Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening. And on behalf of the commissioners and staff, I would like to extend a warm welcome to you all to the 08/14/2025 City of Roseville Planning Commission meeting. A reminder to please put all electronic devices on silent at this time. Agendas are available at the end of the staff table. If you plan to speak at tonight's meeting, please complete a blue speaker card and return it to a staff member. As a reminder, Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live, replayed on Comcast fourteen and available on the city's YouTube channel. I will now call the meeting to order. Lupi, may I please have a roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Hagler? Here. Commissioner Jensen?

Here.

Commissioner Pryor is absent, unexcused. Commissioner Unidad? Here. Vice Chair Boucher? Here. And Chair Hagen Dazs?

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.

Lupi, please begin staff introductions.

Yes. Good evening, Commissioners. Lupi Nelson, Recording Secretary.

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

Good evening, Chair Hagen Dos and Commissioners Greg Bitter, Planning Manager.

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

Good evening, Chair Hagenyos and Commissioners, Kenny Chalgo, Associate Planner.

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

Thank you. The public comment period is a time for anyone who'd 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, 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, each item may be considered separately upon a request by the audience, planning commission or staff. Tonight's consent calendar consists of two items. The minutes for item number one is the minutes from the 07/24/2025 planning commission meeting and item number two is the North Industrial Plan Area Parcel 50 Image Studios 9089 Foothills Boulevard for the record file PL25-three46. Is there anyone on the commission or in the audience who would 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?

Move approval. I'll second.

Commissioner Jensen has made the motion and Commissioner Breshears has seconded the motion. Roll call please.

Commissioner Unidad?

Yes.

Commissioner Jensen?

Yes.

Vice Chair Breshears?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler? Yes. And Chair Hagginges?

Yes. The motion is approved. There is a ten day appeal period for item 5.2. Next on the agenda is requests and presentations. Before we begin, I want to review the meeting procedures.

We will hear the staff presentation, then I will take questions from the commission, then I will open the public hearing, the applicants 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 ask questions of staff. 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 tentative parcel map for 106 Ben Ezra Avenue for the record file number PL25Dash0346. Kenny, may we have your presentation please?

Yes. Good evening again. Kenny Schalogeau, associate planner here to present a request for a tentative parcel map for 106 Ben Ezra Avenue. The project site is located in the city's infill planning area, again at 106 Ben Ezra Avenue. It is zoned single family residential and has the land use designation of low density residential.

It is developed with a 2,000 square foot single family home and is surrounded by residential uses. The current request is the tentative parcel map to subdivide the half acre parcel into two separate parcels. Parcel a will contain the existing house and parcel b will be developed with single family residential uses in the future. So no development is being proposed at this time. Parcel a will be approximately point two acres and parcel b will be point three acres.

While development is not being proposed with this project, this exhibit demonstrates that there is ample space for a house on Parcel B that will meet setbacks. Easements will be recorded on the parcels including a 10 foot storm drain easement and a 10 foot reciprocal drainage easement on Parcel B. Also, a 20 foot wide reciprocal access easement will be recorded on the west side of Parcel A to provide access to Parcel B from Ben Ezra Avenue. And as part of the project conditions, the applicant will be responsible for improving the project frontage along Ben Ezra Avenue. Overall, the proposed lot sizes are consistent with r one zone development standards and are large enough to support the existing dwelling unit on Parcel A, will not create a nonconforming situation and can adequately allow for future dwelling on Parcel B that will meet city standards.

Early notification of the project was posted on the Arcona website and typically a request for a tenant parcel map for four or fewer lots may be approved by the planning manager unless a public hearing is requested following a ten day public notice of the project. In this case, a request for a public hearing was received on July 10 during the notice period from a group of neighbors in opposition to the project. Staff spoke with one of the residents who expressed concerns that the project would create on street parking issues and increased traffic. However, there is ample area for parking on the parcels and the existing and future single family homes would not cause a significant increase in traffic. Notice of tonight's hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune, distributed to a 300 foot radius and posted on the Arcona website.

No other public comments have been received. The project is categorically exempt from CEQUA per section one five three one five minor land divisions and pursuant to section three zero five of the city of Roseville CEQUA implementing procedures. In conclusion, the project is consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the zoning ordinance, general plan, and the subdivision ordinance. And the required findings of fact as listed on this slide can be made. Recommends the planning commission adopt the three findings of fact and approve the tentative parcel map subject to 39 conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Commissioners are there any questions for staff at this time? No. I will now open the public hearing. I would like to invite the project representative for this item to address the commission.

Hello? Hello. Hey.

