelates. There's a single developer of the entire site so there will be coordination among the tenants and there's access and arrangements among the tenants for maintenance and long term care of the site. But the tenants themselves have not been identified and the developer obviously is very hopeful in Roseville's success and the site's been designated for commercial uses and residents are very eager to get more uses on that west side of Roseville. As you probably know.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you. You may be seated. You open the public comment period. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come forward and address the commission on this item?

Just leave it here, please.

Thank you. And if you could please state your name for the record, and you have five minutes to speak.

My name is Margarita Renoso. I'm one of the residents who's gonna live directly behind that. We were not informed of this when we purchased our houses that this was anything that was gonna be built like this. And with all due respect, we've already got Submarine markets, we've got a Costco, we've got a Target, we've got coming in a Home Depot. I don't care what they say about the new restrictions, you guys go live behind there and see how you guys like it. This is ridiculous. We get a card in the mail two weeks ago saying that this meeting was gonna happen and you only send it to the people who you think are gonna be directly impacted, but people at Sun City are gonna be affected, everybody's gonna be affected with this traffic. This is not why I moved to Roseville. We don't need another whatever, looks like a grocery store. According to the website or what I looked on, it was saying something about a bargain market, grocery market, Now we're catering to the low-income housing and we're going to ruin our property values because of that. Not to mention two more drive-thrus for food, another coffee shop. These things are all within walking distance from where I live right now. I just don't think that this is something that is going to benefit the neighborhood, the community that we all live in. This is something that we're not, I mean, they're already in construction on more houses across the street and we don't, you know, God knows when the, I don't know when the anticipated date for the three, the low income housing is going to be done, but these are all things that are just continue. Putting another traffic site on Upland and Pleasant Grove when there's 100 yards, not even that, 100 yards down at Fitament and Pleasant Grove, how much traffic that's gonna cause, the congestion that's gonna cause. This has gotta stop. We need to be better informed. You put something on your website, that's great, but you're talking about the only people that you notified were the people you thought were gonna be directly impacted. You need to widen your scope and open this up to a greater amount of people and send out notices to more people and have another hearing to see how many other people come. So thank you, this is not good.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? and you have five minutes.

My name is Mary Grattan Perez. I'm Margarita's neighbor. I spoke to Eric today. I want to be sure the meeting was on. This is all news to us. We live in Monument. Homes have been there for 15 years. JMC just sold in September 22nd of 2022. where Park was supposed to be five years ago. He sold it finally to the city of Roseville. It's just now starting. But these low-income homes are going on the other side, which we were told nothing was going to go there. So they're all going in. They're going gangbusters. But we don't need a fueling station. We have Chevron. We have Costco. We're going to have Target. We're going to have Home Depot. So, you know, Roseville always says that you should have pride and ownership. But when you're not in a neighborhood, it's like you're living in a city, you know. We don't need drive-throughs. I'm sure you wouldn't want them in your neighborhood right on the corner. To say that people are notified, I got this. First I ever heard of it. Got this notice in the mail. I called her. I said, did you get one? Nope. The things get selectively sent out. The fueling stations, we just don't need them. It's very upsetting. I've lived in Roseville for 30 years. 25 years in my first home and five in this one. Quite frankly, to me, it doesn't bode well. I don't think you guys, this stuff is all like, it's just popping up because when we bought these homes, they said nothing will go because of those power lines, nothing would go there. Okay. But if I have to look at a grocery outlet or a fueling station or one section that nobody's gonna buy and then there are homeless people hanging out there, I'm not gonna be happy. It's just, it's very unfortunate, I'm very sad that this stuff happens. I mean, like the Roseville paper or whatever, I have to go, I guess I'd have to go to Chase Bank to pick that up because I wouldn't have even known about this had we not gotten this card. because they're going like gangbusters on those homes. We weren't thrilled about it, but I know there's been pushback because I read something somewhere that there's been some pushback about this going in there because that upland and Pleasant Grove, you're right down from Safeway. You've got a railies down there. You come down there, like Margarita said, it's like 90 feet. You'll have to have another stoplight. I don't know. When we went through this with the park to get it built, they said, we're going to be in communication with you. Zero communication. Have our emails, have our phone numbers, nothing. They don't communicate. They don't say anything. I made the joke to Terry G who works on Parks and Rec. I'll be dead before the park is built. Five years we've lived in this home. They said, no, park in one year. but these other people have lived there 10 more years longer than I have. Now that we're having all this, we're going to have to look at. I just worry about the traffic, what it's going to bring through there. It's upsetting to me. I don't think that it's a lot of things. A lot of meetings can happen. They'll have it over at Maidu Center or something where people go, well, I'm not going to travel that far, but you have to be notified. I know they did that with Parks and Rec. They had these meetings and they go, nine people showed up. Well, a lot of the people that live in our neighborhood are from the Bay Area. They don't even know where the Maidu Center is. This is separate than you, but I'm just saying this is all news to me. Not happy. Not happy, but thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public? All right, I will now close the public comment period. Commissioners, are there any additional questions or comments for the applicant?

