916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us
Associations site, mailed to property owners within a 300- foot radius, and posted in library locations throughout the city. The closing date for comments was January 6th, 2025. During that time, one advisory comment letter was received by Planning staff from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. No other comments, inquiries, or calls were received by staff during this comment period. Any correspondence postmarked or emailed within this period would have been accepted as a part of the public comment period. Therefore, staff does not believe an extension of this review is warranted at this time.
As previously stated in this memorandum, individual address points are not available for individual units within the community care facility. It is at the discretion of the property ownership to disseminate information received in the mail. The City of Roseville complied with legal noticing requirements, and the review period was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff previously discussed the project with Ms. Chapman, and provided a set of the project plans for her review in November 2024. Correspondence concluded with an acknowledgement of plan receipt. Staff did not receive further correspondence or requests for notification.
Item 2: Ms. Chapman states that a traffic study is needed for the MND and a site-specific fire access analysis is needed for the site.
The MND addresses Transportation related impacts on Page 36 of the document. As stated in the MND, the proposed use is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation; therefore; additional trips generated by the proposed project fall within expected volumes previously analyzed by the General Plan. The proposed project is an infill development, which is expected to lower vehicle miles traveled within the City. Impacts were found to be less than significant in the MND. Additionally, the propos ed project and the trips it will generate were evaluated by the Development Services – Engineering Division during the entitlement review process. At that time, staff evaluates whether or not a traffic study is warranted for a project. No traffic study was required per that analysis. Vehicle and emergency access was evaluated by both the Engineering Division and the Fire Department during entitlement review, and was found to comply with City standards through design and the application of standard condition s of approval.
Items 3 and 4: Ms. Chapman believes that a variance should have been requested to deviate from parking standards in order to allow retention of the native oak trees. She does not support the removal of trees on site.
While the proposed project is designed as a medical office building, the tenants of the building are currently unknown at this time. Medical offices have a parking ratio of one (1) parking space per 150 square feet of office, which is one of the more stringent parking requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The parking area is designed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance in the event that all 7,300 square feet of the newly proposed building and the 4,600 square foot existing office building are fully occupied by medical uses. As designed, the proposed project meets Zoning Ordinance standards.
In order to request a parking reduction, the tenants would have to be known and the applicant would have to have an alternate plan to accommodate overflow parking. Parking is not available along Sunrise Av., nor is it available along the entry road providing access to both the Sunrise Office Center and the Terraces of Roseville. The design of the site is further constrained by the location of the Floodway, the need to connect to the existing parking area of the 4,300 square foot medical office building, and eleven existing parking spaces on the site reserved for the Terraces of Roseville. Additional evaluation is included in the staff report. If the proposed building were to be fully occupied by medical uses, staff would be unlikely to support a parking reduction due to the lack of availability of possible overflow or street parking.
While the Tree Preservation Ordinance encourages retention of protected trees wherever possible, it was found to be infeasible for the three (3) identified trees as is evaluated in the staff report. The constraints mentioned above influenced the design of the proposed project, limiting the design of the parking area
916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us
while maintaining city standards for parking spaces, vehicle, and emergency access. Adequate mitigation for the removal of the trees is provided and further detailed in the staff report.
Item 5: Ms. Chapman expresses concern about the amount of hardscape included in the project, as requests permeable pavers in the design.
The proposed project has been evaluated by the Development Services Department, including the Building, Engineering, and Planning divisions. The proposed project includes a grading and utilities plan, and drainage and stormwater quality improvements are evaluated during the entitlement and improvement plan processes to show that the proposed development will not create drainage issues.
The project has also been evaluated by the Public Works – Floodplain Management division to ensure the project is designed to avoid creating hazards and to withstand a potential flood event. The project complies with City design standards, which states that parking areas shall be “surfaced with asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete, or other approved all-weather, hard, non-eroding surface” (Section
19.26.040.D of the Zoning Ordinance). City design standards ensure the surface can withstand regular traffic as well as use by emergency vehicles.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the concerns presented by the letters have been adequately addressed by the project evaluation included in the staff report and in this memorandum. Notice of the project was completed consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements, requirements under CEQA, and with usual City practices. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the neighborhood comments and staff evaluation and take the actions recommended in the staff report.
Attachment 1 – Neighbor Letters
1 Maples, Shelby
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 4:39 PM
To: Maples, Shelby
Subject: Fwd: 705 Sunrise - MND comments
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
January 6, 2025
To: Shelby Map
les, Project Manager
Fr: Jennifer Chapman, Resident / Terraces of Roseville
Re: MND Comments ‐ INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center; PL#24‐812 Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the MND for the medical building development proposal for 705 Sunrise Ave.
1. The Public Comment Period should be extende
d. ‐ My first comment is that it is counter to the spirit and intent of CEQA to issue a 30 day comment period over the holidays. There may technically have been 30 calendar days since the MND notice was issued, but it goes without saying that people have been bus y with holiday activities, offices have had limited hours, and various staff have been on vacation, etc. Christmas and New Years Day are federal holidays, meanwhile Hanukkah and Kwanza are multi‐day holidays also celebrated during this period of time. Please grant an extension on the comment period of at least 15 addi tional days which would translate to 5:00 pm, January 21, 2025.
In conjunction with this request is a related request to postpone the public hearing that is scheduled for January 9 until the next practicable date after an extended comment period.
The Terraces of Roseville is the most impacted group of citize ns affected by this project. There are approximately 200 senior residents living immediately adjacent to the project site. These residents have a variety of medical conditions and living restrictions and their environment is largely limited to the premises. Therefore, changes to this environment have a large impa
ct. There are also approximately 90 employees who work here. Neither the residents or the employees received the project notice, and it is not clear whether the notice that was sent to Terraces SH, LLC was properly routed to the property owner which is not a local entity. The Terraces of Roseville is managed by In tegral Senior Living LLC which I am told by the Terraces Executive Director, does not intend to comment on behalf of the property owner.
As an interested party associated with the Terraces and who was in communication with the planning department in November, prior to the ho
lidays, and prior to the notice being issued, I also feel I should have been sent the notice by email.
Many other residents of the Terraces are interested in the building proposal for 705 Sunrise Ave. and would like an opportunity to become informed about it in order to submit meaningful comme nts.
2. Traffic Analysis for Emergency Ingress / Egress is needed. ‐ There is no traffic study for the MND, nor is there any site specific fire / emergency related analysis for this project. This is a deficiency given the nature of the adjacent community which involves almost daily visits from firs
t responders and sometimes multiple visits due paramedics and ambulences often being called to medical emergencies. There is already a traffic concern with turning left onto Sunrise leading to long waits and sometimes safety risk in entering the middle 2‐way lane. In conversation with the Fire Marshall today, it was noted that the traffic from Dutch Brothers drive through coffee cus tomers has exacerbated this problem. The
PC MEMO ATTACHMENT 1
2 traffic patterns should be analyzed and it should be considered what regular traffic from additional scheduled medical appointments will do to the back up of cars trying to enter Sunrise, which may delay emergency transport from the Terraces to hospitals and other care facilities. Given that the proposed building may double the existing traffic to the site, it is parm
ount to undergo a thorough traffic study.
3. A variance for the Parking Requirements should be given to relieve the need to cut protected oak trees. Although it is required, it is not clear that 80 spaces are really needed for the adjacent prop erty, and parking is the main factor driving the plan to cut protected trees. For example, today Monday, January 6, 2025 at approximately 2:00 pm, there were 27 vacant spaces on the 705 Sunrise property. A study of the actual parking demand is another reason a traffic study is needed.
4. Protec
ted Oaks should not be removed. Native trees in boxes are not the same as real native heritage trees. The smaller diameter, younger oaks are progeny of the larger oaks and should also be protected. The large old oaks designated for removal provide aesthetics, shade and habitat for wildlife which also provides quality of life for residents at the Terraces. For
many of the residents, riding a scooter or walking around the building is a life enhancing activity that will be severely impacted by cutting these heritage trees down. Woodpeckers, bats, squirrels, turkeys, beaver, and otters have all been observed in this ecosystem on th e property associated with the oaks and with Cirby Creek ‐‐ both at 705 and 707 Sunrise. Again, the main thing driving the need to cut the oaks appears to be the parking spaces for which a variance could be and should be granted.
