SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 6 of 28
analyzed the impacts associated with the future drive-through users in Buildings 1, 3, and 6 and amplified drive-through speaker menu boards. It was determined based on location and business operations that the noise levels associated with the drive-through users would comply with the City’s noise standards. In summary, the results of the report found the project noise levels associated with the operations of the project will comply with the City’s General Plan noise levels. Staff has also recommended Condition of Approval #3 that states on-site operations associated with delivery trucks shall be limited to daytime hours only (i.e., 7:00 am to 10:00 pm).
Figure 3: Noise Study Site Plan
Given the fact that the drive through users are unknown at this time, there could be operational conditions that are needed to further mitigate the impacts of the drive through use on adjacent residential properties. Condition of Approval #2 of the CUP requires modifications to the operations be approved with a Conditional Use Permit Modification, which will ensure any future user is compatible with and will not adversely affect the surrounding uses. Based on the analysis above the proposed project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the area, or be detrimental or injurious to public or private property or improvements.
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 7 of 28
EVALUATION – DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
The evaluation of the Design Review Permit has been based on the applicable development and design standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the SVSP, and the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Section 19.78.060(B) of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires four findings of fact be made in order to approve a Design Review Permit. The four findings for approval of the Design Review Permit are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the project in relation to each finding.
1. The project as approved preserves and accentuates the natural features of the property, such as open space, topography, trees, wetlands and water courses; provides adequate drainage for the project; and allows beneficial use to be made of the site for development.
The project site was rough-graded and has been annually maintained and is therefore dominated by relatively flat topography and is devoid of trees, wetlands, or other natural features. The site is primarily populated by non-native annual grasses, and aerial photography shows evidence of ground disturbance, including areas of bare ground and furrows from discing on the property. There are no structures on the property. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcels.
Grading of the property will be necessary to provide the parking areas, drive aisles, and building pads.
The project has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and has been designed consistent with City standards related to drainage improvements and stormwater quality facilities. The proposed use is consistent with the site’s commercial land use designation, and will develop an underutilized parcel.
2. The project site design as approved provides open space; access; vehicle parking; vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation; pedestrian walks and links to alternative modes of transportation; loading areas; landscaping; irrigation; and lighting which results in a safe, efficient, and harmonious development and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the applicable specific plan and/or applicable design guidelines.
The evaluation of the Design Review Permit has been based on the applicable development and design standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and the SVSP. Staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with all applicable standards and found the project to be consistent with the pertinent requirements and guidelines. The following sections of evaluation focus on areas of interest.
Site Planning and Building Siting
As proposed, the inline multi-tenant retail building and anchor grocery store (Buildings 2 and 7) are proposed closest to the western property line, with setbacks of 39 and 59 feet, respectively. The coffee shop drive-through (Building 1) is located at the northwestern corner of the site, with a setback of approximately 75-feet from Pleasant Grove Blvd Two of the drive-through restaurants and the standalone retail building comprise the northeast corner of the site, and the fueling station is located on the east side of the site, fronting Fiddyment Rd. Surface parking is proposed throughout the entire site, with the largest parking area at the south end of the site, nearest Building 7. The proposed site plan is shown below in Figure 4 and included in the Project Plans (Exhibit B).
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 8 of 28
Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan
Access and Circulation
Ingress and egress to the site will be provided by one (1) driveway on Fiddyment Rd, two (2) driveways on Pleasant Grove Blvd, and one (1) driveway on Upland Drive. According to the technical memorandum provided by Fehr & Peers (Attachment #3), three (3) of the four (4) driveways into the site will have limited turning movements, with Driveway 1 on Upland Dr providing full access.
Driveway 2 will be a westerly right-turn only driveway on Pleasant Grove Blvd, Driveway 3 will be an easterly right-turn only driveway on Pleasant Grove Blvd, and Driveway 4 will be a right in/out and left-turn ingress driveway on Fiddyment Rd. Given the traffic volumes in this location, left turns exiting the site onto Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Rd would not be safe.
The technical memorandum recommends that a right-turn deceleration taper on eastbound Pleasant Grove Blvd be constructed west of Driveway 2, and that Driveway 2 be upsized to 38 feet in width with a 21-foot-wide inbound lane and 17-foot-wide outbound lane. It also recommends a right-turn deceleration lane at Driveway 3 be extended to the eastbound right-turn lane at the Pleasant Grove Blvd/Fiddyment Rd intersection to create a continuous acceleration/deceleration lane. For Driveway 4, the memorandum recommends a continuous bus turnout/deceleration lane on southbound Fiddyment Rd. Another issue identified in the technical memorandum was the inadequate distance between Driveway 4 and the intersection of Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Rd. As proposed, Driveway 4 is 390 feet south of the intersection, or 10 feet short of the standard 400 feet. A subsequent speed study was conducted by Fehr & Peers (Appendix A of Attachment 3) that determined the average speed of vehicles traveling southbound on Fiddyment Rd, and confirmed that the 390 feet distance will be adequate, provided a 300-foot left-turn ingress lane on northbound
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 9 of 28
Fiddyment Rd is constructed as far westerly as possible to maximize oncoming traffic visibility on southbound Fiddyment Rd.
Figure 5: On-Site and Off-Site Circulation
Currently, the majority of frontage improvements along Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Rd are completed. Based on the Fehr & Peers technical memorandum, construction of the right-turn deceleration/acceleration lane improvements on Pleasant Grove Blvd and the bus turnout/deceleration lane and a section of frontage improvements on Fiddyment Rd will be required of the applicant.
The project driveways are designed to accommodate large grocery store and gasoline delivery trucks.
In addition, all trash enclosures have been placed throughout the site in convenient locations to meet the City’s trash collection approach standards. The proposed circulation design was also evaluated in the technical memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers (Attachment 3). The study was used to determine driveway spacing, entryway throat depths, turn pocket lengths, and other elements of access and circulation design for the proposed project. The project was also reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff and was found to comply with refuse service standards and with emergency circulation requirements.
The project includes several internal pedestrian pathways and includes the completion of sidewalks and landscaping along Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Rd after the completion of the access improvements. The sidewalks will provide access from the surrounding uses. In addition to the sidewalks along the vehicle entries, pedestrian connections will be provided at locations where foot
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 10 of 28
traffic is most likely to occur to provide easy access to the site. Overall, the project is consistent with the SVSP and CDG related to pedestrian access and circulation.