None of the applicant.

We'd like to make a few comments in response to the comments made. Christina Berglund from Moose and Manly is here.

Thank you. Good evening, Honorable Commissioners. Christina Berglund on behalf of the project applicant. I'm a CEQA and land use attorney with Remy Moos Manley. Before I turn to the substance of my responses, I just want to thank staff. They've done a great job responding to public comments. They prepared an addendum that presents you with a very clear, well-supported analysis that demonstrates that this project can be approved without further CEQA review. This project is consistent with development that's been planned since 2010. The city has envisioned commercial development on this parcel for a very long time and this project just represents the build-out of that specific plan. I just wanted to make a couple of points to put a legal point on some of the comments that we've heard tonight that just because there's public controversy doesn't mean that you cannot compel the applicant to prepare an EIR simply based on the public controversy. Protect Roseville Neighborhoods did offer lengthy comment letter, so I just wanted to talk about three points there. First, public Roseville neighborhoods asserts that further CEQA review needs to be done because the surrounding development constitutes a changed circumstance. and that's simply not the case. The development that they're identifying as changed circumstance is not unexpected. It's build out of these specific plans, the Sierra Vista specific plan as well as neighboring specific plans like West Roseville. The project that's before you today implements the commercial development that's contemplated by the Sierra Vista specific plan. It's really just a realization of what the EIR's underlying development assumptions were, and it's not a change of circumstance that triggers supplemental environmental review. And I mean, the same can be true of said about the cumulative impact arguments. The EIR didn't analyze this project site in isolation, right? It evaluated the cumulative development within the Sierra Vista specific plant area and all the surrounding areas. I think secondly, Protect Roseville Neighborhoods, they invoke the wrong legal standard. Repeatedly, their letter suggests that additional environmental review is required if there is a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect. That's just the incorrect legal standard for the posture that you have in front of you today. That is the standard that you would look at if you were looking at whether you need to prepare an EIR in the first place. but as we've discussed, there's already a certified EIR here. Here, the question before the city is really, does the project result in a new significant environmental effect or a more severe significant environmental effect than that's disclosed in the prior EIR? Here, the addendum contains substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that supplemental review is not needed because the project falls within the scope of the impacts that have been previously analyzed. I think finally on traffic. Traffic is a concern, but the concerns that have been raised here have been things about driveway spacing, queuing storage, internal circulation, and other roadway design recommendations. While those are issues the city considers as part of its design process, they're simply not evidence of a CEQA impact. for transportation and that's because in 2020, vehicle miles traveled became the only metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. These disagreements over where the driveway should be or whether it should be moved 10 feet or how the internal circulation on the project site should be reconfigured, they do not provide you with the basis to compel a supplemental EIR. At bottom, there have been some concerns that have been raised and they would like the city to study again or study in a different way some of these issues, but that's simply not the standard under CEQA where an EIR has already been certified and the project falls within the scope of those impacts that have already been disclosed. Finally, Just for the record, it's worth noting that Protect Roseville Neighborhoods has raised similar concerns about onsite circulation and access and transportation design considerations when it previously challenged the city's approval of the nearby grocery outlet and my office helped successfully defend that project and the city's approval was upheld at both the trial court and the appellate court. Thank you for indulging me and I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Commissioners, are there any questions? All right, thank you very much. I will now close the public hearing. Commissioners, are there any further questions for staff at this time?

