Council denies appeal, approves Sunrise Office Center permits; mayor recuses

The Roseville City Council on March 5 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 9 approval of the Sunrise Office Center, adopted the project’s mitigated negative declaration and approved a design review permit, a flood encroachment permit and a tree permit for a proposed medical office building at 705 Sunrise Avenue.

Vice Mayor Albert presided after Mayor Bernasconi recused herself because she owns property within 500 feet of the site. Council members voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval; the roll call as recorded in the hearing shows four affirmative votes with the mayor not participating.

City planning staff said the project proposes a 7,300-square-foot medical office building to occupy the undeveloped portion of a parcel already developed with a roughly 4,700-square-foot medical building. Staff said the combined existing and proposed medical-office area will total about 12,000 square feet and that the project meets the city’s minimum parking requirement by adding 33 parking spaces to an existing 47 for a total of 80 spaces.

Shelby Maples, associate planner, described required entitlements: a design review permit, a flood encroachment permit for work within the floodway boundary and a tree permit to remove two protected valley oak trees (shown in project materials as roughly 40-inch and 18-inch diameter specimens). Staff said an additional 36-inch oak tree originally proposed for removal will be retained after the applicant revised its approach and will be protected under standard tree‑protection measures. The project proposes mitigation including on-site replacement plantings and an in‑lieu fee in accordance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance; the applicant presented a preliminary replanting plan calling for 23 new trees, 12 of them native oaks.

Mark Stout, city engineer, and other staff described traffic and floodplain reviews. Staff said long-term traffic impacts were evaluated against the city’s traffic model and 2035 General Plan EIR; short‑term driveway access and safety were studied through five days of city-collected video. Staff said the short-term study used peak-hour observations and found that driveway delays rarely exceeded two minutes, that AM peak trips are larger than PM trips largely because of Dutch Brothers drive-through traffic, and that emergency vehicles were observed egressing the driveway during peak conditions without delay beyond acceptable norms. Staff said the project meets the city’s flood-damage prevention requirements by elevating occupied space above the base flood elevation and using flood vents where needed.

The applicant’s representative, Robert Wood of Millennium Planning & Engineering, said the project has gone through a year-and-a-half review, multiple professional studies (arborist, biological, geotechnical, drainage) and iterative revisions to reduce impacts, and that the design will improve existing drainage and parking while supporting a medical use adjacent to a senior-care facility.

Appellant Jennifer (Ms.) Chapman—who identified herself as representing concerns of residents at the nearby Terraces of Roseville senior-care facility—argued the project could present traffic and emergency-access hazards for a complex of 200 mostly assisted-living residents and urged additional traffic mitigation measures, protective steps for the riparian buffer and further study of parking and tree impacts. Chapman requested that the city waive appeal fees and re-open or extend the CEQA comment period; staff and council said the appeal fee complies with local practice and that CEQA comment procedures were followed. A resident who spoke during public comment asked the council to preserve the largest oak tree.

During deliberations council members said they were sympathetic to residents’ concerns but that the record shows staff and city departments (including fire, public works and floodplain management) reviewed the project, applied conditions, and found the entitlements met city standards. Council directed staff to add conditions of approval to the tree permit consistent with the city’s tree-preservation requirements (hand excavation around roots where work occurs within a protected tree’s drip line, arborist monitoring, and a performance bond for monitoring) in order to retain and protect the 36-inch oak.

The council’s motion denied the appellant’s request for a refund of the appeal fee and denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s previous approval, adopting the Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2024120281) and approving the design review permit, flood encroachment permit and tree permit subject to conditions of approval. The mayor did not participate in discussion or vote on the item.