Parking
Based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance parking standards for retail sales and services, eating and drinking establishment, fueling stations, and drive-throughs the project is required to provide a total of 261 parking spaces (see the parking breakdown provided in Table 1 below). As tenant spaces are leased, each tenant will utilize the applicable parking requirement for the use as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The project provides a total of 327 parking spaces, which exceeds the total parking requirement.
Table 1: Parking Table
Building Use SF Parking Standard Required Proposed
1 Coffee shop with drive-through 3,000 1 space/100 sf 30 30 2 Retail sales and services 16,472 1 space/300 sf 56 56 3 Fast food with drive-through 3,376 1 space/100 sf 38 39 4 Retail sales and services 3,745 1 space/300 sf 13 13
5 Fueling station 4,700 1 space/300 sf 16 18
6 Fast food with drive-through 3,015 1 space/100 sf 30 30 7 Food and beverage retail sales 23,272 1 space/300 sf 78 141 58,210 261 327
Landscaping and Lighting
Landscaping for the project site includes frontage improvements along the perimeter of the property, at project entry points, and within the parking lot. As required by the SVSP Design Guidelines, based on the project number of stories the buildings are setback at least 50 feet from Fiddyment Rd and 35 feet from Pleasant Grove Blvd. Along both frontages, the project proposes a mix of existing landscaping to remain and a combination of Red Maple, Maidenhair, Red Oak, Cork Oak, and Elm trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
In addition, landscape around the perimeter of the site is proposed to assist with buffering the commercial activities in the center from the future multi-family residents to the west. A 16-foot landscape buffer along the western edge of the property, in conjunction with the 6-foot masonry wall, will allow a combination of Incense and Deodar Cedar, Laurel, and Live Oak trees and shrubs to provide significant screening of the back of the buildings along this boundary.
The drive-through lanes for Buildings 1, 3, and 6 will front Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Rd, and are required to be screened with a three-foot wall and 36’’ tall shrubs planted between the wall and the sidewalk. The City’s minimum requirement of 50% shading in parking lots is accomplished with a mix of Red Maple, Zelkova, Elm, and Maidenhair trees, as well as smaller Strawberry, Carob, Golden Rain trees. As proposed and conditioned, staff finds the landscape plan meets the intent of the CDG and the SVSP design guidelines, and is consistent with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
The project will consist of building-mounted light fixtures that complement the style of the building and parking lot lighting. The parking lot lighting is conditioned to comply with the CDG, which require a minimum of one foot-candle of lighting in the parking areas and 0.5 foot-candles of lighting in the pedestrian walkways. Additionally, staff has included Condition of Approval #59, the maximum height of light standards shall be 15 feet. Light standards will be shielded to ensure there is no off-site glare.
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 11 of 28
3. The building design, including the materials, colors, height, bulk, size and relief, and the arrangement of the structures on the site, as approved is harmonious with other development and buildings in the vicinity and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the applicable specific plan and/or applicable design guidelines.
The project design is defined by a “modern western highlands” architectural theme, with a blend of modern and traditional elements. The project is designed to fit with the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with other developments in the City. The building facades feature various rectangular forms and varied rooflines such as flat roofs and gabled forms with prominent standing seam metal roof accents. As a focal point near the intersection, retail Building 4 features a more elaborate gabled roof. Building heights range from approximately 20 feet for the fuel station and restaurants to 42’-6” on the grocery store’s south elevation, all below the 50’ maximum building height limit for the CC zoning designation. The rooflines provide sufficient screening of mechanical rooftop equipment.
Figure 6: Site Perspective
The buildings are well-articulated with varied building materials, such as a combination of exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS)/stucco in several shades (dark, mid and light warm gray) and cement fiber siding in colors such as dark charcoal, warm tan, dark brown and sage green. Reveals in the EIFS and cement fiber siding create a grid pattern that interrupts wall surfaces. Stacked stone veneer and masonry stone block are used prominently at the building bases and on key vertical massing elements. Dark pine treated lumber creates wood accents, with contrasting blackened steel brake metal and white brake metal trim. Most buildings are designed with a storefront glazing system with black or dark bronze aluminum frames arranged in repetitive bays that align with the structural building grid. Architecture for the restaurants, retail buildings, and fuel station is in the same style as the grocery anchor tenant with the same materials and colors. The proposed project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 12 of 28
Figure 7: Grocery Elevation (Building 7)
4. The design of the public services, as approved, including, but not limited to, trash enclosures and service equipment are located so as not to detract from the appearance of the site, and are screened appropriately and effectively using construction materials, colors and landscaping that are harmonious with the site and the building designs.
All trash containers will be screened within trash enclosures. The enclosures will surround the three non-accessible sides of the trash container, and will be surrounded by landscaping. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be sufficiently screened from public view by the building parapets.
EVALUATION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a tentative subdivision map. The three findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.
1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan or any applicable specific plan for the area, whichever is more restrictive, and the design standards of this Title.
Parcel size, design, character, location, orientation and configuration: The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of eight (8) parcels. As previously mentioned, the reconfigured parcels are sized to accommodate each of the seven buildings with their corresponding parking areas, with an average size of 1.13 acres for parcels 1-6, a 4.74-acre parcel to accommodate the anchor retail grocery, and one 3-acre parcel to remain undeveloped. The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes. Based on the Design Review Permit evaluation section, the lots are large enough to adequately allow for the proposed development on the parcels.
Grading and Drainage: Grading and drainage required for development of the parcels have been reviewed with the Design Review Permit and have been determined to comply with City standards as shown in the grading and drainage plan, and as conditioned.
Access & Circulation: The project is conditioned to ensure the access roads and driveways are constructed to comply with the City’s design standards. On-site circulation has been reviewed with
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 13 of 28
the Design Review Permit and found to be adequate. Access and circulation is consistent with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and the City’s Improvement Standards.
2. The subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. The subdivision will not create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to: the steepness of terrain or location of watercourses in the area; the size or shape of the lots or inadequate building area; inadequate frontage or access; or, some other physical condition of the area.