Yeah, I have some. So I don't know what 14 1⁄2 acres looks like. Is it bigger than the new Safeway Center down the street? Is it more like the, what is it? the one on Foothills and Junction, what does 14 1⁄2 acres look like?

I believe the Safeway across Pleasant Grove and Fittiment is a little bit smaller in size, although it is more square in shape. And so this site does give you a little bit more challenge in terms of the development of it just because of the shape of it. But... For all intents and purposes, it's an adequate size to serve a commercial site such as this. There's good access in and out of the site. We've done the transportation and circulation study to look at that. The size is not unique. It's fairly common for a commercial center such as this.

I just measured it. It's about 10 acres at the Safeway.

Okay.

The Safeway just opened up about a year ago, I think. Your department would get complaints, I would imagine, from the citizens if the delivery trucks in the back of that apartment complex on Fitament. Do you get any complaints from shopping centers that abut next to neighborhoods like the one on, well, even the Bel Air on Foothills and Baseline? They're right behind a neighborhood. There's several instances where I can bring up do complaints like that come because you do have delivery restriction times for this project.

We do, and what I would say is the ones you've mentioned, I'm not aware of any code enforcement complaints at any of the sites you mentioned. In a city, of course, there are sometimes complaints about deliveries happening outside of the required windows or things like that, but we do have code enforcement who do go out and make sure that we're enforcing those conditions. If there are violations of our noise ordinance or if there are violations of conditional use permit restrictions on operation times. So we do have a means of making sure in the unusual instances that we do get complaints that we have means of resolving that.

And my last question, I'm not bringing up the CEQA issue on this. I do have an issue with the traffic in regards to driveway number four where northbound Fitament would turn left into the center. They're gonna be facing three lanes of southbound traffic in addition to a new bus turnout. Average speed on a typical day is posted at 50 miles an hour. I'm not concerned about the 10 feet that is missing. Where does the 390 feet begin? Is it the south curb line of Pleasant Grove on down? Is it the middle of the intersection on down?

It's measured from the curb return, or the southern curb return.

Southern curb. 390 feet really isn't that far when you're considering a vehicle going 50 miles an hour, especially trying to dodge that red light that's coming up. you know, that's about less than five seconds if you're pushing above 50 miles an hour.

The city standard for allowing a left turn there is 400 feet. As part of the traffic study, there was a analysis done to figure out if that site distance was adequate and then they, as a result of that, they looked at the speeds because of the uniqueness of the intersection. You do have some potential drive through coming through, but because of how busy the intersection is, you do have a lot of stop and go. So they had measured that on a free flow, average speeds were around 44 miles per hour in that section. They pick up a little bit farther down, but they did say they did measure that in where that left turn pocket would be is about 44 miles per hour. and so they were able to determine that that's enough to safely allow those left turns.

Okay, I drove that way the other day. For the most part, Fittiment is a solid divided highway other than at certain intersections and you have one, I don't know the street name, where you have a blinking yellow light and only crossing two lanes and a car a few months ago was able to knock out a school bus making a left turn across two lanes versus three lanes plus a bus turnout. I just see a potential there for a bad accident at that speed, especially being on the passenger right side of the car. When would the next speed survey come out? I think they're what, like every seven years now, they've upped it?

Yeah, well, in a typical speed survey for measuring speed limits on a stretch of roadway wouldn't be taken right at this location due to the proximity of the intersection. And because you're not getting a full, identification of what that speed is through that stretch of road. So you try to find a straighter, an encumbered distance or section so that people can get up to what they would actually be driving. In this case, because of the proximity to the intersection with that left turn, they went out and did a specific site speed survey to ensure to determine what that speed is coming from the intersection, and they looked at both the left turns, because you gotta worry about that, the right turns coming in, and the through traffic, and they found, again, the average speed was 44 miles per hour there.

Are there other intersections that have these shorter distances and are operating safely?

We do have a few throughout town. You have a intersection at Douglas, on Douglas for it's westbound right at Rocket Ridge going into, I think it's the Rocket Ridge Town Center. There's another one on East Roseville Parkway going again westbound there over at North Sunrise going into the, I think it's the Palisades Plaza shopping center there. And then if you're going eastbound on on Pleasant Grove over at Washington, the left turn into Galilee, that's much shorter than that same distance.

