BACKGROUND
The Fiddyment Plaza project site is located at 4701 Fiddyment Road, on 1.38 acres within the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area. In 2014, as a part of the WRSP Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 3 project, the property was rezoned from Single Family Residential/Development Standards (R1/DS) to Community Commercial (CC). The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, and east, and Fiddyment Rd. borders the site to the west. A park site and residential homes are located to the west of Fiddyment Rd. A 50-foot wide public right-of-way easement is located adjacent to the site on the east side, as this location was originally anticipated to accommodate Fiddyment Rd. The alignment of Fiddyment Rd. was later reconfigured to a location west of the subject parcel. To date, the right-of-way has been partially improved with landscaping adjacent to the Crocker Ranch residential subdivision and an eight-foot wide sidewalk.
Entitlement History
An application for a Design Review Permit was submitted to the City of Roseville Planning Division on September 28, 2016 to allow the construction of a 10,306 square-foot mixed-use building, consisting of 7,606 square feet of retail, 2,700 square feet of restaurant space, and a 3,310 square-foot gas station canopy with five fuel bays/ ten gas pumps for the project known as Fiddyment Plaza. Access to the project site was proposed from Fiddyment Road and Angus Road, and the site plan included a parking lot with 53 parking spaces. An analysis conducted by City staff concluded that the proposed project was exempt from CEQA review under an exemption known as the in-fill development exemption.
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on April 11, 2017 to present the project to nearby neighbors. Approximately six of the twenty neighbors in attendance expressed opposition to the gas station component of the project due to concerns of crime, proximity to the casino, alcohol sales, hours of operation, noise, compatibility with the neighborhood, and views of the buildings from adjacent residential areas. Based on the level of interest and the concerns raised by neighbors, the Design Review Permit (which is an entitlement typically reviewed by the City’s Design Committee) was forwarded to the Planning Commission for formal action.
On August 10, 2017, the Planning Commission approved (4 Yes – 1 No) the Design Review Permit (DRP) for the Fiddyment Plaza project. In the Planning Commission staff report, City staff concluded that the proposed gas station is a principally permitted use in the Community Commercial (CC) zone, and that the appropriate entitlement for review was the DRP. The requested entitlement was found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP), and the Community Design Guidelines, and the Planning Commission approved the project based on the required four findings of fact for a DRP.
Following the Planning Commission’s approval, neighbors from the Diamond Creek and Westpark neighborhoods (represented by Michele Threlkel) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval. The appeal was based on concerns related to inadequate noticing, increased traffic, air quality impacts, and incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Council Communication detailing the City’s response to the appeal is included as Attachment 1. After conducting a public hearing, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the Fiddyment Plaza project. The City Council’s action was memorialized in Resolution No. 17-430 which is attached to this staff report as Attachment 2.
Lawsuit – Michele Threlkel, et al. vs. City of Roseville, et al.
A coalition of neighbors to the project, represented by Michele Threlkel (hereinafter “Petitioners”), subsequently filed a lawsuit called a Petition for Writ of Mandate to challenge the City Council’s approval of the project. The Petition argued that the City’s approval was invalid on three counts, including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations, violations to the Roseville Municipal Code, and violations to Planning and Zoning Laws. The court ruled that the project was consistent with the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and that there were no violations of the Roseville Municipal Code or State Planning and Zoning laws during the approval process. Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the City on the second and third causes of action.
However, regarding the first cause of action for CEQA violations, the court determined that the City had violated CEQA by failing to provide substantial evidence to support its determination that the project would not have significant air quality impacts and was, therefore, was exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 for small in-fill development projects. Under CEQA Section 15332, certain in-fill projects qualify for a categorical exemption to CEQA. The in-fill development exemption may be used if a project meets five factors. One of the factors that must be shown is that approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Petitioners argued that the City had failed to prove that there would not be any significant effects to air quality due to the gas station’s close proximity to residential neighborhoods. City staff’s position was that since the property owner needed to obtain a permit from the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (“PCAPCD”) in order to dispense gasoline, the City could rely upon the District’s permitting process to avoid air quality impacts. Although the court held that the City could legitimately rely upon the PCAPCD’s regulations, the court faulted the City for not identifying the District’s applicable rules or regulations relied upon for its determination. Accordingly, the court issued an order called a Peremptory Writ of Mandate (see Attachment 3). instructing the City Council within 60 days to vacate and set aside Resolution No. 17-430 adopted on October 4, 2017 and to vacate and set aside the City’s determinations that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption as an in-fill development under CEQA. Pursuant to the Peremptory Writ, the City may not reapprove the project unless and until the City has complied with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Finally, it is important to note what the court did not rule. The court did not prohibit the project from being reapproved. The court did not rule that the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) in order to reapprove the project. The court also did not rule that the City was prohibited from relying upon the in-fill exemption again. The court’s ruling was narrowly focused on the justification for using the in-fill exemption. Introduction of more evidence into a new record to justify the exemption, including the rules and regulations of the PCAPCD, is allowable.
Current Status
Following adoption of this resolution, the prior project approvals for the Fiddyment Plaza project will be null and void. Any projects proposed on the project site moving forward will require new entitlements. The applicants for Fiddyment Plaza have indicated to City staff that they intend to submit a new Design Review Permit application to allow a new gas station and convenience store, similar to what was previously approved. If a new project is submitted, it will be subject to the entitlement review process and heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s determination may be appealed to the City Council.
The PCAPCD approved a permit on May 21, 2018 authorizing the construction of a new gas station facility, with a temporary permit to operate. The approved permit expires on August 9, 2019, and includes 48 conditions of approval. In the event that the facility is constructed, the PCAPCD permit requires that emissions produced during the construction and initial operation of the facility be within regulatory standards.