The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the proposed development and are consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements, as discussed in the Design Review Permit evaluation section of the staff report. There are no watercourses or other natural features on the site that would impede development.
3. The design and density of the subdivision will not violate the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste into the sewage system, Pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.
Anticipated water quality impacts and discharge of waste are not affected by the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map. The design of the sewer lines in the project area and treatment capacity at the City’s sewage treatment plant have adequate conveyance and capacity to accommodate development on the proposed parcels created by the Tentative Subdivision Map.
CONCLUSION
The project has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan, the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Community Design Guidelines, providing both appropriate vehicle access and circulation and pedestrian connectivity; building designs which use a variety of materials, colors, and building forms; landscaping consistent with the design guidelines; lighting that is energy efficient and is shielded to avoid light trespass; and infrastructure adequate to serve the proposed expansion in use. The site is appropriately designed, and will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. The applicant held a public open house on June 17, 2026 at St. John’s Episcopal Church, attended by City staff. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on July 31 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. One public comment has been received as of publication of the staff report (see Attachment 4).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project that is within the SVSP (see Exhibit A). A drive-thru coffee building was previously approved on the portion of the site within the WRSP, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) tiered from the WRSP EIR (SCH#2002082057, certified February 4, 2004) was adopted on February 11, 2023 (see Exhibit F). The project also includes a drive-thru coffee building (Building 1) in
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 14 of 28
this location, with minor site plan modifications to tie into the overall Sierra View Shopping Center site plan; given that the previous MND adequately describes potential impacts of developing this area with a drive-thru coffee building, no further environmental analysis is required for this portion of the project and site. However, to ensure the cumulative site modifications are evaluated as a whole the impacts of the entire Sierra Vista Shopping Center project, including the drive-thru (Building 1) square footage and use, are evaluated in the Addendum. Refer to the Project Description section of the Addendum for further discussion. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Consider the 8th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;
2. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – 1875 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD – SVSP PCL JM-41 AND WRSP PCL W-20 SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER – PL25-0496 subject to four (4) conditions of approval.
3. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT – 1875 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD – SVSP PCL JM-41 AND WRSP PCL W-20 SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER – PL25-0496 subject to ninety (90) conditions of approval.
4. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 1875 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD – SVSP PCL JM-41 AND WRSP PCL W-20 SIERRA VIEW SHOPPING CENTER – PL25-0496 subject to forty-four (44) conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – FILE #PL25-0496
1. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from August 13, 2026 and if not effectuated shall expire on August 13, 2028. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time. (Planning)
2. The project is approved as identified and shown in Exhibits A - E and as conditioned or modified below. Once tenants for the drive-through Buildings are identified and operations are specified, a Conditional Use Permit Modification will be required. (Planning)
3. Operations shall be consistent with the City’s Noise Regulation standards (Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 9.24). All on-site operations associated with delivery trucks shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) (Planning)
4. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SVSP EIR) and Addenda to the SVSP EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT – FILE #PL25-0496
1. This Design Review Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from August 13, 2026 and if not effectuated shall expire on August 13, 2028. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond August 13, 2031. (Planning)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 15 of 28
2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits A - E and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)
3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SVSP EIR) and Addenda to the SVSP EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)
4. The project and proposed Building 1 shall be addressed as 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd. The address for proposed Building 2 shall be 1855 Pleasant Grove Blvd. The address for proposed Building 3 shall be 1835 Pleasant Grove Blvd. The address for proposed Building 4 shall be 1815 Pleasant Grove Blvd. The address for proposed Building 5 shall be 6808 Fiddyment Rd. The address for proposed Building 6 shall be 6812 Fiddyment Rd. The address for proposed Building 7 shall be 6816 Fiddyment Rd. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s) to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for building/suite addressing. (Business Services)
5. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.
Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Finance)
6. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
7. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the rightof-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)
8. The approval of this project does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
9. Parking lot design shall conform to the City’s design standards, including the following minimum standards for parking stalls:
a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6-inch raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
b. Standard – 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact – 9 feet x 16 feet; Accessible – 14 feet x 18 feet (a 9-footwide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be Accessible van accessible – 17 feet x 18 feet (9-foot-wide parking area plus an 8-foot-wide loading area). (Planning)
c. An 'exterior routes of travel' site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross-slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signage, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B-208.2 of the CBC.
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 16 of 28
ii. Accessible Parking spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Chapter 11 of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Sections 11B-206 and 11B-208. (Building)
10. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Department to control onsite traffic movements. Parking lot striping and signage shall be maintained in a visible and legible manner. (Planning)
11. The plans submitted to the Building Division for permits shall indicate all approved revisions/alterations as approved by the Commission including all conditions of approval. (Planning)
12. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:
a. The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines; backflow preventers; fire department connections; and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
b. The tree plantings in the parking lot shall be designed to provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage after 15 years. (Planning)
c. At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning) d. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for Sierra Vista Roseville Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)
e. Landscaping adjacent to preserve areas shall consist of California native, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. (Open Space, Planning) f. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the Electric Department's Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments "Specification for Commercial Construction." (Electric) g. Slopes within landscape planters shall be no more than 3:1. A two-foot flat bench located at backof-walk shall be included in the landscape area to slow or allow absorption of nuisance run-off from the planters. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)
h. All landscaping shall conform to the standards of crime prevention through environmental design with the intent to create natural surveillance, controlling access, and territorial reinforcement to property boundaries. (Police)
13. All mechanical and electrical equipment (including switch gear) proposed shall be shown on the building plans. The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning)
14. Buildings less than 30’ from property lines shall be justified by code in accordance with their construction type, occupancy, and whether rated or unrated walls are provided per CBC Sec. 705.5.
15. At the time of building permit application and plan submittal, the project applicant shall submit a site plan which shows the addressing for the buildings and individual tenant spaces within the building.
