Roseville planning commission approves Sunrise Office Center at 705 Sunrise Ave.; residents raise traffic, tree and flooding concerns

The Roseville Planning Commission on Jan. 9 approved entitlements for the Sunrise Office Center at 705 Sunrise Avenue, authorizing a new 7,300-square-foot medical office building, a flood encroachment permit and a tree permit for the removal of three protected oak trees.

The project site is a 2.63-acre parcel that currently contains a 4,700-square-foot medical office building. Staff told the commission the proposed new building would bring the two structures to about 12,000 square feet of medical office space and would expand the parking area to 80 spaces. Shelby Maples, associate planner for the City of Roseville, described the requested entitlements, the project’s site constraints and staff’s recommendation to approve the permits with conditions.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to the Terraces of Roseville senior housing and is partially encumbered by Kirby Creek and an existing storm drain. Neighbors and residents said the project’s parking, new traffic and removal of mature oaks could affect emergency access, quality of life and local drainage; commissioners pressed staff on alternatives, parking reductions and floodplain impacts.

Shelby Maples of the city planning staff told commissioners the site is bounded by Sunrise Avenue to the south, Kirby Creek to the north, an existing medical office and parking on the parcel, and the Terraces of Roseville to the east. Maples said the new structure would be sited “as far as from the floodway boundary as the parcel can accommodate,” that activity areas would be placed above base flood elevation, and that the public works floodplain management division recommended conditions requiring flood-resistant materials and measures to avoid raising off-site water surface elevations. Maples said the project includes removal of three protected oak trees that amount to 94 inches of mitigation, plus two nonprotected oaks and one nonnative tree; mitigation would include seven valley oaks, one live oak and 18 additional trees plus in-lieu payment for remaining inches.

Michelle Leshot of Millennium Planning and Engineering, representing the applicant, told the commission the parcel is tightly constrained by an existing 24-inch storm drain that serves neighboring properties and a parking easement on the east side. Leshot said, “we have the storm drain running through the parcel from the terrace apartments ... we have the parking easement on the east side ... there is a riparian area in Kirby Creek that we had to stay away from on the north side. So we're very constrained on where we can put the building.” She said the design team agreed to the recommended conditions of approval and that an arborist would evaluate whether one of the oaks on the northwest side could be saved.

Residents who live at the adjacent Terraces of Roseville urged extended review time and raised safety and livability concerns. Jennifer Chapman, a resident of the Terraces, said she first learned about the project after noticing site work and soil testing and later collected signatures and coordinated a community meeting: “I did notice that the grass, you know, was getting cut and there was heavy equipment and, apparently, there was soil testing,” Chapman said. She said about 34 Terrace residents attended an internal meeting and that the complex houses roughly 200 mostly senior residents, some with limited mobility.

Other neighbors described traffic hazards at the complex driveway, frequent visits by ambulances and fire trucks, and worries that adding parking for 80 vehicles would increase conflicts with the Dutch Brothers drive-through and with emergency access. Sherry Bradley, a Terraces resident, said the entrance is dangerous and noted “We have 90 staff that come and go on 2 shifts” at the senior complex. Jerry Fuller and Sheila Dourlaws also urged commissioners to consider residents’ access to outdoor spaces, wildlife and the local flood conditions along Kirby Creek.

Commissioners pressed staff on alternatives to removing trees and on parking reductions. Staff and the applicant said moving the building north or west would require relocating the existing storm drain and could push development closer to the floodplain; staff said typical infill projects avoid extensive reconstruction of underlying infrastructure. On parking, staff said the site’s zoning and the general plan’s EIR allocation support the proposed parking; the project relies on a parking requirement of one space per 150 square feet for medical office, which produced the 80-space layout. Planning staff noted that a targeted parking reduction is an entitlement that requires additional data and analysis — shared- or reduced-parking approvals are sometimes used when operating hours among tenants offset demand, but staff said the commission did not have sufficient tenant-specific data to justify a reduction for this project.

On traffic generation, principal engineer Matt Todd cited standard trip-generation rates and said that, “it's about 26 trips for a, for an office building of, you know, 7,000 square feet,” in a peak hour — a level that staff said has been anticipated in the citywide general plan traffic modeling but that can nonetheless affect local driveway operations and queuing. Staff also explained that the city’s traffic division reviewed Dutch Brothers’ queueing when that business was permitted and that the dual-order lanes were designed to limit spillback onto the access road.

After the public hearing and staff deliberation, Commissioner Brashears moved to adopt the initial study and mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program, approve the design review permit with 65 conditions, approve the flood encroachment permit with 12 conditions, and approve the tree permit with six conditions. Commissioner Covington seconded. The motion passed on a 4–2 roll call vote: Commissioner Brashears, Vice Chair Hagenjos, Commissioner Covington and Commissioner Randolph voted yes; Commissioner Unidad and Chair Pryor voted no. Staff noted a 10-day appeal period for the item.

Votes at a glance: - Consent calendar (items 5.1–5.4): approved. Commissioner Unidad abstained on item 5.2 due to proximity to a property the commissioner leases; a 10-day appeal period applies to items 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. (Motion and roll call occurred earlier in the meeting.) - Item 6.1, Sunrise Office Center (file PL24-0812): motion to adopt the initial study/mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and to approve design review, flood encroachment and tree permits (conditions as noted) — approved 4–2 (Brashears, Hagenjos, Covington, Randolph yes; Unidad, Pryor no). 10-day appeal period applies.

What’s next: The approvals carry conditions set by staff; the record includes a 30-day public review for the mitigated negative declaration that staff said ended before the hearing. Residents requested an extended review period; staff said reopening the CEQA comment period would require a new public noticing process. The project may face an appeal during the 10-day appeal window.

Sources: staff presentation and packet, public testimony at the Jan. 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.