What I found is that if you're making a left turn from a street to a street, cars will typically speed up, but if they're going into a private complex, they tend to slow down because of the elevation between the street and now the new property and so the car starts slowing down in that third lane and usually it's that number three lane that people get tagged on. So I don't know if anything can be done with the construction so people don't want to tend to slow down before they complete their left turn that they can smoothly go into that shopping center without having to brake. so that the car doesn't bottom out or whatever the issue is.

During design of the construction documents, we can look at that. Typically, and I believe it's been conditioned that those driveways are A7 driveways to carry the drainage through the driveway. So we could work with the design engineer to potentially look at if there's a possibility to manage the drainage in such a way where we can remove that gutter pan and kind of have a free flow through there. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, for staff. Sorry, the public comment period is closed.

I want to talk about notification. So the 300-foot radius notification was mailed out, and then I noticed it was posted to the ARCONA websites for West Park, likely. There wasn't any presentations at any West Park or any ARCONA meetings. It was just notifications on the website.

That's correct, other than the open house that the applicant held on June 17th.

That was open house by the applicant that really wasn't posted as an ARCONA meeting, but I'm sure that it was noticed.

It was noticed to the same standard, the same 300-foot standard that the city observes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions? All right, would anyone like to make a motion?

I don't have a question, but I have comments. Just sort of, regarding the neighbors, I sort of feel your pain, but I don't think it's unreasonable It would have been reasonable for you to have looked at a vacant lot on the corner of Fittiment and Pleasant Grove that's zoned commercial and thought when you bought your homes that it would probably be developed. Anyway, it's long been planned by the city, it's long been zoned, and I just wanted to recognize that I heard what you said, but I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect that the landowner is not going to develop as he's allowed to under the general plan that was in place when you bought your property. Regarding the PRN letter, I read it and I thought it raised concerns. I was very happy to see staff's response, which I thought did a really good job of addressing each of the items in the PRN's letter. And then I got the applicant's response, which was very impressive, I just gotta say. It laid out chapter and verse on not only what the answer is, but why the answer was what it was. And that combined with the fact that the city has no risk in this matter leaves me very comfortable moving forward. And if you'd like me to make a motion, I would be happy to. So I would, that the Planning Commission consider the addendum to this specific plan, environmental impact report. Adopt the three findings of fact and approve the conditional use permit subject to the four conditions of approval. Adopt the four findings of fact and approve the design review permit subject to 90 conditions of approval. And adopt the three findings of fact and approve the tentative subdivision map subject to 44 conditions of approval.

And with the addition, just to clarify, is that also with the modified condition that was stated regarding the reimbursement? Yes. Thank you.

Do we have a second? I second. Okay, Commissioner Meish has made the motion and Commissioner Unidad has seconded the motion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Meish? Yes. Commissioner Hagler? Yes. Commissioner Probst? Yes. Commissioner Cruz? Yes. Commissioner Unidad? Yes. And Chair Pryor? Yes.

Yes, the motion is approved. There is a 10-day appeal period for this item. Next, we have Commissioner Staff Report. Item 7.1 is the election of the Planning Commission Chair. I will now open public comments. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the Commission on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period. Commissioners?

I'll make a motion for us to consider Commissioner Unidat for the chair position.

I would nominate John Pryor if he's interested. I think he did a fine job today.

Do we have a second for?

So I was gonna say, so from a procedural, yeah, there's technically a motion made by Commissioner Hagler, and so if there's no second, then that motion would die, and then in which case, Commissioner Meish can make his motion, but I wanted to see where the motion lies with the original motion that's on the floor.

Well, let me state my reason for the nomination. My understanding is Commissioner Pryor has been chair before. And so I thought maybe getting some new blood in on that position. That was my reasoning.

All right. Do we have a second for Commissioner Rizzo? If we don't, I'll put forward Commissioner Rizzo.

I would second that.

Okay. Commissioner Hagler has made the motion and Commissioner Chris has seconded the motion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

Commissioner Unendad?

Yes.