I'm Josh Alva. I'm the owner. Good evening. My name is Josh Alva and my family and I are proud lifelong residents of here in Roosevelt for the past nine years. We've rented and lived in our home in Sierra Boulevard near Roosevelt High School. Over that time, Roosevelt has become

more than just a place we live.

It's it's truly become home. We've enjoyed countless interactions with our neighbors over at Ben Ezra and a friendly wave while walking the dog, quick chat over the fence, lending a hand when someone needs help. These moments, big and small, have made us appreciate how just how special our neighborhood is. The proposal before you tonight to split our lot is a way for us to contribute positively to the community's future. It's not about changing the nature of a neighborhood, but about making thoughtful use of the land in a way that aligns with Roseville's development standards. And it provides another opportunity for our family to call this place home and continue the traditions of strong neighborly relationships that we value so deeply. And we are in agreement with the staff's recommendations.

Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the project representative?

I have one or maybe a couple. Are you planning to have a garage with a new structure? I believe so. It would typically have parking space,

at least a parking lot. Again, we have no structure in mind just yet,

but And how many cars do you think can accommodate? More than two? Two. I would say

it's a typical parking driveway or potentially garage. Yeah.

All right. Thank you.

Thank

you. I'll

now open the public comment period. Is there anyone from the public would like to come forward and address the commission on this item? Seeing none, oh, go please.

Hello, my name is Laura Wilborn and I own 219 Nevada Avenue. We have a great concern because we have a lot of changes going on in the neighborhood. At the end of Nevada Avenue, we have this 25 unit housing development going up right now. Already our parking and everything is impacted. People going the wrong way on streets, nowhere to park. I'm concerned about this development. One is, is it it's I know it's zoned residential, single family. Is that correct?

Yes.

So what does it take to to change it and put duplexes on or more than a single family? Is that something that can be done easily that this could flip on us?

So just for everyone's knowledge, with the public comment period, the commission is not allowed to respond to the questions. It's not like a Q and A session, but you can ask the questions and then the commission can ask staff to respond to it, but the commission doesn't answer questions. It's not like a Q and A session, so they're not allowed to comment on the questions that are made during the public comment section.

Can they ask staff then?

So if you want to state all your comments, and then they can be directed to staff to answer them after you're complete. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. It seems to me like as residents there, we bought into this nice sweet neighborhood that is very, very quiet and sweet and neighborly. And now all of a sudden we have this monstrosity going in at the end of Nevada Avenue and now we have things that's going to be going in right behind our property. We have no idea what it's going to be built to look like. How many, like you said, is it going to have a garage?

We're not even sure of that. So are we going to have park? Where we look out our backyard and see a driveway with a bunch of cars parked there. It doesn't seem like there's any assurances to us as homeowners as to what is gonna happen. We've already got something going down here now if we look out the back and we're gonna have more going on out there. What is can we be doing? We have no choice in any of this. They just can tell us whatever they want to do.

Thank you. You. Thank you for your comment. At the appropriate time after I've closed the public comment period, we will ask the staff to comment on that. Okay?

Okay. So I want assurance that it's just gonna be single family residence. We're not gonna wind up with duplexes or two or three story houses that we get right into our view from our backyards. We bought this properties for peace and quiet and a nice normal neighborhood and I don't see where we have any assurances of anything. So if you can have the staff address that, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Seeing nobody approaching, I will now close the public comment. And commissioners are there any additional questions? I will now close the public hearing. I'll ask staff if you could address the concern that was raised.

So let's see, I'll address so the property is zoned R1 single family residential. It's in a low density general plan land use zone. So it's the same land use and zoning as the surrounding single family lots. Of course, it's much larger than the surrounding single family lots. So by subdividing this property, you're getting two quarter acre lots, which each of those lots are still going to be bigger than the surrounding single family lots.

So single family zoning for a single family home, the parking requirement is typically two parking stalls. It doesn't need there's no requirement for it to be covered, but they would need to have provide two parking spaces for a home. If you recall a couple years ago, the state passed the governor signed into law Senate Bill nine that provided that had several provisions in it. One that allowed ministerial lots splits, but it also obligated all jurisdictions within the state of California in their single family zones to allow up to two residential units. So hypothetically, a duplex is would be considered two residential units and a duplex could be constructed on that back lot.

Just like any one of the lots in this neighborhood, it could take advantage of Senate Bill nine and have a second residential unit the site. So whatever the state law allows today, whatever the state law is changed and allows next year, that will be what the city is compelled to allow to be developed on that parcel. I mean, that's just a fact.

The app as I understand, the applicant is not asking us to do anything. Right.