5. Hardscaping and reduced water pe
rcolation is both an aesthetic and a flood concern. The extensive conversion of soil and grass to a paved parking lot and medical building will result in approximately 95% hardscape. There is already a flooding problem at this site. Permeable pavers should be considered instead of traditional pavement especially in the area of the protecte
d trees.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Additional comments will be submitted before the scheduled hearing. Again, I would like to emphasize the need for an extension on the comment period as well as the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
Resident, Terraces of Roseville
1 Maples, Shelby
From: Patricia Biasotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 8:17 PM
To: Maples, Shelby
Subject: Proposed Office Building at 705 Sunrise Ave., PL #24-812 External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
This is the first time you received an email from this sender ([email protected]). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
I am a resident, Pat Biasotti, at The Terraces Senior Retirement Community. I once wrote an article about Roseville's earliest history when the Maidu tribes occupied this region, and it was covered with oak trees and wild roses. How very sad to see acres of cement where those trees once grew. Few of these centuries‐old, supposedly prot ected oaks remain. I can understand how two of these must go because their drip‐ line is over the proposed building. However, I am begging that the largest one, which is over in the far corner of the proposed parking lot, be saved and parking spaces found else where. These large trees are home to bird species and others, oxygenate the air, are beautiful in themselves, and give welcome shade in our hot summers.
However, my most serious concern is the narrow (one lane each way) lane leading to our building. Dutch Brothers, which opened on the front corner a year or so ago, has generated a great deal of traffic. We have two hundred plus residents, workers here who come and go in shift s, plus
ourselves, our relatives and friends, and pro bably a daily average of two or three fire trucks, followed by ambulances. Sunrise traffic is heavy and many of us are backed up for several minutes trying to exit onto Sunrise.
Unfortunately, this proposed medical office will generate even more traffic with its workers and patients. Could another entrance lane from Sunrise be found or proposed?
2 I wish that two members of the Planning Commission would drive over to our building on a weekday, stay for a few minutes and observe‐‐not at Commute hours which is horrible!
I haven't even mentioned that the back of this proposed building is very close to our front entrance (right under our noses).
Thank you very much for reading my complaints and hopefully bringing them up at Thursday's Commission meeting.
From: Jennifer Chapman
To: Maples, Shelby
Cc: Bitter, Greg
Subject: comments for planning commission - public hearing 705 Sunrise Ave- new medical building Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 4:20:50 PM
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear Roseville Planning Commissioners,
I will be at the meeting / public hearing tonight and intend to offer additional comments orally in person. Several comments to note here are:
1) First and foremost, please extend the public review / public comment on the MND and associated reports. It is disingenuous to have a 30-day comment period over the holidays, especially when the key affected population for this project is clearly the 200 senior residents living at the Terraces of Roseville. This community should have been notified. Even it if it is not legally required, it is consistent with the intent and best practices of CEQA, and it is the right thing to do.
It could be construed as taking advantage of the elderly to not notify such an obviously affected population. We are asking for a 15 day extension for review and comment to January 21, 2025. Please note that some seniors don't have email making the review and comment process more logistically complicated. I expressed interest in this project in November and was identified as a Terraces community member / interested party and should have been emailed the project notice.
2) The staff report stated that it preserves and accentuates the natural features and open space of the site which contradicts the demolition of 3 large oaks, and younger, smaller diameter progeny of these trees. THe project also paves over almost every inch of current soil and grass.
Domestic landscaping treatments are not natural features, nor is a paved parking lot "open space". This is an untrue characterization of what is being done.
It is not clear if cummulative impacts have been considered, first in terms of the prior tree removal permits associate with the IHOP developemnt approx. 1995, or other tree removal on the surrounding parcels, notably the dutch brothers side, but also throughout the watershed.
There are likely very few 40 inch oak trees remaining in Roseville along a historic creek. 3) Design modification or a variance is needed to preserve the heritage oak trees. See MND comments submitted on Monday, Jan. 6, 2025 which are incorporated by reference into my comments on the public hearing.
4) A site specific traffic study is needed. This is another area where cummulative effects have not be analyzed. I moved the to the Terraces of Roseville in June. I did not see the change assocated with Dutch Brothers but many of my fellow residents and employees have acknowledged this. THe planning department seems to be relying on models and commuter traffice data from Sunrise Avenue which does not address the reality of the medical emergency response at the Terraces which is a 24/7 occurrence that affects the traffic patterns.
5) Cirby Creek / riparian zone. This should be measured from the high flow, flood zones, not drought conditions. I haven't had time to review the environmental documents, but I am concerned about the loss of wetlands locally in Roseville and throughout California. Cirby Creek is stated to be salmon habitat. Are salmon currently using this stream, and how will they be affected by increased storm water coming off the paved parking surfaces? The riparian zone seems already impacted by the asphalt path, and development, so again cummulative impacts need to be considered.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: DARROLD PRICE
To: Maples, Shelby
Subject: Fw: 4PM DEADLINE - quote for emails to City of Roseville Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 1:23:06 PM
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
This is the first time you received an email from this sender ([email protected]). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action. ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:04:48 PM PST
Subject: 4PM DEADLINE - quote for emails to City of Roseville See below. You can use what you wrote earlier and add anything else in email to:
TO: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner, [email protected] FR: Darrold Price, Resident at Terraces of Roseville
RE: Comments on Building Proposal for 705 Sunrise Avenue My concern is traffic. We live on a 1 block street that exits onto Sunrise and is used by approximately 300 residents and staff at the Terraces, in addition to visiting medical staff, contractors, vendors, carbon health patients, and a huge number of Dutch Brothers coffee customers. There are also large delivery trucks and fire engines here on a regular basis. We are already experiencing problems with an average of 2 accidents a month from trying to turn left onto Sunrise. I'm concerned about the lack of a site specific traffic study for this project. I don't think the models and commuter trip data being used by the planning staff capture the reality of our current traffic problems and how traffic from the new building will add to it.
There's also a vacant lot behind Dutch Brothers with the potential for another project and more traffic in the future. There is no comprehensive plan.
Today I had a visit from Jennifer Lalich, a home health nurse from Sutter. I asked her about what she thinks of the traffic situation here and she said "Sometimes it takes forever to be able to turn left onto Sunrise when leaving the Terraces. It's also very dangerous because you have to enter the 'suicide lane' in the middle of Sunrise where there is two way traffic, and its hard to focus on everything going on in both directions." She's been working here for many years and noted how much new traffic has been added since Dutch Brother coffee drive-thru opened.
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
February 11, 2025
Via email to
[email protected]
Planning Manager
Development Services – Planning Division
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Re: Response to Appeal Regarding the Approval of the Medical/Dental Office (PL24-0812)
Dear Mr. Bitter:
As the representative of the property owner/applicant for the proposed project, I am writing to provide our response to the appeal filed by Jennifer Chapman on January 21, 2025, concerning the Planning Commission’s decision on January 9, 2025 to approve the medical/dental office.
This letter aims to clarify the project’s design merits and underscore its alignment with city planning goals, urging the City Council to uphold the decision of its Planning Commission.
Overall Design Considerations:
General Plan & Zoning: The proposed medical/dental office is fully aligned with the City of Roseville’s General Plan and its PD zoning, which encourages innovative design and flexible land uses. The 2.63-acre property currently includes an Urgent Care Center in its southwest corner. The new medical/dental office will complement this existing facility and the adjacent Senior Living Facility, both in use and zoning.
Community Benefits: The proximity of medical & dental services to senior living significantly enhances the quality of life for residents by providing convenient access to healthcare, thereby reducing travel needs, and fostering a healthier community.
Environmental Constraints: Approximately 28% (0.75 acres) is within a floodway and/or encumbered by easements, restricting development to the southeast corner adjacent to the existing parking lot. By improving and sharing this parking lot with the existing urgent care, the overall footprint of the new development is reduced. The project minimizes environmental impacts by sharing and upgrading the current ingress to meet Fire Safe Standards, including provisions for an emergency vehicle turnaround.
Environmental Protection: The project design ensures the preservation of a significant riparian creek corridor, spanning nearly 0.75 acres, which is home to dozens of mature oak trees and wildlife. The corridor will remain undisturbed to ensure the preservation of the natural habitat.
