BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary of the project, the Planning Commission hearing and the appeal. A detailed project background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 1.
The project site is located at 1751 Pleasant Grove Bl. and is identified as Parcel WW-40 in the North Roseville Specific Plan (NRSP) area. The site is approximately 3.1 acres in size. The site has a zoning and General Plan land use designation of Community Commercial (CC), and is adjacent to the Paseo Del Norte single-family residential subdivision to the east, open space parcels containing the WAPA power line corridor to the south, an existing CVS Pharmacy to the west, and an undeveloped Community Commercial parcel across Pleasant Grove Bl. to the north.
The current project proposes the construction of a 16,000 square-foot grocery building and a 4,600 square-foot freestanding pad building on parcel WW-40. The request also includes a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing parcel into three (3) lots. The grocery and pad building will each be located on one lot and the third lot, Parcel 3, is not proposed for development. The project provides a total of 116 parking spaces, which is a surplus of 39 spaces over the 77 space requirement by code. The site plans and building plans are included in Exhibits A and B.
Planning Commission Hearing
On May 11, 2023, the Planning Commission voted (6 Yes – 0 No, 1 Absent) to approve the Design Review Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. As detailed in the following sections, three letters were received before the Planning Commission hearing with comments on the project and three individuals spoke at the Planning Commission hearing with comments on the project. On May 17, 2023, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the entitlements (Attachment 2). The appeal came from Donald B. Mooney, representing Protect Our Roseville Neighborhoods, who also provided a comment letter before the hearing, but was not present at the meeting.
A range of topics were brought up in the comment letters and at the hearing. Each topic will be discussed separately below.
Traffic
Traffic was brought up as a concern in comment letters and at the public hearing. An on-site access and traffic study was completed by Fehr and Peers (Attachment 8) and was discussed in the Access and Circulation section of the staff report. The study was completed before submittal of the project and included development of Parcel 3 with a drive-through restaurant use. That use was removed from the project after the first round of staff review and Parcel 3 is no longer part of the current project. The traffic study retains the restaurant use in order to provide a “worst-case scenario” for potential future development of the site. By leaving the restaurant in the study, the entire commercial center can be planned now to accommodate full development of the site, though Parcel 3 may be developed with a use with less intensive traffic impacts. The study made recommendations to improve ingress and egress to the site that were incorporated into the project design such as improved striping at the entrance to the driveway shared with CVS along Fiddyment Rd., removing the ability for left turns out of the project site onto Pleasant Grove Bl. for vehicle safety, and lengthening the eastbound turn lane on Pleasant Grove Bl. in front of the site to accommodate additional u-turn traffic.
Residents' concerns in relation to traffic were largely around access to the Paseo del Norte site from the commercial site. The concern was that additional vehicles will use the private road, Camino Real Way, that bisects the community and will have safety impacts to children in the area as well as parking impacts. These concerns were also brought up at the two neighborhood meetings held for the project. While staff does not believe that Camino Real Way is a likely egress route for customers of the commercial center, conditions of approval 10a and 28 were added before the Planning Commission meeting to address these concerns and further deter use of the private road by non-residents of the HOA. The conditions are included below for reference. Further discussion of the access between the commercial and residential parcel are discussed in the Access Easement section of this report.