Commissioner Meish? Yes. Commissioner Probst? Yes. Commissioner Kriz? Yes. And Chair Pryor?

Yes. The motion is approved. Item 7.2 is the election of the Planning Commission Vice Chair. I will now open public comments. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the Commission on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period.

Commissioners? Just a procedural question. I don't mean to make a motion. I mean to engage discussion. Who's interested? I'd like to see Ed Cruz do it because he's familiar with the Roseville way of doing things, been served as chair of previous boards.

I would like to see Commissioner Hagler since he's next in line for seniority as the vice chair. I'd like to make a motion.

Okay. That Commissioner Hagler be the vice chair for next year.

I second that one. I guess I do. All right. Commissioner Unidad has made the motion and Commissioner Pryor has seconded the motion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Probst?

Yes.

Commissioner Meish?

Yes.

Commissioner Kriz?

Yes.

Commissioner Unidad?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

And Chair Pryor?

Yes. The motion is approved. All right. Congratulations to both of you. Next, we have the election of the design committee chair. I will now open the public comments. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the commission on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period. And again, we'll have commissioner discussion.

This is something that Commissioner Hagenos has had for a time and this is a single meeting a month?

Yes, if staff could explain.

If we have items then yes, it's one time a month and we often don't have an item so it's not every month.

and it doesn't it's the third third so it doesn't correct so the design committee meets it doesn't conflict with the planning commission meetings which are the second and the fourth uh thursday of every month but design committee meets the third thursday of each month at 4 30 here at the city hall not here but meeting room or something correct meeting yeah all right and it's at 4 30 p.m in the afternoon i would be willing to be considered for that okay good to know

I'd like to make a motion that Commissioner Chris be the second chair of the committee, please.

I second it.

You second it? I second it. Commissioner Unidad has made the motion, and Commissioner Meish has seconded the motion. May we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Meish?

Yes.

Commissioner Chris?

Yes.

Commissioner Unidad?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler? Yes. Commissioner Probst? Yes. And Chair Pryor?

Yes. The motion is approved. Next item we have is item 7.4, election of the design committee alternate. This is the vice, the backup for the design committee. So one moment. I will now open public comments. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the commission on this issue? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period. Commissioners, any discussion on this?

Yeah, discussion, and as much as the chair and vice chair, I've always kind of seen this nice to be able to be in a vice chair role to kind of do that for a little bit and then move that into the chair role. So I think that that would be a natural progression if somebody was interested in coming in as the alternate at this point. Who is currently the alternate?

Won't we have to undo what we just did? Didn't we just vote for you?

Yes, I was willing to take that on. I was just curious.

I've been six months or less.

Would you consider continuing on as the alternate?

Just like you, I'm retired, so I've got the time.

So I understand this is for the alternate, right? Alternate, yes. Continue. Okay.

And I would move that Commissioner Hagler be the alternate design review commission. Do we have a second? I second.

Okay, Commissioner Chris has made the motion and Commissioner Nidad has seconded the motion. May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Unidad?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

Commissioner Probst? Yes. Commissioner Kriz? Yes. Commissioner Meish? Yes. And Chair Pryor?

Yes. The motion is approved. Are there any reports from staff at this time, Lauren?

Yeah, I just want to let you know what you can expect for your upcoming meetings. We are going to have a meeting on both August 27th and on September 10th. On August 27th, we'll be bringing you a variance request for variance from front yard setback and lot coverage for two lots in a new subdivision. And then also a conditional use permit for a vet clinic. And then in your September meeting, it will be the Amoruso branch specific plans, a series of minor amendments and a subdivision map.

All right.

And that's all I have for you.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from the commission?

No? Call me. I just want to thank the planning commission commissioners entrusting me with being the next chair for next year. We all know that it doesn't have or hold more power than anyone aside from more work. And because I've been dodging it for three years now. So it's my turn and we know we have a next man up mentality here and I'm I pledge that I will fulfill my duty with utmost honesty, fairness, and competency, so I won't let you down. Thank you.

Appreciate that. I wish you the best of luck as chair. All right. Any other comments or questions? Okay, may we have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make the motion.

Second. Commissioner Hagler has made the motion, and Commissioner Unidas has seconded the motion. All those in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned.

Thank you very much, everybody.