While five trees will be removed to accommodate parking and a fire truck turnaround, 26 new trees will be planted to mitigate loss, enhancing the aesthetic and ecological value of the area.
Additionally, the project introduces advanced stormwater management practices to treat runoff, preventing pollution from entering the creek and supporting natural drainage patterns.
Extensive Evaluation with City Departments: Over the past year, the project has undergone extensive review by the City Planning Department to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and zoning regulations. Modifications were made based on the City’s feedback for compliance and to meet community expectations.
The design of the infrastructure and building has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department, confirming that infrastructure including drainage, utilities, and access routes are adequately designed to handle the new development's demands while integrating seamlessly with existing systems.
The Fire Department has reviewed the site layout for emergency access and compliance with fire codes. All recommendations have been incorporated into the project design to ensure safety and efficiency in emergency situations.
Summary: The comprehensive evaluation process, coupled with the project's alignment with community needs and environmental considerations, supports the approval of this development.
The medical/dental office will not only serve the immediate community but also contribute positively to the local economy by providing jobs and services. The project has been designed to minimize environmental impacts while enhancing current conditions through improved drainage, accessibility and adherence to current safety standards.
We strongly encourage the City Council to consider these points and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve this beneficial project.
Sincerely,
Millennium Planning & Engineering
Robert E. Wood, AICP
Principal Planner
From: Jennifer Chapman
To: Bitter, Greg
Cc: Mar, Escarlet; Maples, Shelby; Ogden, Derek
Subject: Re: fee waiver request on city council agenda
Date: Monday, January 13, 2025 9:29:23 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
image007.jpg
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Thank you for the links Greg. We are planning to write a check when we submit the appeal timely and will make the request at City Council this week.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 9:09 AM Bitter, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
Jennifer,
I spoke with the Clerk’s Office this morning, just to make sure we are on the same page.
You can ask the Council, during the general public comment period, to have your request for the appeal fees to be waived placed on a future agenda. As I mentioned in our conversation, I don’t know how that will help you right now. The Council’s next meeting, after this week is February 5, 2025 and the deadline to file an appeal is Tuesday, January 21, 2025.
As we discussed, pursuant to Section 19.80.020 of the Roseville Municipal Code, a written appeal and appropriate fee is required to be filed with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 days of the date of action. If the written appeal and fee are not filed by the deadline, the appeal cannot be accepted.
In your email below, you ask for guidance on the appeal itself. See below for the links to the appeal form and the fee schedule. Again, as I mentioned, the fee to appeal a PC decision is $1,685 plus the 3% technology fee ($50.55) for a total of $1,735.55.
Link to appeal form: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Dev elopment%20Services/Planning/AFH/Applications/Appeal%20Form.pdf
Link to fee schedule: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Dev elopment%20Services/Planning/AFH/Handouts/DS%20-
%202024%20Entitlement%20Fee%20Schedule%20effective%20July%202024.pdf
I’m hoping this makes the process clear.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 5:12 PM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Cc: Mar, Escarlet <[email protected]>; Maples, Shelby <[email protected]> Subject: Re: fee waiver request on city council agenda
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Thank you for the clarification. City Clerks office said Escarlet would be sending guidance, that agenda comes from city staff. Will make request at Wednesday meeting, hopefully council will clarify how to get this on the agenda for the 29th. Please send all the guidance needed for the appeal itself. Thank you again.
Best regards,
Jennifer
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025, 4:51 PM Bitter, Greg <[email protected] > wrote:
Jennifer,
The City Clerk’s office is responsible for managing the City Council agenda. The Development Services Department has no role in agenda management. You can contact the City Clerk’s Office at:
According to the City Council meeting schedule, the Council does not meet on January 29, 2025. Their regular meeting dates are the first and third Wednesday of each month.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 3:09 PM
To: Mar, Escarlet <[email protected]>; Maples, Shelby <[email protected]> Cc: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Subject: fee waiver request on city council agenda
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Escarlet,
I was told you could assist with guidance about how to get on the City Council agenda for the 1/29/2025 meeting to request a waiver of the fee to file an appeal of last nights Planning Commission decision about 705 Sunrise Avenue. If you are still working today (Friday), please contact me at 415-419-4846, or otherwise at your next opportunity. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: Dreyer, Helen
To: Bitter, Greg; Maples, Shelby
Subject: FW: Letter from Resident Council Board - Terraces of Roseville Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 3:35:44 PM
Attachments: Resident Council Letter 1-07-2025.pdf
Hi, Greg and Shelby-
We just received this email and thought we would forward as it doesn’t show you were included in the distribution.
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 3:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council Mail <[email protected]>; City Manager- Mail <[email protected]>; Bernasconi, Krista <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Letter from Resident Council Board - Terraces of Roseville
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear Roseville City Clerk,
Please include the attached letter as part of the record for public comment at tonight's City Council meeting. This pertains to a building proposal that was approved at Thursday's Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
Resident / Terraces of Roseville
From: City Council Mail
To: Maples, Shelby; Bitter, Greg
Subject: FW: Public comment- agenda request for next council meeting--request for fee waiver/refund for filing an appeal Date: Thursday, January 16, 2025 7:46:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hello,
I wanted to make sure you saw the correspondence in case there were questions about the letter that is referenced.
Cary
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Mesaros, Christine <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Manager- Mail <[email protected]>; City Council Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment- agenda request for next council meeting--request for fee waiver/refund for filing an appeal
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
In case time gets cut short during public comment at tonights meeting, we are also asking in email that you add to the next council meeting's agenda a request for a fee waiver/refund from residents at the Terraces of Roseville for filing an appeal. We are appealing the planning commission's decision on Item 6.1 which approved a building proposal at 705 Sunrise Avenue. Our appeal will be submitted by 5pm Jan. 21, 2025, with a payment of $1735.55. Please also consider the letter from our president Council Board that was also submitted as part of tonight's public comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
Resident, Terraces of Roseville
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025, 4:11 PM Mesaros, Christine <[email protected] > wrote:
Received thank you!
Thank you, and have a great day!
Christine Mesaros
Deputy Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
(916) 774-5287
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA 95678 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any accompanying documents are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged attorney-client information or work product. DO NOT FORWARD. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 3:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council Mail <[email protected]>; City Manager- Mail <[email protected]>; Bernasconi, Krista <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Letter from Resident Council Board - Terraces of Roseville
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear Roseville City Clerk,
Please include the attached letter as part of the record for public comment at tonight's City Council meeting. This pertains to a building proposal that was approved at Thursday's Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
Resident / Terraces of Roseville
From: Jennifer Chapman
To: Bitter, Greg
Cc: Maples, Shelby; Ogden, Derek; Speaker, Joseph
Subject: Re: title report & easements - 705 Sunrise Avenue proposal Date: Friday, January 17, 2025 4:50:33 PM
Attachments: image001.png
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Greg,
Many thanks for the information... Have a nice weekend.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 4:23 PM Bitter, Greg <[email protected] > wrote:
Jennifer,
Attached is the title report. I can confirm that multiple buildings are allowed on one parcel.
There’s no restriction on the number of buildings that can be located on a parcel provided a development meets the development standards (height, setbacks, parking, etc) found in the Municipal Code. There are many parcels throughout the City with multiple buildings.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:16 AM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Cc: Maples, Shelby <[email protected]>; Ogden, Derek <[email protected]>; Speaker, Joseph <[email protected]> Subject: Re: title report & easements - 705 Sunrise Avenue proposal
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Greg,
Thank you for the 1986 parcel map which I had already received. A title report would show whether there had been any new easements or easement modifications since 1986. If a current title report was submitted, please send a copy. Also, can you clarify where the general plan or zoning allows for multiple structures on Parcel A? Thank you for your help.
Best,
Jennifer
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 8:20 AM Bitter, Greg <[email protected] > wrote:
Jennifer,
Attached is the recorded parcel map showing a 30 foot access easement through parcels A (701 and 705 Sunrise) and B (715 Sunrise) to Parcel C (the Terraces). This map will also show other public utility easements in or adjacent to the three parcels. I will note that the 30 foot access easement is also depicted on the site plan associated with the Sunrise project and can be found in the attachments to the Planning Commission staff report.