10a. The site shall be clearly signed to specify that Camino Real Way is a private road and access from the commercial site is not permitted for non-residents. (Planning)
28. The applicant shall install a “speed bump” on Camino Real Way at the western entry to the Paseo Del Norte subdivision. (Engineering)
Access Easement
During project review it was discovered that there is an access easement that allows residents of Paseo del Norte to use the commercial parcel for ingress and egress. The easement does not allow ingress and egress of customers from the commercial site onto the private road through Paseo del Norte. Much of the discussion at the meeting concerned how to enforce this easement. Ultimately, the easement must be enforced by the HOA. Options were discussed such as installing a gate or bollards between the two properties. A solid wall is not an option because emergency vehicle access (EVA) is needed. Ultimately, a new condition of approval (Condition #69) for the Design Review Permit was added at the Planning Commission meeting to address the concerns of residents and allow for the ability to construct bollards that allow for EVA to the site but restrict any other traffic through the western entrance to the Paseo del Norte community. In order to install this barrier to entry, the Paseo del Norte community will need to vote to give up their right to the access easement and then legally have the easement removed. The condition allows the HOA time to work with the project developer to complete the easement removal and install bollards. If the bollards are installed, the speed bump and signage deterring access will no longer be necessary. The final condition of approval is below for reference:
69. The applicant agrees to work in good faith with the Paseo Del Norte Homeowner's Association (HOA) to determine if the signage and speedbump, required in Conditions 10a and 28 respectively, can be reasonably replaced with emergency access bollards, which are subject to City approval. This condition is predicated on the Paseo Del Norte HOA relinquishing their rights to the provisions of the Easement Agreement (Placer County Recorder DOC 2006-0123210-00), specifically as they pertain to vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the commercial development on NRSP Parcel WW-40, and causing said easement to be removed from title. If the emergency access bollards can be utilized per this condition, then conditions 10a and 28 are removed and replaced with the condition of installing the emergency access bollards. This condition must be met by the time of site improvement acceptance by City or the project is approved with conditions 10a and 28 and no emergency access bollards. (Planning)
Noise Pollution
The letters and comments at the hearing included concerns with potential noise impacts. A noise study was conducted for the project and found that there would be no noise impacts from the Grocery Outlet loading dock, which was planned to be shielded by the Grocery Outlet and freestanding pad building in the study (Attachment 9). Since the study was completed, additional sound walls have been added to the project at the loading dock area and at the eastern property line, which will further reduce any noise impacts. The study found there could be noise impacts from the drive through use on Parcel 3, which has since been removed from the project and is therefore inapplicable.
Light Pollution
Comments in the letters and hearings included concerns over light pollution onto the adjacent residential parcel. Staff added condition 74 to the Design Review Permit, which requires that light standards be lowered to 15 feet in the area adjacent to residences. Furthermore, all Design Review Permits also include a standard condition that lighting be shielded and have no off-site glare.
Crime
All Planning entitlements are routed to the Police Department for review. Police did not have any concerns with the project related to crime. The proposed grocery store use is not known to lead to an increase in crime in surrounding areas beyond any other typical use that would also be permitted in the Community Commercial zone. The site plan was not found to have any unique issues that would lead to an increase in crime.
Prescriptive Easement and Parking
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff received a comment email from a resident, Mr. Adamic (Attachment 5). Mr. Adamic states the adjacent residents have a prescriptive easement over the property for use of parking. According to Mr. Adamic, this easement right is justified by the residents parking on a temporary turnaround area that was paved for emergency vehicle use. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, this turnaround area has a recorded easement over it for temporary access and not for parking. The temporary easement expires upon the date that the commercial parcel is developed with an egress route. Any residents parking in this area have been doing so without the property owner’s authorization. The question of prescriptive easement is a civil matter between the two property owners. The easement would need to be recorded in order for the City to recognize it. In contrast to what Mr. Adamic states in the letter, the Paseo del Norte meets that Zoning Ordinance standard for required parking, as each unit includes two garage parking spaces. The street parking spaces within the community are surplus spaces beyond the requirement.
Mooney Letter
The afternoon of the Planning Commission hearing, staff received a comment letter from Donald B. Mooney representing Protect Our Roseville Neighborhoods (the “Mooney Letter”). Staff provided a memorandum responding to this letter that was sent to Planning Commissioners directly and then printed and made available to the public at the meeting. The Mooney Letter is included as Attachment 3 and the staff response memorandum is included as Attachment 4. Mr. Mooney’s concerns in the letter are related to noise and traffic impacts of a drive-through restaurant that is not proposed with the project. The comments are therefore inapplicable. Mr. Mooney is also the appellant to the project and the majority of the appeal form is a duplication of concerns raised in the letter. The appeal is discussed below in “Issues Raised in the Appeal”.