The addressing shall be consistent with City-assigned addresses. The Building Official, or the designee, shall approve said plan prior to building permit approval. Refer to the City of Roseville Addressing Guidelines. (Building)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 17 of 28
16. A separate Architectural Site Accessibility Plan which details the project's site accessibility information as required by California Title 24, Part 2 shall be submitted as part of the project Building Permit Plans. (Building)
17. For Multiple Building Complexes: As part of the required Architectural Site Accessibility Plan, the developer shall delineate the extent of the site accessibility improvements being installed as part of the initial improvements for the project, and those that are planned to be developed as part of subsequent phases (i.e. around future pad buildings). (Building)
18. Building permit plans shall comply with all applicable code requirements (California Building Code – CBC – based on the International Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code–CGBSC, California Mechanical Code – CMC – based on the Uniform Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code – CPC – based on the Uniform Plumbing Code, California Fire Code – CFC – based on the International Fire Code – with City of Roseville Amendments – RFC, California Electrical Code – CEC – based on the National Electrical Code, and California Energy Standards – CEC T-24 Part 6), California Title 24 and the American with Disabilities Act - ADA requirements, and all State and Federally mandated requirements in effect at the time of submittal for building permits (contact the Building Division for applicable Code editions). (Building)
19. For restaurants, other food services, or commercial swimming pools: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department and the City of Roseville Industrial Waste Division. (Building, Environmental Utilities)
20. Maintenance of copy of building plans: Health and Safety Code section 19850 requires the building department of every city or county to maintain an official copy of the building plans for the life of the building. As such, each individual building shall be submitted as a separate submittal package.
Building plan review, permit issuance and archiving is based on each individual building address. (Building)
21. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to Development Services - Engineering prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)
22. The Improvement Plans shall include a complete set of Landscape Plans. The Landscape Plans shall be approved with the Improvement Plans. (Planning, Engineering, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric)
23. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)
24. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the city's current standards on the shelter pad as conditioned above. Upon installation and final inspection by the City of Roseville, the bus shelter and related improvements shall become the property of the City of Roseville. The Developer and City may enter into a construction fee agreement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 per shelter for future construction of the Bus Shelter on the southwest corner of Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard (shelter number 333). (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)
25. The applicant shall incorporate all of the site plan recommendations in the Traffic Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers dated June 4th, 2026. (Engineering)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 18 of 28
26. The applicant shall provide 35’ wide Type A-7 driveway for all access points except for the westernmost driveway along Pleasant Grove Boulevard, that driveway shall be 38 feet wide. (Engineering)
27. The applicant shall construct a full traffic signal at Upland Drive and Pleasant Grove Boulevard per the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The traffic signal will be fully reimbursable and is eligible for fee credits. (Engineering)
28. The applicant shall construct a continuous deceleration lane from the bus turnout to the Fiddyment Road Driveway. This driveway shall provide an approximately 125-foot minimum throat depth. (Engineering)
29. The applicant shall construct a new minimum 300-foot left turn pocket for ingress to the project site along Fiddyment Road. (Engineering)
30. The applicant shall construct a new deceleration taper (City Detail ST-23) for the western-most driveway along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. (Engineering)
31. The applicant shall construct a through turn lane from the westernmost driveway to eastern driveway along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. This eastern driveway shall have a minimum throat depth of 125 feet. (Engineering)
32. The project driveway along Upland Drive shall provide a minimum 75-foot throat depth. (Engineering)
33. The applicant shall complete the 8’ wide public sidewalk along Fiddyment Road. (Engineering)
34. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way or Public Utility Easement for the widening of any streets or transfer of public utilities across and over any portion of the property as required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)
35. Bike parking and electric vehicle parking spaces shall be provided per the California Green Building Standards. Carpool spaces shall also be provided per the City of Roseville’s Transportation System Management (TSM) Ordinance, R.M.C Chapter 11.33. Bike rack/locker design and designated parking space markings and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation. (Alternative Transportation, Building).
36. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which includes trash capture requirements. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. The storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)
37. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the applicant/developer shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required onsite and available for viewing by City inspection staff upon request. (Engineering)
38. The developer shall be responsible for any necessary relocation of signal interconnect cables that may require re-location as a result of the construction of turn lanes and/or driveways. (Engineering)
39. To ensure that the design for any necessary widening, construction, or modifications of Public Streets does not conflict with existing dry utilities generally located behind the curb and gutter, and prior to the
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 19 of 28
submittal of design drawings for those frontage improvements, the applicant/developer shall have the existing dry utilities pot holed for verification of location and depth. (Engineering)
40. Sight distances for all driveways shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans to verify that minimum standards are achieved. It will be the responsibility of the applicant/developer to provide appropriate landscaping and improvement plans, and to relocate and/or modify existing facilities as needed to meet these design objectives. (Engineering)
41. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During plan check of the improvement plans and/or during inspection, Development Services - Engineering will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. Any existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant/developer and at the applicant/developer’s expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)
42. Improvement plans shall show the Preserve (Parcel JM-83) boundary and label it as a protected area.
The Pre-Construction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction, the preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis.
After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the preserve, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services Department, Planning)
43. Prior to construction within any phase of the project, high visibility temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the parcel adjacent to the Preserve (Parcel JM-83). Fencing shall be maintained daily until permanent fencing is installed, at which time the temporary fencing shall be removed from the project site. (Engineering, Development Services Department, Planning)
44. With the exception of access required for maintenance and/or emergency vehicles, the project shall be designed to prevent vehicle access into the Preserve (Parcel JM-83). Post and cable fencing or other improvements shall be utilized to meet this requirement. (Engineering, Development Services Department, Planning)
45. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the applicant/developer’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)
46. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall pay into the following fee programs: Citywide Drainage Fee, Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF), Highway 65 Joint Partners Association (JPA), South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA), and City/County Fee. (Engineering)
47. The applicant/developer shall prepare a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan for Sierra View Shopping Center project to be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission. (Alternative Transportation)
48. The Developer, per the Development Agreement, shall be responsible to reimburse for the oversizing of utility infrastructure including sewer, water and recycled water as a benefited property owner.
Developers are entitled to receive reimbursement from the benefited property owner(s) for the pro rata cost of the improvements which exceeds the Developer’s obligation. These fees shall be due prior the first building permit in a given large lot for HDR and Commercial projects and with the first Final Map in a given large lot for MDR and LDR projects. (Engineering).
49. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 20 of 28
utility. Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)
50. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)
51. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards and shall include:
a. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes.
b. Water, sewer and recycled mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions of approval.
c. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather, 10-ton vehicle access unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Environmental Utilities)
52. Recycled water infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. The applicant shall pay all applicable recycled water fees. Easements shall be provided as necessary for recycled water infrastructure. (Environmental Utilities)
53. Trash enclosures, organics enclosures (restaurant/grocery), recycling areas, and enclosure approaches shall be designed to current Refuse Division specifications, the materials and colors shall match the building, and the location of such facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Refuse Division, Planning and the Fire Department. The enclosures must have inside dimensions of 12 feet wide and 9 feet deep and be built to the specifications of the Solid Waste Department's Enclosure Description. (Refuse, Planning, Fire)
54. Access to trash enclosures shall have an inside turning radius of 25 feet and an outside turning radius of 45 feet must be maintained to allow the refuse truck access to and from the enclosure. Enclosures must have a clear approach of 65 feet in front of the enclosure to allow servicing bins. (Refuse)
55. A trash enclosure and recycling enclosure are required for each building, as shown on the site plan.
Refuse)
56. The design and installation of all fire protection equipment shall conform to the California Fire Code and the amendments adopted by the City of Roseville, along with all standards and policies implemented by the Roseville Fire Department. (Fire)
57. The applicable codes and standards adopted by the City shall be enforced at the time construction plans have been submitted to the City for permitting. (Fire)
58. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a. one (1) set of improvement plans
b. load calculations
c. electrical panel one-line drawings
59. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. The maximum height of light standards shall be 15 feet. Lighting within the parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot-candle, and 0.5 foot-candle of light, respectively.
All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant. (Planning, Police)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 21 of 28
60. The parking lot shall have properly posted signs that state the use of the parking area is for the exclusive use of employees and customers of this project. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 22507.8, 22511.5, 22511.8, 22658(a), and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 11.20.110).
The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning, Police)
61. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E) DURING CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
62. Any backflow preventers visible from the street shall be painted green to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The backflow preventers shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventer to the landscaping.
b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall only be installed on three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventer shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)
63. The following easements shall be provided by separate instrument and shown on the site plan, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. Public sewer and private water easements.
b. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric) c. Other easements. (Electric, Engineering, Environmental Utilities)
64. Easement widths shall comply with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards.
Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville". All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. All existing public utility, electric, water, sewer and reclaimed water easements shall be maintained unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Public Works, Environmental Utilities, Electric)
65. Inspection of the potable water supply system on new commercial/industrial/office projects shall be as follows:
a. The Environmental Utilities Inspector will inspect all potable water supply up to the downstream side of the backflow preventer.
b. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible for that portion of the water supply system from the backflow preventer to the building. The builder/contractor shall engage a qualified inspector to approve the installation of this portion of the water supply. The Building Division will require from the builder/contractor, a written document certifying that this portion of the potable water supply has been installed per improvement plans and in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. This certificate of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Division before a temporary occupancy or a building final is approved.
c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 22 of 28
66. Engineering All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Public Works)
67. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE's) located along public roadways. (Public Works)
68. Water, sewer and reclaimed water shall be constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. (Environmental Utilities)
69. All water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department. (Environmental Utilities)
70. Restaurants or other Food Service Establishment (FSE). The applicant shall design for installation and/or install an exterior grease interceptor if the proposed business could potentially discharge substances containing fats, oils and grease (FOG) into the sewer system. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in the wastewater from FSE’s prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)
71. In the event an exterior grease interceptor cannot be installed due to space limitation, the developer shall install a grease trap, per City Standards, that will mechanically separate the FOG contained in the wastewater from the FSE prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)
72. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a FOG waste discharge permit (FOG WDP) from the Environmental Utilities Industrial Waste Division prior to occupancy or prior to discharging waste to the public sewer. The applicant shall submit information required by the Environmental Utilities Department for evaluation, including but not limited to: site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, FOG control device, grease interceptor or other pretreatment equipment and appurtenances by size, location and elevation.
Additional information related to the applicant’s business operations and potential discharge may be requested to properly evaluate the FOG WDP application. (Environmental Utilities)
73. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the "City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction." (Electric)
74. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer and which are explained in the City of Roseville "Specification for Commercial Construction." These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)
75. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change of existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer's expense. (Electric)
76. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)
77. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. This can be accomplished in any of the following ways:
a. Locate the metered service panel on the outside of the building. b. Locate the metered service panel in a service room with a door that opens directly to the outside.
The developer will be required to provide a key to the door for placement in a lock box to be installed on the outside of the door. Any doors leading from the service room to other areas of the building shall be secured to prohibit unauthorized entry. (Electric)
78. One ¾-inch conduit with a 2-pair phone line shall be installed from the building’s telephone service panel to the meter section of the customer's electrical switchgear or panel. (Electric)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 23 of 28
79. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstruction during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric) OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
80. Signs shown on the elevations are not approved as part of the Design Review Permit. A Planned Sign Permit Program and Sign Permit are required prior to installation of project signs. (Planning)
81. Following the installation of the landscaping, all landscape material shall be maintained in a healthy and weed-free condition; dead plant material shall be replaced immediately. All trees shall be maintained and pruned in accordance with the accepted practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). (Planning)
82. The City reserves the right to restrict vehicle turning movements within the public right-of-way in the future if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
83. The required width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and vertical clearances established by the Fire Code shall be maintained at all times during construction. Closure of accesses for fire apparatus by gates, barricades and other devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire)
84. Temporary aboveground storage tanks may be used at construction sites for diesel fuel only and shall not exceed 1,000 gallon capacity. Tanks shall comply with all provisions found within the Fire Code.