On another note, I spoke with the City Manager yesterday regarding your request for a refund of the appeal fee. When this request has occurred in the past, our normal procedure is to document that request in the appeal staff report and the Council can take action on that request at the appeal hearing. This allows the Council to consider all the information regarding the appeal and the request for a refund in one hearing. Your request for a refund would be documented in the Council report.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 4:23 PM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Cc: Maples, Shelby <[email protected]>
Subject: title report & easements - 705 Sunrise Avenue proposal
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Greg,
I'm wondering if the owner of 705 Sunrise submitted a title report as part of the application. We are trying to confirm the entrance roadway is an easement, and clarify any other easements associated with the project. Thank you for your help! --
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: Bitter, Greg
To: Jennifer Chapman; Maples, Shelby
Cc: Ogden, Derek
Subject: RE: request for tentative map, for 1986 parcel map Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:22:11 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
image007.jpg
Sunrise Villa Parcel Map.pdf
Jennifer,
Attached is the project file that includes the approved Tentative Parcel Map for the Sunrise properties.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 9:43 AM
To: Maples, Shelby <[email protected]>; Bitter, Greg <[email protected]> Subject: request for tentative map, for 1986 parcel map
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hello,
We are looking for the tentative map for the 1986 parcel map (for 701 - 705 - 707 - 715 Sunrise). If one exists, please send it as soon as possible as it is pertinent to our appeal due today. Thank you! --
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: Jennifer Chapman
To: Bitter, Greg; Maples, Shelby; Bernasconi, Krista; Roccucci, Pauline; Mendonsa, Tracy; Houdesheldt, Bruce; Alvord, Scott; City Manager- Mail; City Council Mail; City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Appeal of January 9 Planning Commission Decision(s) - Item 6.1 Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 8:22:46 AM
Attachments: 2-NWSukosky Letter.pdf
1-Letter_DryCreekTrailCaliforniaWildlifeFoundation_CaliforniaOaks5_5_22.pdf 3-Resident Council Letter 1-07-2025.pdf
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear City Staff and City Council,
Please see below and attached the appeal we filed yesterday. Please note there are 3 numerical typos which are highlighted and corrected below:
January 6 corrected to January 9
707 Sunrise corrected to 705 Sunrise
November 14, 2025 corrected to November 14, 2024
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
Residents of Terraces of Roseville
Roseville Senior Community Association
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Subject: Appeal of January 9 Planning Commission Decision(s) - Item 6.1 To: <[email protected]
>
Cc: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
January 21, 2025
Roseville City Council
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
TO: Mayor Krista Bernasconi, Vice Mayor Karen Alvord, Councilmember Bruce Houdesheld, Councilmember Pauline Roccucci, and Councilmember Tracy Mendonsa FR: Residents of The Terraces of Roseville / Members of Roseville Senior Community Association, submitted by Jennifer Chapman
RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision(s) on Item 6.1, January 9, 2025 -- Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812
_______________________________________________________________ Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of myself and numerous residents at the Terraces of Roseville, a senior living facility located at 707 Sunrise Avenue, I am submitting this appeal of the planning commission's decision(s) on Item 6.1 during the
January 6 9, 2025 meeting. The following
actions were taken without consideration of all relevant information including well informed comments from an immediately adjacent senior community of 200 senior residents which includes persons with disabilities, and a variety of complex medical conditions; without a much needed site specific traffic study and safety mitigations; without consideration of cummulative effects; without full disclosure in the environmental document (MND); without knowing all the specific uses of the proposed building; and without protection of large native oak trees and other natural resources.The following actions should receive further consideration after additional analysis is completed:
1. Adopt the Sunrise Office Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2024120281) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact and approve the Design Review Permit subject to sixty- five (65) conditions of approval; and
3. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Flood Encroachment Permit subject to twelve (12) conditions of approval; and
4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Tree Permit subject to six (6) conditions of approval.
Notification & Timely, Reasonable Request for an Extension of the Public Review / Comment Period
CEQA's intent is to ensure that interested and affected parties have an opportunity to participate in the planning process through the public review and comment period for environmental documents. § 21080.3.2. (F) states:
Require notice of the filing of the plan or other written documentation to be made to the public and to a person who requests, in writing, notification. The notification shall be made in a manner that will provide the public or a person requesting notification with sufficient time to review and comment on the filing.
CEQA requires a 30 day review and comment period for environmental documents that are posted on the State Clearinghouse website, which includes the 705 Sunrise project.
An email from the project planner from the city who submitted the document has stated that all requirements for notification were followed --
"Per Section 19.78.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the noticing requirements are as follows:
Notice
of the hearing shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the public hearing to the applicant, the property owner, the owners, as shown on the most recent secured assessor’s roll, of property within 300 feet of the property involved in the application, and each local agency expected to provide water, sewer, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the site. Notice shall also be provided to all persons who have requested notice, pursuant to Section 19.78.050 of this title."
Please note that this communication refers to requirements for noticing about the planning commission hearing, not notice of the 30 day comment period on the MND.
I first learned of this project on November 14, 2025 2024 when I saw heavy equipment being used on the grassy area in front of the Terraces entrance. The operator explained he was taking soil samples but didn't know anything about the project. This led me to call the city's planning office and learn about the new medical building being proposed for 705 Sunrise Avenue. I was told there would be a public hearing before the planning commission after the holidays, but I was not told the public comment period for the environmental document would take place during the holidays. (Dec. 5, 2024 - Jan. 6, 2025) There was no indication to me about what the hearing would be taking action on. The city planner assigned to the project sent me a copy of design drawings on November 15, 2024. She did not send me a notice of the draft MND when it was released on December 5, 2024.
Although I had not requested notice of the draft MND in writing, I had clearly expressed interest in the project on November 14, 2024, and had made it clear that I lived adjacent to the project with approximately 200 other senior residents. The planning office was well aware that the Terraces is a "Community Care Facility", and should have recognized there would be great interest in the project among the people who live there. It was a lack of professional judgement not to send me an email when the Notice came out on December 5, 2024.
CEQA is explicit about the purpose of the statute and includes the following key points which support this appeal:
§ 21000. LEGISLATIVE INTENT
(b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man.
(e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
(g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.
§ 21001. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE INTENT
(d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.
§ 21002. APPROVAL OF PROJECTS; FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE OR MITIGATION
MEASURES
The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects...
Timely, Respectful Request for Extension of the Comment Period I called the planning office for an update on January 3, 2025 and learned of the planning commission hearing the following Thursday. I was provided with links which allowed me to eventually discover the January 6 deadline for comments on the MND. I was able to submit some initial timely comments on the MND before 5pm on January 6, 2025 which are incorporated here by reference. Those comments included a request for a 15-day extension on the MND comment period based on the fact that I had not received notice despite having expressed interest in the project to the planning office in November and identifying myself as an immediately adjacent resident; also because the comment period fell over the holidays, which reduced availablity of staff in multiple offices / agencies due to vacations, and the preoccupation of my senior community with celebrations and family during the holidays.
A request for a a 15-day extension was reiterated in a letter on January 8, 2025 to the planning staff and the planning commission from the Resident Council Board at the Terraces of Roseville, signed by 7 council members who represent the interests of the 200 residents who live at the Terraces.
Vulnerable Population, Protected Class, Description of the Community The senior living community at the Terraces is predominatly in assisted living with a variety of complex medical conditions, many with limited mobility, many on oxygen, some in hospice, many with diabetes, many with prothetics. This population includes a large number of veterans and military spouses. There are many people including myself who moved to Roseville fairly recently and wouldn't be familiar with city procedures for public involvement and notification. Many do not have computers or email, and some do not have cell phones. As seniors they belong to a protected class under the Civil Rights Act with age being one of the 7 bases for discrimination, and those who have disabilities are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Furthermore, as residents of a care facility, they have additional rights under California law.
In addition to 200 residents, the community include 90 employees, various contractors and vendors, family and friends who visit often, moving companies and home health care providers. This population is directly affected by the project at 707 705 Sunrise Avenue.
Insufficient Staff Report & Planning Division Guidance to Commissioners The Staff Report provided to the Planning Commission was insufficient and mischaracterized various aspects of the project.
Neither the MND or the staff report provided a description of the Terraces community, an adjacent vulnerable senior population directly affected by the project.
