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 13.35-acre project site is located in the City’s West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area, at the northeast corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. The subject property is located on Parcel F-31 of the WRSP and has a zoning and General Plan land use designation of Community Commercial (CC). Per the WRSP, Parcel F-31 is anticipated for the development of a conventional community/neighborhood retail center.
The project entitlements include a Design Review Permit to construct an 82,100-square-foot shopping center consisting of a 35,000-square-foot anchor grocery store, a 12-pump gas station with a 3,500-square-foot-convenience store and car wash, and seven additional buildings ranging in size from approximately 3,750 square feet to 9,750 square feet. The project also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the 13.35-acre parcel into eight (8) lots and a Tree Permit to remove 28 native oak trees on the westerly portion of the site. Building elevations were not included for the convenience store building (Pad 3) and gas station canopy; therefore, a separate Design Review Permit will be required in the future to ensure consistency with the overall project design and applicable design guidelines and standards.
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Exhibit A). The IS/MND was released for a 20-day public review, from April 17, 2020 to May 7, 2020. The City received a letter, dated May 6, 2020, from the Law Office of Robert M. Bone representing an unincorporated association of Roseville community residents (the “Association”) that challenged the adequacy of the environmental document. To summarize, the letter claims that the IS/MND is not in compliance with CEQA and does not consider feasible mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. Staff provided a response to the letter in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated May 13, 2020. The memorandum, along with the Association’s letter, is included as Attachment 2. As detailed in staff’s memorandum, the Association failed to offer any evidence that the initial study analysis is flawed or that available mitigation measures were not considered. As clearly stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, “argument, speculation, [and] unsubstantiated opinion or narrative” is not substantial evidence. In addition, Ironhorse Law Group submitted a letter on behalf of the project applicant that supported the adequacy of the IS/MND and reiterated that the Association does not provide substantial evidence to support its claims (see Attachment 3).
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2020. Prior to the hearing, the City received a total of nine letters from the public in opposition of the project and two letters in support of the project. This correspondence is included as Attachment 4. The letters in opposition of the project cited similar concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the project. Staff is confident the May 13th memorandum adequately addresses the issues raised. Mr. Bone submitted additional correspondence on behalf of the Association that focused on concerns with the overall project design. These concerns are identical to those raised in the appeal letter and are identified and addressed below.
At the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Bone spoke in opposition of the project and repeated concerns stated in his prior correspondence, including effects of the project on the environment, the removal of oak trees, and increase in traffic. After receiving testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the item and ultimately voted to approve the Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Tree Permit, with a vote of 6 aye, 0 nay, 1 absent.
On May 26, 2020, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision from the Law Office of Robert M. Bone representing the Association (see Attachment 5). The appeal provides the following grounds to reject the Planning Commission’s decision: inconsistency with the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan; conflict with the City’s site design guidelines; loss of oak trees; and inadequate environmental review.
This Council Communication responds to the issues raised in the appeal.
General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan
The appeal states that the project does not support the City’s bicycle and pedestrian use goals established in the General Plan.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation measures that guide the Bicycle Master Plan and the development of bikeways. The site is adjacent to two arterial roadways—Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road—both of which are designed with existing on-street bike lanes consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan. In addition, these roadways both include Class 1A sidewalks which are wider sidewalks capable of allowing slower bicycle and pedestrian travel as identified by the Bicycle Master Plan. Development of the project will not result in the elimination of these bike lanes and sidewalk facilities.
One of the goals of the Bicycle Master Plan is to create an environment that includes facilities that support and encourage commuter and recreational bicycle riding. The project achieves this goal by providing safe and secure short-term and long-term bike parking through the use of bike racks, bike lockers, and internal bike storage within the grocery store building. The bike locker is conveniently located adjacent to the park-and-ride spaces located to the north of the Shops 1 building, which helps promote ridesharing (see Exhibit B – Site Plan).
One of the implementation measures identified in the Circulation Element is the City’s Transportation System Management (TSM) Ordinance. The TSM Ordinance requires any project site with 50 or more employees to submit a TSM plan consisting of measures to reduce the number and length of home-to-work commute trips through actions such as ridesharing, flexible work hours, and support of public transportation. The Design Review Permit for the project includes condition #34, which requires the applicant/developer prepare a TSM plan to be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission (see Attachment 6 – Conditions of Approval).
The Pedestrian Master Plan is intended to guide and influence the design and development of public pedestrian walkways in the City. The project includes the completion of sidewalks and landscaping around the project perimeter. The sidewalks consist of pedestrian paths designed consistent with the WRSP that will provide access from surrounding uses. One of the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan is to create streetscape environments that result in a pleasant environment for walking. The project achieves this goal through the building and landscape design. The buildings utilize pedestrian-scale materials and architectural details such as fabric awnings and green screen trellises. The landscaping consists of planter strips along the project frontage that separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. Hedges and border shrubs are also proposed around the entire project perimeter to screen parking areas, service areas, future gas station canopies, and drive-through lanes from view.