A Fire Department Permit shall be obtained prior to tank installation. The permit shall expire after 90 days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Fire Chief. (Fire)
85. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor or person responsible for the building permit must notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable or not and if site remediation is required. (Fire)
86. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of the gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of the City’s first round of plan-checked improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)
87. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday, provided that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and be maintained in good working order. (Building)
88. The developer (or designated consultant) shall certify that the building foundation location has been placed according to all approved setback requirements shown on the approved site plan. The developer shall prepare a written statement confirming building placement and provide an original copy to the City Building Division Field Inspector at the time of or prior to the foundation inspection. (Building)
89. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant may apply for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of the building. If a TCO is desired, the applicant must submit a written request to the Building Division a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expected temporary occupancy date and shall include a schedule for occupancy and a description of the purpose for the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. (Building)
90. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include the following:
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 24 of 28
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL25-0496
1. This Tentative Map approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from August 13, 2026 and if not effectuated shall expire on August 13, 2028. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond August 13, 2031. (Planning)
2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits A - E and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)
3. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. (Engineering)
4. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Improvement Standards and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
5. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SVSP EIR) and Addenda to the SVSP EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the plans. (Planning)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS
6. The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Engineering Departments the applicable Army Corps of Engineers permit or clearance, the California Department of Fish and Game Stream Bed Alteration Agreement, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certificate. (Planning)
7. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a) Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b) Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. There shall be no cut and/or fill slopes steeper than a 4:1 ratio. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans and all erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site; it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.
c) A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d) Access to the floodplain shall be provided as required by Engineering and the Streets Department.
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 25 of 28
e) Standard accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)
8. All drainage facilities shall conform to natural drainage sheds. (Engineering)
9. The following note shall be added to the Grading and/or Improvement Plans:
To minimize dust/grading impacts during construction the applicant shall:
a) Spray water on all exposed earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving and other site preparation activities throughout the day.
b) Use tarpaulins or other affective covers on all stockpiled earth material and on all haul trucks. c) Sweep the adjacent streets frontages at least once a day or as needed to remove silt and other dirt which is evident from construction activities.
d) Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off site.
e) The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations if, in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control measures are being practiced or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)
10. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states: “Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)
11. The grading plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. All on-site storm drainage shall be collected on-site and shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain stub of the natural drainage course. (Engineering)
12. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the applicant/developer shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City, as defined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be submitted in a single three ring binder. Upon approval, the SWPPP will be returned to the applicant/developer during the pre-construction meeting. (Engineering)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS
13. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall submit to the Development Services - Engineering Division a paper copy and an electronic copy of the final set of Improvement Plans per the Division’s “Digital Submission of Utility Composites” standards. (Engineering)
14. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Fire Department. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 1,000 feet on center. (Fire)
15. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure. A change in any of the conditions may increase the required fire flow. (Fire)
16. There shall be two points of access for all phasing plans. (Fire)
17. Testing of all fire systems shall be performed prior to the commercial buildings being granted occupancy. (Fire)
18. Framing construction cannot commerce until access roads and public fire hydrants are approved by the Fire Department. (Fire)
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 26 of 28
19. If this project will be phased, the fire department requirements for access and circulation throughout shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Access roads shall comply with the California Fire Code and the City of Roseville’s Amendments. (Fire)
20. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)
21. The design for electrical service for this project will begin when the Electric Department has received a full set of improvement plans for the project. (Electric)
22. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the “Electric Department Landscape Design Requirements” as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Electric Department’s “Specifications for Commercial Construction.” (Electric)
23. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a) one (1) set of improvement plans
b) load calculations
c) electrical panel one-line drawings
24. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of the City’s first round of plan-checked improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)
25. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E)
PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
26. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville.” All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
27. A declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the entire property concurrently with the Final/Parcel Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following item(s):
a) A clause stating that the property owners within this project shall agree to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan and shall agree to enter into a Transportation Management Agreement with the City of Roseville.
b) A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior written consent of the City Attorney. c) A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. (Attorney) d) The developer shall disclose to all residential and nonresidential buyers that the Property will be served by-both surface water and groundwater supplies and that variations in the appearance, taste and color of water may be noticed from time to time and include such disclosure in the CC&Rs for the Property. The disclosure shall describe the location of the groundwater well.. (Engineering) e) The developer shall disclose to all buyers that recycled water shall be used for irrigation of parks and landscape corridors, medians, paseos adjacent to collector streets and other landscape areas, including all multi-family and non-residential landscaping uses. Such disclosure shall be included in the CC&Rs for all residential buyers and other recorded notice instrument for all non-residential buyers.. (Engineering)
28. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 27 of 28
a) A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
OR
b) The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)
29. In the event that the Final (Parcel) Map will record prior to the completion of on-site construction, all utility and access easements shall be placed on the face of the Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If all on-site improvements are complete prior to the recordation of the map, then a separate agreement allowing all parcels/lots the rights of reciprocal access, rights to construct, and parking shall be submitted to the City as a part of final/parcel map submittal. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and referenced on the face of the recorded map. (Engineering)
30. The Final/Parcel Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. (Engineering)
31. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUEs) located along public roadways. (Engineering)
32. The Final/Parcel Map shall be submitted per “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys.” A plot or print of the submittal shall accompany the electronic copy. The complete submittal shall occur after the Engineering Department approval but prior to City Council approval of the Final/Parcel Map. (Engineering)
33. *The cost of any facilities, which are identified in the Capital Improvement Program and are beyond those needed for this project, may be reimbursed to the developer. In accordance with §66485 and §66486 of the Subdivision Map Act, for any improvements constructed by the subdivider which contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the subdivision and which are to be dedicated to the public, the subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for that portion of the cost of the improvements which is in excess of the construction required for the subdivision. (Engineering)
34. Electric construction costs incurred by the City of Roseville Electric Department for this project shall be paid for by the developer per the applicable policy. (Electric)
35. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric)
36. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction.” (Electric)
37. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer, and which are explained in the City of Roseville “Specification for Commercial Construction.” These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)
38. Each building will be served by a 120/208V Three Phase service, the maximum panel size per building is listed below:
a) Building 1: 600 Amps
b) Building 2: 800 Amps
c) Building 3: 600 Amps
d) Building 4: 400 Amps
e) Building 5: 600 Amps
f) Building 6: 600 Amps
SVSP PCL JM-41 and WRSP PCL W-20 Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd; PL25-0496 Planning Commission – August 13, 2026 – Page 28 of 28
B:\Development Services\Planning Division\2026\PC\08.13\PL25-0496 Sierra View Shopping Center\PL25-0496, 01 Staff Report.docx g) Building 7: 1600 Amps
39. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)
OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
40. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change to existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric)
41. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstructions during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric)
42. Existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)
43. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, provided all construction equipment is fitted with factory installed muffling devices and is maintained in good working order, project construction noise is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday. (Engineering)
44. If site survey or earthmoving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor shall notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable or not and if site remediation is required. Non-emergency releases or notifications about the presence of containers found shall be reported to the Fire Department. (Fire) Attachments
1. Health Risk Assessment prepared by Raney Planning & Management, dated June 2026
2. Noise Study prepared by Saxelby Acoustics, dated June 23, 2026
3. Site Access Study Technical Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated June 4, 2026
4. Public Comment Letter, dated July 24, 2026
Exhibits
A. Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report B. Project Plans
C. Tentative Subdivision Map
D. Elevations and Perspectives
E. Project Description
F. Coffee Shack Mitigated Negative Declaration
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPEAL FORM
Name: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Address: ___________________________ City: _________________ Zip Code: ________ Phone Numbers: (work/day) _________________ (home/evening) ___________________ (cell ) _____________________ (email) __________________________________________ Please describe below the action for which this appeal is being filed. (You may attach a separate letter if enough space is not provided.)