The staff report incorrectly found, "The project as approved preserves and accentuates the natural features of the property, such as open space, topography, trees, wetlands and water course; provides adequate drainage for the project, and allows beneficial use to be made of the site for development." Clearly with the removal of protected native oak trees, and paving over the remaining soil and grassy portion of the parcel, the proposed project as described does not preserve or accentuate natural features.
The staff report did not address existing easements associated with the project, specifically whether easements to the Terraces for access, lighting, drainage, or utilities, need to be revised or amended. Was the drainage easement for Terraces even studied and is it sufficient given the amount of hardscaping in the proposed project? The staff report also did not address whether the title report dated March 2023 for the parcel of the proposed project was still accurate in January 2025.
The staff report incorrectly found, "Approval of the Tree Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and approval of the Tree Permit is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 19.66." As noted in my MND comments, the large native oak trees on the adjacent parcel provide shade, beauty, food and habitat for wildlife which also provides enjoyment to Terraces residents who are largely confined to the premises.
The staff report did not mention as background the recent addition of a Dutch Brothers drive - thru coffee business (ca 2019) as adding to the traffic as well as congestion on the entrance road from Sunrise. Nor was there background on major flood events, such as in 1995 which blocked the entrance road to the Terraces and adjacent parcels, including the current project site. This is one of the reasons that a site-specific traffic study is needed.
The staff report did not mention in relation to cummulative impacts that staff was having informal discussions with the owners of the Terraces owners about adding up to 20 cottages to the back part of the Terraces parcel, to take this pending proposal into consideration with the traffic flow and engineering in the current proposal for 705 Sunrise Ave.
During the planning commission hearing, staff was asked about whether there was anything known about future development on the Dutch Brothers or Terraces properties.
The planning manager stated that nothing was proposed at this time, but in a subsequent phone call explained there had been informal discussions about up to 20 future cottages on the Terraces property, including site plans sent to planning staff for feedback. The planning commission and the public should have also been provided with this information. Any approval of the current proposal for 705 Sunrise Avenue would be remiss without considering future development that is already being discussed. des Also the planning manager stated that a 15-day extension on the public comment period was not possible, only a 30-day extension which I believe is untrue, and may have swayed some of the commissioners decision not to make a motion to extend the comment period.
MND Traffic Analysis is Insufficient - A Site Specific Study is Critically Needed It is egregious that given the vulnerble population at the Terraces of Roseville, that a site- specific traffice analysis has not been prepared. The MND explicitly states that quantitative analysis is required unless all facts have been considered and dismiss effects.
Facts that have not been considered include data on the frequency emergency response to the Terraces --fire, medical and other incidents. In particular medical responses are a regular occurrences, sometimes mutliple times per day. Likewise, there is data about traffic accidents in the vicinity of the Sunrise intersection with the entrance road to the parcels where Dutch Brothers, Carbon Health and the Terraces operate. Data on emergency response and traffic acccidents from 2014-2024 is available and should be considered to understand the current condition and the effect of Dutch Brothers being added in 2019.
The MND Declaration is Insufficient
The MND incorrectly states the following:
The project will not have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. **Cummulative impacts have not been considered, ie. Dutch Brothers traffic, previous native oak tree removal, future development on the Terraces property, past impacts to the Cirby Creek ecosystem.**
The project will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. **Note: There will be many effects on residents of the Terraces in terms of traffic, safety, and aesthetics.** No substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. **The traffic issues are currently a problem and have not been studied to consider how more traffic will exacerbate them**
The Transportation Section of the MND is Inadequate
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature(s) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? -- This is marked as less than significant impact, but there is a dangerous intersection at Sunrise associated with the project, and the entrance road is increasing complexity in its traffic pattern, similar to a 4 way intersection with traffic from Sunrise, Dutch Bros., Carbon Health, Proposed Medical Bldg. and the Terraces.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? - This is marked as less than significant impact, but there is a potential for more traffic to reduce the emergency access response times to the Terraces. An accident on the entrance road to the Terraces could block emergency medical response ingress / egress to the Terraces.
The MND states, "Impacts with regard to items c and d are assessed based on the expert judgment of the City Engineer and City Fire Department, as based upon facts and consistency
with the City’s Design and Construction Standards."
However, the facts have not been considered, specifically emergency response and traffic accident data, annecdotal data from Terraces residents. The 1993 City ordinance for access requirements calls for 2 ways in and 2 ways out of a property. Currently there is only 1 way in and 1 way out which is a very high risk situation considering the vulnerable Terraces population. Access requirements from the City code are standards that not incorporated into the current project:
§ 18.08.040. General access requirements
E. A tentative map shall provide for at least two different standard routes for ingress and egress, excluding tentative maps which include only a cul-de-sac. A standard route is a public street. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993)
Furthermore, the City's fire code includes 2018 International Fire code which I believe also has similar access standards. California state fire code under Title 14 also requires 2 points of ingress / egress (
14 CCR §§ 1273.08).Clearly this is best practice in an area with a vulnerable population, and traffic, floods or potential accidents on Sunrise cutting off ingress/egress.
Safety mitigations that need to be considered after a site-specific traffic study are:
1) open up emergency evacuation route in back of Terraces onto Trimble way; 2) make an evacuation route via other adjacent properties; 3) traffic break on Sunrise similar to at Sierra Regency, another senior living facility; 4) reduced speed limit on Sunrise between Cirby and Coloma, like a school zone. These are just several that have come up since we began to review this project.
Parking Study Should be Included in Traffic Study -- Parking Variance -- Alternative Design
The need to create parking is driving the need to cut native oaks which is not necessary. A design could be done to create less parking now, and more in the future only if absolutely critical. A survey of current parking at Carbon Health is needed. On a random Monday at 2pm, 27 spaces were vacant. The planning manager noted they can't do high resolution projections of parking needs because they don't know what the building will be used for. The Terrraces community is an obvious clientele for medical services and if they are a customer base, less parking will be needed. The building size could be reduced; parking under the building could be considered; a variance can reduce the required number of spaces for the given square footage. The building could be used for something that doesn't require much parking. A design to protect the native oaks would not preclude future removal if for some reason parking could not be resolved any other way. A survey of desired services to be provided at the new building among residents at the Terraces could help resolve parking issues by reducing the need for parking.
Cummulative Effects Analysis is Needed
Especially for traffic, native oak removal, hardscaping / loss of natural terrain / increased runoff, riparian impacts to the Cirby Creek watershed and increasing flood events with climate change -- all need to be considered to evaluate the current proposal. A link to a study that discusses oaks in Rocklin is also provided as an example of what should be included in the cummulative effects analysis. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file- attachments/appendix_4_planning_for_the_future_of_rocklins_urban_forest.pdf Access Path for Sewer Along Creek Needs Improvement
The path along the Creek needs improvement to be used by seniors in scooters and walkers. It is not ADA accessible becuase the surface is uneven, cracked and buckling. This would be a mitigation to help offset the scooters and walkers potentially encountering other vehicle traffic from the proposed project. It also would improve it for walking. Many residents attend the churches on Coloma.
In conclusion, we believe this project should return to the Planning Division for further analysis, including a site-specific traffic study, safety mitigations and design alternatives that protect the native oaks as well as the Cirby Creek ecosystem, and amendment of the MND, so that further information can be provided to the Planning Commission to reconsider the impacts, mitigations, and conditions of approval for this project.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Please also consider our request for a refund of the fee for this appeal since our request for an extension on the comment period was reasonable and timely.
Finally we ask that all comments from residents at the Terraces of Roseville submitted in writing and made in person as oral comments for MND, Planning Commission, and City Council until today be incorporated by reference into this appeal. Likewise, please see also see the attachments accompanying this appeal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
on behalf of Residents from the Terraces of Roseville and Roseville Senior Community Association
707 Sunrise Avenue
Roseville, CA 95661
Attachments
Letter from California Oak Foundation to City Council
Letter from Nancy Willis Sukoksy, Terraces of Roseville Letter from Resident Council Board, Terraces of Roseville From: Dreyer, Helen
To: Bitter, Greg; Maples, Shelby
Subject: Jennifer Chapman
Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:19:27 AM
Attachments: Jennifer Chapman.docx
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi, Greg and Shelby-
In one of the last lines in her appeal, Jennifer stated she wanted all oral comments she and others made to be part of the record. Attached is an overview of statements she made at the last Council meeting for your use.