The project includes several internal pedestrian pathways that will provide connections to the perimeter sidewalks and between buildings and parking areas. In addition to the sidewalks along the vehicle entries, pedestrian connections will be provided at locations where foot traffic is most likely to occur to provide easy access to the site. These connections are provided near the corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road, near the corner of Fiddyment Road and Harvey Way, and along Oak Meadow Drive. The project will utilize stamped and decorative pavement in key areas and pathways to define the pedestrian environment.
Based on these reasons, staff finds the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Community Design Guidelines
The appeal claims that the project does not comply with the City’s Community Design Guidelines pertaining to site planning and building siting. Each of the three guidelines listed in the appeal is listed below and is followed by an explanation of how the project is consistent with the guideline.
CC-1: Buildings should be arranged to define, connect, and activate pedestrian edges and public spaces.
The project’s pad buildings are located forward along Blue Oaks Boulevard and Fiddyment Road, behind the landscape frontages, while the parking lots are located internal to the site. The anchor grocery store is identified as Major 1 with in-line tenants on either side (identified as Shops 1 and Shops 2), and is located on the northern portion of the site. Although the front entrances to the pad buildings are oriented towards the interior of the site, away from the street, the street-facing elevations are enhanced with architectural detailing that activates the pedestrian edges. In addition, the buildings are arranged adjacent to pedestrian pathways connecting to the perimeter sidewalks. This provides pedestrians easy access to the buildings. The pad buildings also feature outdoor patios that are arranged to provide views of the project landscaping, which helps provide a connection between the indoor and outdoor spaces.
CC-2: Buildings should be arranged to provide convenient access to transit stops.
The project site is located adjacent to a planned transit stop and bus shelter along Fiddyment Road, to the west of the Pad 5 building. As mentioned above, the project arranges the pad buildings forward along the adjacent roadways and provides pedestrian pathways connecting from the perimeter sidewalks in to the site. This provides convenient access to the transit stop. In addition, the WRSP designates this site as a Park-and-Ride lot. Park-and-Ride lots provide parking for commuters to leave their vehicles to meet carpools, vanpools, or access transit. The project provides 20 park-and-ride spaces to the north of the Shops 1 building, which is conveniently located in close proximity to the planned transit stop along Fiddyment Road.
CC-3: The relationship and orientation of buildings to arterial and other prominent roadways should be considered to enhance street frontage.
The building design is well articulated through the use of building projections and recesses, trellises, awnings, and window styles. The building materials primarily consist of cement plaster with brick veneer applied strategically to highlight areas of interest. The buildings include metal cornices and bands, modern glass and anodized aluminum storefronts, and metal trellises. Fabric awnings are used to complement these materials and soften the façades. The building colors consist of earth tones including olive green, gray, tan, and rust colored panels and banding.
Architectural treatment is applied to all building elevations. The project’s street-facing elevations are enhanced with faux storefronts and other architectural detailing such as clerestory windows, green screen trellises, fabric awnings, and angled roof elements to provide a visually engaging streetscape.
Tree Removal
The appeal states that the trees should be landscaped into the project, rather than destroyed. Staff worked with the applicant to preserve as many of the trees to the extent feasible; however, a majority of the trees will require removal because they conflict with the proposed improvements. The loss of these trees was anticipated in the WRSP EIR, which identified the oak trees on the project site as being lost due to development. Of the 33 trees, 28 trees with a total aggregate diameter of 721 inches are proposed for removal to facilitate development of the site, while five (5) trees are proposed to be retained. Eight (8) of the trees proposed for removal were identified as having failed and being in a down and dead condition.
The trees that will be retained are located at the northwestern and southwestern corners of the site. These trees are incorporated into the landscape design of the project and will help to frame the intersections. The outdoor patios of Pad Buildings 4—6 will provide views of these oak trees. As discussed in the Tree Permit evaluation section of the Planning Commission staff report, the applicant will comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance by mitigating for the loss of trees through a combination of on-site plantings and payment of in-lieu fees.
Environmental Review
Similar to the appellant’s May 6, 2020 letter, the appeal states that the project fails to adequately inform the public about environmental impacts, alleging that the IS/MND prepared is not in compliance with CEQA and does not consider feasible mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts, specifically as is it relates to noise, air quality, and transportation. However, the appeal letter does not offer any evidence to support these claims. As mentioned in the May 13, 2020 memorandum to the Planning Commission, CEQA Guidelines Section 15384 states that “argument, speculation, [and] unsubstantiated opinion or narrative” is not substantial evidence. The Initial Study is supplemented with technical studies prepared by qualified consultants including an Environmental Noise Assessment, Health Risk Analysis, and a short-term traffic study, and the initial study analysis relies on two certified Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)—the West Roseville Specific Plan EIR and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR. Staff is confident that the Initial Study adequately discloses, evaluates, and mitigates the Project’s environmental impacts and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this project; the Initial Study provides substantial evidence to support this finding.