So this particular the entitlement that's before you tonight is to create two lots. As far as we know, they don't have development plans yet for that back portion. I'm sure they're they've got some ideas of what they want to do. The the diagram that Kenny put together showing the conceptual house footprint, that's really just to show when you create the second lot that there is space on that back parcel to build a single to build a home, a single family home at least that meets all of the setback requirements, has ample space to put the two parking stalls for a single family home. You can see in the upper right hand corner, there is an easement for a storm drain line.

So that's going to be constraint in the future for however they want to design that. But you can see on a quarter acre, 13,000 square feet, that is ample space to build a home and provide parking and meet all of the development standards in the R1 zone.

And when the applicant does come back with a design, they'd be coming back to the city So to get

single family residential at this right now does not require any design review entitlements. So they would be able to go forward to the building permit process. They would have to apply for building permit. Planning staff reviews all the building permit applications to make sure they meet the setbacks and meet all the zoning ordinance development standards. Absolutely.

Commissioners, are there any other additional questions or comments?

I just want to clarify a little bit for the audience. So what's before us today is basically create a second parcel. It's not development on that. It's a second parcel.

That's correct.

And so we've got two parcels that are approximately a quarter acre apiece, which are bigger than the existing parcels that are around it or comparable to the

I think the minimum parcel size for a single family lot is 6,200 square feet.

I think it's actually a little bigger in

the I R1 think it's 6,500.

6,500 square feet. I'm sorry, I'm off

the So it's at least comparable with the And what I heard you say is that it's zoned R1 so they could have a single family home, but because of the state law, they could get to a duplex or a But second if they wanted to go beyond that and they wanted to, for some reason, come back and say, we own this parcel now, we want to go multifamily with something more than that, that would have to come back to the city for Yes.

So to create multifamily to create a true multifamily project, wouldn't be consistent with the zoning. That would within this within this block, would tell you that we would look at that as a spot zoning situation. So it would be I would never say never, but that would be pretty pretty tough findings to make to allow a spot zoning for multifamily.

But it would certainly come back to the commission for that kind of discussion?

Yes. That would come back to the commission. Now I will tell you that there are other there have been recent state legislation. In fact, I think we just updated the zoning ordinance a few months ago because the state continues to pass laws that that allow more or require jurisdictions to provide more ministerial type approvals for more housing. So I can't tell you exactly on this parcel where that would lead, but hypothetically, I would say that there are state laws that could allow more than two.

And that would affect not just these parcels, but all of the parcels?

Yes, everybody can take anybody in the R1 zone can take advantage of that.

So again today, all we're looking at is creating a second parcel and that allows the development of a single family home and up to a duplex because of the state law requirement.

That's what this current map would allow. And John, could you pull up the findings again on the last slide? And this is something I think Commissioner Jensen brought up for the public. I think it's really important that we focus on these required findings that can be made. When you're considering a subdivision map, these are the findings that the California Subdivision Map Act requires be made in order to split a parcel.

And as you read those, in order to deny a project like this, I mean, I think if anybody in the public is asking for the city to not approve a subdivision map, you would have to look at one of these findings and make the reverse decision, right? So the size, design, character grading, location, configuration are consistent with the density uses, circulation and open space systems of the general plan, community guidelines. You would have to say that the map before you, it does not consistent with that. You would or you would have to say that the subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. You would have to say that it can't be built upon or that the design does violate existing requirements for the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

So it's important on subdivision maps to understand it's important for every entitlement to understand the findings that have to be made in order to support that determination or the decision by the gut the body, the the approving body. And I think that's important that when we review these, we look at these findings. And if you can make all of the findings, you know, we're we're bound by law to to make a recommendation of approval because we cannot we cannot look at any of these findings and in any good faith at all come before you and say, you can make one of these you can find the negative on one of these three findings.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Would anyone like to make a motion?

I will go ahead and move that we adopt the three findings of fact and approve to 39 conditions of approval. I'll second.

Commissioner Jensen has made the motion and Commissioner Breshears has seconded the motion. Roll call please.

Commissioner Hagler?

Yes.

Vice Chair Breshears?

Yes.

Commissioner Unidad? Yes. Commissioner Jensen? Yes. And Chair Hagen Dazs?

Yes. The motion is approved. There's a ten day appeal period for this item. Next on the agenda is the commissioner and staff report. Are there any other reports from staff?

Yeah. I have a few items tonight. The first thing I'll let you know is that we will be having a meeting on August 28. We have a couple of items coming before you on the twenty eighth. Currently, we don't have anything scheduled for September 11.