Helen Dreyer, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
City Clerk Department
(916) 774-5356
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA 95678
January 15, 2025, City Council Meeting
Public Comment
Ms. Jennifer Chapman spoke on:
• Fee waiver or refund for appeal she will be filing on a Planning Commission decision made at its January 9, 2025, meeting regarding 705 Sunrise Avenue. • Request for an extension on the public comment period. The 30-day period was over the holidays - December 5 through January 6th.
• Planning Department advised she wasn’t sent a notice because they are tenants.
Only owners of the building are sent notices.
• Her appeal will talk about no traffic study done on project. • Place fee waiver/refund request on the next Council Meeting agenda.
Jerry Fuller, resident of Terraces of Roseville, spoke on facility and concerns of traffic. Also spoke on refund/waiver of Planning Commission appeal fee.
From: Bitter, Greg
To: Jennifer Chapman
Cc: Maples, Shelby; Ogden, Derek
Subject: RE: Path by creek, city easement?
Date: Friday, January 31, 2025 3:54:54 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
image007.jpg
Jennifer,
This is not a public pedestrian path, it is a public utility easement (PUE) for the sewer. I believe it’s described in the Title report under Exception #8. It’s my understanding the paving was originally installed to access to the sewer line and manhole that exists to the north of the Terraces. I don’t know how often our Department of Environmental Utilities needs to access this path, but if they felt it needed any improvements for their vehicles they could make those improvements. There’s no easement that allows for the public to use this as a pedestrian path.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 1:46 PM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Subject: Path by creek, city easement?
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Greg, it occurred to me that the path by the creek at 705 sunrise ave may be a city easement. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the path? Regards,
Jennifer
From: City Council Mail
To: Maples, Shelby; Bitter, Greg
Cc: City Council Mail
Subject: FW: request for onsite meeting with residents at the Terraces of Roseville Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 8:51:58 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hello Shelby and Greg,
Hope all is well!
Will you assist and reach out to the resident regarding the Terraces of Roseville at 705 Sunrise Blvd, project site PL24-0812 Infill 183, 229, 305. Her name is Jennifer Chapman [email protected]
and she is asking about a meeting to take place to help answer questions.
Thank you for your assistance,
Cary Camilleri
Management Assistant
City Manager’s Office
(916) 746-1350
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 7:30 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council Mail <[email protected]>; City Manager- Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: request for onsite meeting with residents at the Terraces of Roseville
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear City Clerk,
I have reached out to both our District 1 Rep., Tracy Mendonsa, and Mayor Krista Bernasconi to request a meeting with residents at 707 Sunrise Ave. to learn more about our community, the facility we live at, to better understand our concerns regarding the project proposed for 705 Sunrise Ave.
Since I have had no response from either Councilmember Mendonsa or Mayor Bernasconi, I am asking if you can find out if they received my communications, and if not, relay this to them and request a reply.
The emails were sent to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
I also left messages for Councilmember Mendonsa at 916-517-7778.
The courtesy of a reply would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
707 Sunrise Ave.
Roseville, CA 95667
From: Bradley, Michael
To: Jennifer Chapman; Maples, Shelby
Cc: Bitter, Greg
Subject: RE: Evacuation, emergency ingress egress requirements Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:17:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Hello Jennifer,
Planning will be following up on your request.
Mike
Michael Bradley
Division Chief Fire & Life Safety
Fire Marshal
Roseville Fire Department
(916) 774-5806 (916) 200-5309
Fire Administration | 316 Vernon Street #480 | Roseville, CA 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 2:25 PM
To: Bradley, Michael <[email protected]>
Subject: Evacuation, emergency ingress egress requirements
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Dear Chief Bradley,
I am trying to find the requirements for emergency ingress egress from properties in Roseville. I noticed that the Roseville fire code mentions that it has adopted the 2018 International Fire Code. Does any of that code address ingress / egress, or is it only related to structures? I see this ordinance from 1993, are there any others related to ingress / egress?
§ 18.08.040. General access requirements
E. A tentative map shall provide for at least two different standard routes for ingress and egress, excluding tentative maps which include only a cul-de-sac. A standard route is a public street. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993)
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: Maples, Shelby
To: Jennifer Chapman; Bitter, Greg
Subject: RE: Appellant address -705 Sunrise
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:00:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi Jennifer,
Received, thank you.
Sincerely,
Shelby Maples
Associate Planner
Development Services Department – Planning Division
(916) 746-1347
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA 95678 Working together to build a quality community.
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:48 PM
To: Maples, Shelby <[email protected]>; Bitter, Greg <[email protected]> Subject: Appellant address -705 Sunrise
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Shelby,
When you send me correspondence by regular mail, please include my apt. #355:
Jennifer Chapman
707 Sunrise Ave. #355
Roseville, CA 95661
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jennifer
From: Jennifer Chapman
To: Bitter, Greg
Cc: Maples, Shelby
Subject: Re: applicant fees for hearing - 705 Sunrise Ave Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:25:58 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
image007.jpg
image002.jpg
image001.png
image003.jpg
image005.jpg
image007.jpg
image004.jpg
image006.jpg
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Thank you Greg, do you have an estimate of costs to date? Do you think the original estimate was accurate?
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, 10:23 AM Bitter, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
Jennifer,
We haven’t finished working on the project, so we don’t know what the final billing will be. We won’t have a final accounting until sometime in April, once all of billings through March have been reconciled.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:20 AM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>; Maples, Shelby <[email protected]> Subject: applicant fees for hearing - 705 Sunrise Ave
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Greg & Shelby,
It was estimated that the applicant would be charged approx. $5-10K for the staff time associated with the upcoming hearing. I was wondering what the final fees are.
Best regards,
Jennifer
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
From: Johnson, Mark
To: [email protected]
Cc: Stout, Marc; Isom, Mike; Bitter, Greg
Subject: RE: additional questions - Re: traffic models & transportation plans Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:54:33 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Ms. Chapman,
I’ve provided responses below in blue italics.
-Mark
Mark Johnson, T.E.
Senior Engineer
Development Services Dept. – Land Development Engineering o: (916) 774-5481
f: (916) 774-5379
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:33 PM
To: Johnson, Mark <[email protected]>
Cc: Stout, Marc <[email protected]>; Isom, Mike <[email protected]>; Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Subject: additional questions - Re: traffic models & transportation plans
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hello Mark,
I understand you are working on a reply to the questions I sent last week. I did receive the 2023 traffic study through a public records request. That was very helpful, thank you. A few questions from that study are:
1. What prompted the study to be completed?
a. This information is included in the Traffic Study document.
2. Has that study been updated? and / or is the data from the ongoing monitoring that was mentioned available?
a. I am not aware of any additional studies at this location, nor any additional data collection associated with the traffic study.
3. Can you send the Local Road Safety Plan that is mentioned in the report? a. The LRSP can be found on the City’s website by navigating to the Public Works/Traffic page.
4. What would be an example of a significant safety issue that would require Engineering modification?
a. Unusually high accident rates.
5)Why is Sunrise described as a 4 lane roadway when it has a 5th 2-way lane in the center? Where are specifications and / or guidelines for these types of 5th lanes (known to the public as "suicide lanes") and under what coditions are they added to a roadway? It is four travel lanes, two in each direction. The center turn lane is not a travel lane.
Center turn lanes standards can be found in the Streets section of the City’s Design and Construction Standards which are on the City’s website linked from the Development Services/Engineering Division page.
Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Jennifer
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 3:27 PM Jennifer Chapman <[email protected] > wrote:
Dear Mark,
Thank you for taking time to address my concerns. I will take a look at the General Plan references you mentioned, and am sending a few questions today, based on what you shared. I believe you are saying that TAZ 92 has a fixed travel capacity based on the following:
• 200 multi-family dwelling units (typical apartments) • 6,000 SF of Retail
• 76,000 SF of Office
• 60,000 SF of Church.
And you are testing that against Existing Development described as follows:
• 200 Age Restricted/Convalescent units • 2,069 SF of Retail
• 52,020 SF of Office
• 67,788 SF of Church
There is no fixed capacity for undeveloped land. Units included in the General Plan TDM have already been studied and mitigated. Proposed development that would exceed the model TAZ assumptions may be subject to additional analysis.