Signed: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________________
PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. (Date Stamp Below)
Received by: ____________________________________
Project Being Appealed: ________________________________________________ File Number: __________________
Approving Body: _____________________________ Approval Date: _____________ Protect Roseville Neighbors, c/o Mark Wolfe,
M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC 8/23/2026
580 California St., Ste. 1200 San Francisco 94104
415-369-9400 x. 1
415-205-1479 [email protected]
August 13, 2026 action by Planning Commission approving Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel JM-41 & West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center, 1875 Pleasant Grove Bl, File # PL25-0496
The specific grounds for appeal are set forth in the attached correspondence from Protect Roseville Neighbors to the Planning Commission, submitted August 12, 2026. 8/23/2026
CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT
August 13, 2026
To: Roseville Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk, City of Roseville
Re: PL25-0496 – Sierra View Shopping Center (Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map)
I. Introduction
Protect Roseville Neighborhoods (“PRN”) submits these comments on the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center (PL25-0496). PRN is a coalition of residents living adjacent to and within the immediate impact area of the project, including homeowners and townhome residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and future residents of the Sierra Vista Apartments, which is currently under construction on the parcel immediately west and south of the project site.
PRN supports well-planned development in this corridor. However, based on PRN’s review of the staff report, the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“SVSP EIR”), the Site Access Study, the noise study, and the Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”), PRN has identified unresolved traffic, noise, and air quality issues, and land-use compatibility concerns with adjacent residential uses, that warrant further review before the Planning Commission approves this project. For the reasons below, PRN concludes that the City has not demonstrated that an Addendum to the SVSP EIR is the appropriate environmental document for this project, and that further CEQA review is warranted.
II. Summary of Requested Actions
PRN respectfully requests that the Planning Commission:
1. Decline to adopt the Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
2. Direct staff to prepare further environmental review — at minimum a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR — addressing the impacts and unanalyzed conditions identified below;
3. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the three drive-through restaurants and the 24-hour fuel station, on the current record;
4. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Design Review Permit, on the current record;
5. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map, on the current record; and
6. Hold the administrative record open to allow adequate public review of the CEQA documents and technical studies.
III. CEQA — The Addendum Is Not the Appropriate Environmental Document The staff report recommends that the Commission “consider the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.” PRN respectfully disagrees that an Addendum is legally sufficient for this project, for the following reasons.
A. Changed circumstances since the SVSP EIR (2010)
The SVSP EIR was certified in 2010. In the years since, the immediate project vicinity has changed substantially. Per the project record: the West Roseville Marketplace center directly across the intersection — anchored by a Safeway grocery store, an eight-pump fuel station, and a drive-through restaurant — is under construction; a CVS drugstore has been built on the intersection’s southeast corner; and the 192-unit Sierra Vista Apartments project is approved and under construction immediately adjacent to the site. In addition, published City Council records reflect that a Grocery Outlet grocery store at 1751 Pleasant Grove Boulevard — roughly a quarter mile from the project site — received Planning Commission approval in 2023 and a City Council parcel map approval in February 2026. PRN requests that staff confirm the current entitlement status and case number for that project and incorporate it into the record for purposes of the cumulative impact analysis below.
None of these approvals existed when the SVSP EIR was certified in 2010. PRN believes these represent substantial changes in circumstances under CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(2) that are not addressed in the Addendum’s discussion of changed conditions.
B. Impacts not evaluated in combination
The Addendum does not appear to evaluate, in combination: a second grocery store within roughly a quarter mile of the existing and approved grocery stores in the area; a second extended-hours fuel station within roughly a quarter mile of the existing Safeway fuel station; three additional drive-through restaurants sited directly adjacent to a 192-unit apartment project and a single-family neighborhood; and the cumulative traffic, noise, and air quality effects of this commercial intensification occurring concurrently with the buildout of adjacent residential parcels. PRN requests that staff confirm whether these combined impacts were analyzed and, if not, that a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR be prepared to do so.
C. The fair argument standard
Under CEQA, if substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR is required, notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record. PRN believes the traffic, noise, and air quality issues identified in Sections IV through VI below — several of which are drawn directly from the project’s own technical studies — constitute substantial evidence sufficient to trigger this standard.
IV. Traffic and Circulation
The Fehr & Peers Site Access Study (June 2026) (“Access Study”) identifies several unresolved issues that PRN believes warrant Commission attention before approval.
A. Driveway spacing does not meet the City’s design standard Per the City’s Design and Construction Standards, a driveway permitting a left turn into a six-lane roadway must be located at least 400 feet downstream of an intersection containing left-turn pockets. The Access Study confirms that Driveway 4, on Fiddyment Road, would be located 390 feet downstream — 10 feet short of the standard. (Access Study at 121.) The Access Study notes that relocating the driveway approximately 10 feet to the south would bring it into compliance, and recommends that the City and applicant discuss revising the site plan accordingly. (Id.) PRN requests that the Commission require this correction, or an equivalent fix, as a binding condition of approval rather than approve a site plan that does not meet the applicable design standard as submitted.