Issues Raised in the Appeal
On May 17, 2023, the City Clerk’s office received a notice of appeal from Donald B. Mooney, on behalf of Protect Our Roseville Neighborhoods, challenging the May 11, 2023 Planning Commission approval of the Grocery Outlet project. According to the appeal, the project fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The appeal form is largely a duplicate of the letter that Mr. Mooney submitted before the Planning Commission hearing. Whereas the Planning Commission letter was divided into three sections (A, B, C) the appeal form includes a new section D. The following is a summary of the new concerns with the appeal and a response. The comments from the Planning Commission letter are discussed in more detail within the staff memorandum made available at the hearing (see Attachment 4 of this Council Communication) and only the new comments from the appeal are discussed in detail below.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
As mentioned above, the majority of the comments related to CEQA in the Mooney appeal are duplicates from the Mooney Letter (Attachment 3), which were responded to in a memorandum from staff (Attachment 4). As discussed, the argument relies on the impacts of traffic and noise generated by a drive-through use, which is not a part of the project and therefore not applicable to the current project.
Mooney adds one new paragraph in the CEQA section of the appeal, which states “the Traffic Study needs to address the whole action in terms of a ‘ultra-popular’ fast food restaurant as nothing in the approvals restrict the type of fast-food restaurant that may be built.” Here the appellant seems to be saying that a drive-through restaurant must be considered part of the project because there is a possibility that one may be located on Parcel 3 in the future. However, the appeal also states that “The action reviewed under CEQA is not the approval itself but the development or other activities resulting from the agency’s approval of the project.” In this case, the approval by the Planning Commission for the Grocery Outlet and freestanding pad building does not result in the ability to also construct a drive-through restaurant or any development on Parcel 3. In order to develop Parcel 3 the applicant would need a subsequent Design Review Permit approval that evaluates the site plan and building elevations. Furthermore, if they wanted approval of a drive-through use they would also need a Conditional Use Permit due to the proximity to residential uses. All of these actions would require subsequent CEQA review. Therefore, the appellant’s assertion is false and the Planning Commission's action did not need to consider a future use on Parcel 3.
Zoning Ordinance/Easement
While the appellant states in the appeal form that the project does not comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, there is no further mention of the Zoning Ordinance in the appeal form or attached letter. However, there is a new section D at the end of the letter related to the impacts the project will have on an easement held by nearby homeowners. During the commission meeting, staff added Condition 69, which requires the applicant to “work in good faith with the Paseo Del Norte Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to determine if the signage and speedbump, required in Conditions 10a and 28 respectively, can be reasonably replaced with emergency access bollards.” This condition was added in response to comments from the HOA president and other members wishing to restrict vehicle access through their private residential street. It is not possible to restrict this access if an easement is in place that requires access be available to the Paseo del Norte residents. Removal of the easement, and the addition of bollards, is at the discretion of the HOA members. The condition simply clarifies that if the HOA wishes to restrict commercial access in a way that also restricts their own access they will need to first relinquish the easement. The Planning Commission did not, as the appellant states, require the HOA to “give up its property right.” Rather, the decision whether to relinquish the easement is up to the HOA. The applicant must work in good faith with the residents to install bollards if they move forward with removing the easement.
In addition to Staff’s response to the appeal, the applicant’s attorney, Charles Trainor, of Trainor Fairbrook, submitted a response to the appeal, which can be found in Attachment 10 of this Council Communication.
Conclusion
The proposed Grocery Outlet project is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, NRSP, and the Community Design Guidelines and the required findings for the requested entitlements can be made. On May 11, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Design Review Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. The issues raised in the appeal form, the majority of which were already addressed before the Planning Commission decision, are not valid and staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action, and approve the requested entitlements.