So it's looking very doubtful at this point because we have to be having legal notices ready to go if we did have something. You'll probably get September 11 off. I want you to know last week, the city council approved a contract to expand to renovate and expand the city council chambers. So this meeting room we're in, it's gonna include some outside facade work, some inside work. So this chamber is gonna be unavailable somewhere between September well, starting September 22 through May year.

So the alternate location that we'll be meeting is 116 Grant Street. It's the building across the street that Roseville Electric occupies right now. There's a fairly large meeting room on

the Ground Floor. I don't have the room number.

I think there's a name for the room.

I believe it's the Solar

And Possibly Wind.

Solar And Wind Room, really? Okay. So the Solar And Wind

Room Building.

So so we will be Loop B and myself and obviously, the city clerk's office will be figuring out how that room is going to be configured to hold meetings. But I know it was it was the desire to continue having planning commission meetings televised. So it was it was down to that room in a couple of alternate locations that I think for the technology piece for John in the back was was gonna be a heavy lift if we had gone off-site somewhere. So you will soon as I have more details on that, I'll I'll pass those along. But the the August 28 meeting will be our last meeting here until we have a brand new council chamber meeting room to meet in.

Let's see. August 28. On September 17, we're going to be Lauren Hawker on my staff is going to be having a little workshop with city council. So I don't some of you may recall about three years ago, we submitted an application to the state housing and community development department to be designated a pro housing community. They offered this program up to different cities that have progressive housing policies and goals and programs in place that support streamlined processes.

So we submitted an application because after we finished the housing element update with our general plan, we thought we were very competitive with other jurisdictions throughout the state. It allows our housing division to apply for different grant funding, apply for matching funds. It gives us a competitive advantage to get money, to have for the city to get money to support housing development. We've been fairly successful. I wanna say there's been at least somewhere between 2 and $3,000,000 that we've received over the last few years that we've been then able to go out and leverage and get matching funds to get 2 or 300 more million dollars.

But then we've been able to help different affordable housing builders with their financing packages. So it's fairly been successful program. We were, I think, with a couple other jurisdictions, like two or three other jurisdictions. Officially, we were the second jurisdiction in California to receive that designation, but we kind of tied for second with a few others. But we should have been second by ourselves.

We should have. So this round, in order to reapply, there's a new requirement that you have a public workshop and allow members of the public to come comment on your pro housing application. So Lauren wanted me to just announce that to you that on September 17, excuse me, we will be taking that item to the city council hearing for a workshop and give the public the opportunity to come comment on our pro housing application. The final item I think for tonight is I do know that also in September, the council according to the city clerk's website, they have scheduled an appointment for one more planning commissioner

to

replace commissioner Randolph. So that's been percolating along and I think we'll find out you'll have a new colleague probably in the October timeframe. And with that, I don't know if it's okay for me to announce, but I will anyway. Commissioner Jensen has submitted a letter indicating he is going to be resigning from the commission at the 2028. The I end of misread that. All right. The October 2028.

It's in the record, Rob, sorry.

So there will be another opening for a commission member. And with Commissioner Hagler joining the board last month, a new commissioner joining the board in October, and another new commissioner joining the board towards the end of the year. We've been thinking about this, and I've been thinking about it for a while. But I know you all know that I sent you that kind of planning commissioner workbook from Institute for Local Government. I mean, it's ginormous amount of information for you to read.

But we're looking at putting together kind of planning commissioner one zero one training session to just go over the broad strokes and some of the details and bringing that before you in sometime in January. So we'll have obviously, commissioner Hager will be an old hand in six months, but But we'll have two more fairly new commissioners. But I thought it would be a good idea just for everybody. So we'll try and we'll cover kind of the broad basis of the role of planning commissioner. But I'll bring along staff to talk about CEQA, give you a little bit more information on CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, kind of the different CEQA documents, how we process CEQA documents at the city.

I'll have Lauren come and do long range general plan. We're going to be gearing up sooner than later for a new housing element. Many of you here will be on the commission when we have to go back to the housing element renewal, which I don't believe will be the most fun thing we do. And we'll also go through kind of current planning. We'll we'll talk about some of the the items that come before you, maybe some of the process, some of the the sausage making that is done before you guys get the the staff report to make sure that and have that as a workshop in a public format and it can be a public education as well as commissioner education as well.

But I thought with having three of the seven commissioners now with roughly six in less month experience, this might be a good time to kind of do a broad overview. And so we're planning that, just kind of give you an early heads up on that. And if you ever have any questions, we're always here to do any type of answer any questions you have at any point in time. Anyway, so that's my long winded

Thank staff you. Any questions or comments from the commission? Then may I have a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion.

Second.

Commissioner Breshears has made the motion. Commissioner Jensen has seconded the motion. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.