For this comparison, can you clarify the projected travel demand difference between 200 multi-family apartments and 200 "age restricted/convalescent units"? The latter involves great complexity associated w/ employees who work 24/7; vendors, contractors, visitors, etc. Next-- surely there are many kinds of traffic patterns associated with different types of retail. How do you factor in a drive through coffee retail operation (5am - 11pm) compared to another type of retail? Are hours of operation for various establishments factored in? Where does the original data come from for each type of use?
The traffic model utilizes general land use categories and the software averages trips for all manner of unique developments within each category, it does not differentiate between unique types of businesses. It is a broad planning tool used to determine major roadway network needs, it does not analyze site access for specific projects.
With regard to wait times to get onto Sunrise, this is of particular importance given the emergency medical nature of much of the travel from the Terraces. Have these wait times been measured, and what is considered an acceptable wait time?
No, delay at the site access has not been measured. Staff determined there were no issues during the project review period that would warrant any concerns with delay.
Even if delay were analyzed, it would not apply to emergency vehicles during emergency situations as they have 1
st priority and all other motorists are required to immediately clear a path for them.
The existing driveway width can accommodate three vehicles for ingress/egress, allowing emergency response to force vehicles to the side if necessary. - Is this based on the extra width for making a right hand turn onto Sunrise? This extra width is only for a small portion of the road at the Sunrise end.
The throat of the driveway is 3 lanes wide and the narrowest segment of the drive-isle (closest to the Terraces) is approximately 28’ wide, which is sufficient for cars to pull to the side and allow emergency vehicles to pass if necessary.
,,,staff determined that an additional 30 vehicles egressing and ingressing during the peak hour would not be a significant impact to the overall site and therefore concluded that no additional traffic mitigation was warranted or would be required of the project.- How many vehicles were calculated for the Dutch Brothers coffee operation, and how were cummulative impacts accounted for?
The Dutch Brothers project was reviewed and found to be consistent with the General Plan. The traffic model uses averages across all types of retail development, it does not differentiate between individual and unique projects. Nevertheless, Engineering staff is aware that drive through coffee shops generate more peak hour trips than some other types of retail and this was considered when the project was reviewed and approved.
...an Engineering Traffic Study (TR202310), completed in July 2023, reviewed the accident history on Sunrise Avenue between Coloma Way and Cirby Way which includes the subject driveway. - It is great that this study was done. Can you send me a copy?
It’s my understanding that you were able to obtain the traffic study.
I was told that Caltrans has determined that speed limit on Sunrise Ave. can be raised, and they are not enforcing the 35mph. Is that true? Is there a speed limit that is being enforced?
The City of Roseville is responsible for setting speed limits on city roadways in accordance with applicable laws and vehicle codes.
I will look at the General Plan and follow up if there are other questions. I really appreciate your taking time to guide me through how the traffic analysis for the 705 Sunrise project was completed.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:04 PM Johnson, Mark <[email protected] > wrote:
Hello Ms. Chapman,
I am the City’s Senior Engineer responsible for Long Term Transportation Planning. Your email was forwarded to me for response to your questions regarding the City’s traffic model and other engineering related concerns. Thank you for taking the time to contact us and share your concerns. Input from our residents is always appreciated and helps us better serve our community. The following answers should provide some clarity to your questions. However, should you have any additional questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
The City’s adopted Traffic Model, also known as a Travel Demand Model (TDM) does not exist in a physical, shareable form. The TDM exists as a sophisticated computer software program that “models” traffic levels and travel patterns across the city and within specific geographic areas called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s). The program utilizes a vast set of input data including existing and future land use conditions, roadway networks, intersection configurations, traffic signal phasing and timing, and other key data to model traffic flow and travel behavior.
Current traffic count data and other existing land use data are used to calibrate and validate the model outputs to meet industry accuracy standards. Future development forecasts are then input for the software to develop the future traffic model.
As part of the modeling process, the TDM software performs a series of calculations to determine the number of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by each trip. Model outputs include projections of traffic volumes on major roads, peak hour turning movements and volumes at key intersections, and citywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics needed for emissions forecasts and environmental impact analysis.
Traffic impacts predicted by the modeling software are used to identify roadway capacity improvements and congestion reduction plans necessary to maintain the City’s roadway Level of Service policy. Funding for these mitigation projects is then collected via developer-paid traffic mitigation fee programs.
Information on Land Uses, LOS and VMT Policy, and other TDM inputs and outputs can be found within the City’s adopted General Plan document within the following sections:
II. Land Use Element
III. Circulation Element
Appendix A – Implementation Measures
Environmental Impact Report
Appendices
Roseville’s General Plan document can be found on the City’s website at www.roseville.ca.us
and following these links from the home page:
Government / Departments & Divisions / Development Services / Planning / General Plan
For the proposed Sunrise Office Center project, Engineering staff first reviewed the project for General Plan/Traffic Model consistency at the TAZ level. There are over 500 TAZ’s in the city’s traffic model. The proposed project at 705 Sunrise Avenue is located in TAZ 92, which extends north to include the Centerpoint Community Church on Coloma Street, south to Linda Creek, including the office complex north of the creek, and is bound by Sunrise Ave on the west and stops short of the residential development to the east as depicted in the image below.
Regarding your request for origin, destination, and VMT data specific to this project, while this data is simulated and embedded in the traffic modeling software during the modeling process, output of this data at the TAZ level would be a micro analysis that is unnecessary for city planning purposes. As such, this data is not included in the TDM project deliverables and is not available. Citywide VMT metrics can be found in the General Plan EIR document but again, the data is not broken down to the TAZ level.
Consistent with standard practice, Roseville’s traffic model utilizes generalized land use categories and average trip rates established during model calibration. When reviewing projects for traffic model consistency, we review the number of units included in the model TAZ (model capacity) vs. the number of existing units already developed within the TAZ to ensure there is sufficient capacity remaining to accommodate the proposed project.
Traffic Model land use assumptions for TAZ 92 include:
• 200 multi-family dwelling units (typical apartments) • 6,000 SF of Retail
• 76,000 SF of Office
• 60,000 SF of Church.
Existing Development:
• 200 Age Restricted/Convalescent units • 2,069 SF of Retail
• 52,020 SF of Office
• 67,788 SF of Church
Variances between projected units and units ultimately developed are normal, and the model assumptions and existing development data above demonstrates that there is remaining capacity in TAZ 92 to accommodate the proposed 7,300 SF office building project.
With regard to traffic safety concerns at the driveway intersection with Sunrise Avenue, an Engineering Traffic Study (TR202310), completed in July 2023, reviewed the accident history on Sunrise Avenue between Coloma Way and Cirby Way which includes the subject driveway. That traffic study concluded that the 3-year historical accident rate was comparable to the expected rate for similar roadways. The study found that “no significant safety issues were identified that would require Engineering modifications” and no further action was recommended. Subsequently, an Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary (speed zone survey) completed on October 17, 2024 analyzed the same segment of Sunrise Avenue. The Summary noted “vehicles entering and exiting numerous commercial driveways and residential side streets” while also documenting the 3-year historical accident rate at that time was lower than expected for similar roadways.
Regarding emergency access concerns, the drive-isle at this location is 30’ wide, similar to a typical residential roadway, which is sufficient for motorists pull to the side of the road and allow emergency vehicles to pass. Additionally, Roseville Fire evaluated emergency access during the standard review period and found no issues with the proposed project.
City records indicate there were 336 calls for service to the Terraces in 2024, less than 1 per day on average, with 2-3 calls for service occurring on the busiest days of the year, some of which were received during peak traffic hours. The City’s Fire Marshall reported there were no access challenges for any of these service calls. More specifically, with regard to the proposed project, the City’s Fire Marshall has informed Engineering staff that he is satisfied with the access and has no Fire access concerns.
Per the TDM, this segment of Sunrise Avenue currently carries 37,000 vehicles per day (Average Daily Traffic (ADT)). This equates to approximately 3,700 vehicles in the PM peak hour, typically the busiest traffic hour of the day. The proposed project (at full occupancy and based on ITE dental office trip rates) is anticipated to add less than 30 vehicles to this existing traffic volume during the pm peak hour. Since both the ingress and egress movements of a vehicle constitute a trip, this equates to approximately 15 vehicles entering and leaving the site during the pm peak hour. For perspective, this equates to approximately 1 additional vehicle every 2 minutes either ingressing or egressing from the site.
In summary, staff evaluated traffic impacts for the proposed Sunrise Office project from both a macro level, as well as a site access level. From a macro level, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan policy for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled, confirming that the surrounding roadway infrastructure and signalized intersections are adequate to handle the additional traffic load expected by the project.
From a site access standpoint, recent traffic studies show that the accidents rates along the frontage of the project and project driveway are consistent with anticipated rates for the volume of cars utilizing the roadway. The existing driveway width can accommodate three vehicles for ingress/egress, allowing emergency response to force vehicles to the side if necessary. Engineering staff did confirm with Roseville Fire that they have not had any issues to date accessing or egressing from this site, further confirming engineering’s analysis for the proposed project. Given that there is almost 40k vehicles a day on Sunrise Ave, the trips currently already utilizing the site driveway, the accident history for the area and the Fire Department’s confirmation of no issue with site access at current time, staff determined that an additional 30 vehicles egressing and ingressing during the peak hour would not be a significant impact to the overall site and therefore concluded that no additional traffic mitigation was warranted or would be required of the project.
Again, thank you for your email. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me via this email address or by telephone at (916) 774-5481.
Sincerely,
Mark Johnson
Mark Johnson, T.E.
Senior Engineer
Development Services Dept. – Land Development Engineering o: (916) 774-5481
f: (916) 774-5379
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Cc: Stout, Marc <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: traffic models & transportation plans
Jennifer,
I just talked with Marc Stout, the City Engineer and he’s having his Senior Transportation Engineer put together some information regarding your questions about how the City looks at traffic. That should be available sometime next week.
I did want to let you know that when we spoke, I mentioned that there were unique trip generation rates for different land uses and these numbers fed into the City’s traffic model. There are no individual “models” for different land uses.
I’m not sure what you mean by models for parking. The zoning ordinance includes parking standards for various use types, which typically require a certain number of parking spaces per a certain amount of square footage. These requirements vary depending on the use and can be found in Section 19.26 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]
>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 1:35 PM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: traffic models & transportation plans
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Greg,
Thank you very much for your reply. It would also be helpful to have the models for parking so I'm hoping you can also send those as well.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 1:30 PM Bitter, Greg <[email protected] > wrote:
Jennifer,
I wanted to let you know I’ve received your email and will get a response to you by tomorrow. I’ve let our staff know that you sent this request to me and I will respond.
Greg
Gregory W. Bitter, AICP
Planning Manager
Development Services Dept.- Planning Division
o: (916) 774-5294
Working together to build a quality community.
Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678
From: Jennifer Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 4:34 PM
To: Bitter, Greg <[email protected]>
Subject: traffic models & transportation plans
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Hi Greg,
I was hoping you could send the models you mentioned for Office Professional and High Density Residential. I think you said there were subgroups such as "Community Care Facility" which could be compared to high density multi-family apartments. All of the categories would be helpful to understand what they are and the big picture of how this tool breaks down traffic patterns.
Is the only measure you are looking at "VMT" -- vehicle miles traveled? This means VMT from where to where?
Are other factors involved? How does the model address the entry road?
Also can you send any links or PDFs for any transportation plans relevant to this location? Regional, city,county, etc.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chapman
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
--
Jennifer Chapman
415-419-4846
California Wildlife Foundation/California Oaks, 201 University Avenue, H-43 Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 763-0282
February 26, 2025
Roseville City Council
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Re: Design Review Permit, Flood Encroachment Permit, and Tree Permit – 705 Sunrise Av. – Infill PCL 183, 299, 305 –Sunrise Office Center – PL24-0812 Transmitted via email: [email protected], [email protected] Dear Honorable members of the Roseville City Council:
The California Oaks program of California Wildlife Foundation works to protect and conserve the state’s oak ecosystems because of their critical role in sequestering carbon, maintaining healthy watersheds, providing native plant and animal habitat, and sustaining cultural values. We are concerned about the ongoing loss of native oaks in the City of Roseville. We sent a letter in 2022 about oak impacts associated with the city’s approval of Alignment A in the Dry Creek Greenway Trail Alignment project. This letter is in support of the appeal of the approval of the proposed building project at 705 Sunrise Avenue.
Jennifer Chapman, a resident of Terraces of Roseville, which is adjacent to the proposed project, contacted California Oaks about concerns she and other residents have about impacts of the proposed oak tree removals associated with Sunrise Office Center’s expansion. The size of the proposed parking lot, which will displace 3 healthy “protected” oaks and 2 healthy oaks that are not protected, is excessive. Preserving the trees would retain the natural infrastructure of the Cirby Creek corridor, which includes flood protection. The mitigation plan is inadequate and is in violation of the oak ordinance. Lastly, the January 9, 2025, staff report shows an “X” in the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot expansion, yet there is insufficient detail to understand which tree is proposed for removal. Further, impacts of the project on trees adjacent to the “X” must be assessed and mitigated, if the project advances as currently proposed.
Proposed Parking Lot is Excessive
Chapter 19.26, Off-street Parking and Loading, of the Code of Ordinances provides a figure of 1 parking space for every 150-square feet of general medical services commercial development, which translates to 49 parking spaces for the proposed development rather than the proposed 80.
The lot currently has 47 spaces and we understand from Ms. Chapman’s observations that fewer than half of these spaces are currently being used. If the parking plan were to be minimized our understanding is that oaks proposed for removal would be left standing. This would align with the Open Space and Conservation chapter of the City of Roseville General Plan, which includes language on page V 1-2 protective of oak woodlands and riparian areas:
Oak woodlands and riparian areas, for example, benefit the City by supporting diversity of species and providing aesthetic appeal to City residents. Long-term planning and management strategies in Roseville are designed to optimize these various co-benefits of local open space. The City’s natural resources need to be 2 managed in a manner that benefits residents, while ensuring the long-term value and availability of the resources.
Open space in Roseville includes natural areas in oak woodland and riparian environments along the City’s creek systems, recreational areas, and areas surrounding important cultural resources, floodways and floodplains, wetlands, and grasslands. The City recognizes that open space land is limited and that the valuable natural resources associated with this open space must be conserved, wherever possible.
Keeping Oak Trees Standing Advances Flood Protection for the City of Roseville The General Plan’s Safety Element Policy SAFE 2.9 states “Where feasible, maintain natural stream courses and adjacent habitat and combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.” The oak trees that are proposed to be removed are part of the city’s natural infrastructure, which provides multiple benefits, including soil stabilization and flood protection. The state is increasingly understanding the importance of natural habitat in building climate resilience, as articulated in plans such as the 2022 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Update issued by Department of Water Resources.
Mitigation Plan is Inadequate and in Violation of the Oak Ordinance The plan to mitigate the removal of the 3 protected trees with 18 non-native trees and 7 oak trees does not adequately mitigate the impacts to the trees, the wildlife, plant, and fungal communities they support. It fails to offset the lost biomass and canopy of the removed trees and the substantial temporal loss of growth habitat structure and diversity.
The plan is also in violation of section 19.66.070 (Oak tree planting and replacement program) of the City of Roseville’s oak ordinance, which states: “A minimum of 50 percent of the replacement requirement shall be met by native oaks.” The proposed mitigation rate is for 28 percent oak replacement.
Impacts of the Proposed Project to an Additional Tree and Adjacent Oaks Detail is needed on the tree in the southeast corner of the parking lot designated with an “X” in the January 2025 staff report. Additionally, there are three large valley oaks growing in this area, all of which are greater that 6-inches diameter at breast height. Ms. Chapman is concerned that the proposed project may impact the protected zone of these trees (see “Protected Zone” in Chapter 19.6, Tree Preservation). These impacts must be assessed and mitigated if this poorly planned project is to proceed.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Sincerely,
Janet Cobb Angela Moskow
Executive Officer Program Director
California Wildlife Foundation/California Oaks California Oaks [email protected] [email protected] cc: Jennifer Chapman, [email protected]