B. The project requires off-site roadway improvements not evaluated in the SVSP EIR To make the project’s driveways function, the Access Study recommends: a continuous bus turnout/deceleration lane on Fiddyment Road at Driveway 4 (id. at 122); a 300-foot northbound left-turn ingress lane at Driveway 4 (id.); a right-turn deceleration taper at Driveway 2 (id. at 123); and a right-turn deceleration lane at Driveway 3, extended to merge with the eastbound right-turn lane at the Fiddyment Road/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection (id.). These are off-site roadway modifications required to accommodate this specific commercial development. PRN is not aware of evidence that they were evaluated in the SVSP EIR’s traffic analysis and requests confirmation from staff on this point.
C. Driveway 2 has inadequate outbound queue storage
The Access Study’s own queuing analysis shows that Driveway 2’s available outbound storage is 65 feet, while the maximum expected outbound queue is 75 feet — the only driveway of the four where the projected queue exceeds available storage. (Id. at 124, Table 3.) The Access Study acknowledges that when three outbound vehicles are queued at Driveway 2, an inbound left-turning vehicle would be blocked, which could lead to following inbound vehicles queuing back onto Pleasant Grove Boulevard. (Id.) The Access Study recommends widening the driveway and re-striping the lanes as a fix. (Id.) PRN requests that this recommendation be adopted as a binding condition of approval, not merely a recommendation left to future discretion.
D. The drive-through queuing impact of three restaurants has not been analyzed The Access Study expressly states that it did not analyze vehicle storage requirements for the project’s three proposed drive-through restaurants because no specific users are known for those buildings. (Id. at 126.) In other words, the queuing impact of up to three simultaneous
drive-through operations — sited along the project’s roadway frontages, near residential uses — remains unanalyzed in the current record. PRN requests that the City require queue analysis based on reasonable worst-case operating assumptions before approval, rather than deferring this analysis until after tenants are identified.
E. Internal circulation issues identified by the project’s own traffic engineer The Access Study’s review of internal circulation identifies two unresolved issues. First, the two-way drive aisle behind Building 2 is straight and lacks traffic controls, such that speeding could occur; the current site plan appears to add speed bumps in response, but the Access Study does not confirm this resolves the concern. (Id. at 125.) Second, motorists entering from Driveway 4 who want to reach the fuel pumps must perform a reverse U-turn at the first internal intersection — a movement the Access Study says would likely be challenging for trucks and large SUVs, given the lack of a curb return radius and a receiving lane less than 15 feet wide when a vehicle is fueling. (Id.) The Access Study’s own recommendation — to redesign the southerly portion of the fuel station layout — does not appear to have been reflected in the site plan under review. (Id.) V. Noise
The noise study prepared by Saxelby Acoustics (June 23, 2026) models the project’s stationary noise sources — including the trash compactor, rooftop mechanical equipment, and drive-through speaker boxes — and concludes that predicted noise levels at all ten modeled receptors comply with the City’s absolute daytime and nighttime noise standards. (Noise Study, Table 11, at 101.) PRN does not dispute that finding on its face.
However, the noise study’s separate analysis of increases above existing ambient noise levels — which the City’s Municipal Code treats as a significant impact where the increase exceeds 3.0 dBA — expressly excludes Receivers R9 and R10, which represent the Sierra Vista Apartments, the residential use closest to the project’s grocery loading dock, trash compactor, and drive-through lanes. The tables carry the note that R9 and R10, representing the “approved but not constructed” apartments, “are not analyzed in this table.” (Id., Tables 12–13, at 102.) As a result, the incremental-increase analysis — arguably the more protective of the study’s two noise metrics — was not performed for the sensitive receptor located nearest to the project’s noisiest fixed sources.
PRN requests that this analysis be completed for R9 and R10 prior to approval.
VI. Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
The HRA prepared by Raney Planning & Management (June 2026) identifies the Sierra Vista Apartments, along with nearby single-family residences and Rex Fortune Elementary School, as sensitive receptors. (HRA at 44.) However, the HRA’s health risk modeling identifies the “nearest sensitive receptor” as a single-family residence approximately 500 feet from the proposed fuel station, outside CARB’s recommended 300-foot siting buffer. (Id. at 45.) The Sierra Vista Apartments, by contrast, are documented elsewhere in the project record as being as close as
approximately 134 feet from the grocery building and 267 feet from the loading dock and trash compactor — both substantially closer than the 500-foot distance used to identify the maximally exposed receptor. (Project Description at 5.) PRN requests that staff confirm whether the HRA’s dispersion modeling accounted for these shorter apartment distances and, if not, that the HRA be revised accordingly.
PRN further notes that the HRA does not appear to include a cumulative analysis of toxic air contaminant exposure from the existing Safeway fuel station in the adjacent West Roseville Marketplace, notwithstanding that both facilities would expose overlapping sensitive receptor populations. PRN requests that a cumulative TAC analysis be added to the record.
VII. Land Use Compatibility
The project site is bordered by the High Density Residential Sierra Vista Apartments to the west and south, and the Low Density Residential neighborhood on Parcel JM-2 farther south, with age-restricted residential across Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north. The General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and SVSP direct the City to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods and to require adequate buffering and compatible land-use transitions between commercial and residential uses. Given the unresolved traffic, noise, and queuing issues identified above — several of which involve uses (drive-throughs, a 24-hour fuel station, a loading dock and compactor) sited within roughly 150 to 270 feet of the adjacent apartments — PRN does not believe the current record supports a finding that the project achieves the buffering and compatibility called for in these policies.
VIII. Conditional Use Permit Findings
A Conditional Use Permit is required for the three drive-through restaurants and the fuel station because they are contiguous to residentially designated parcels. (RMC § 19.12.020.) The applicable findings require, among other things, that the use be compatible with surrounding uses and not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Given the unanalyzed drive-through queuing impact (Section IV.D), the Driveway 2 queue spillback issue (Section IV.C), and the noise analysis gap for the nearest apartment receptors (Section V), PRN does not believe the record currently supports these findings, and requests that the Commission decline to make them until the issues above are resolved.
IX. Design Review Permit Findings
For related reasons — the unresolved internal circulation issues identified by the project’s own traffic engineer (Section IV.E) and the driveway spacing non-compliance (Section IV.A) — PRN does not believe the record currently supports the findings required for the Design Review Permit, including consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and compatibility with adjacent uses.
X. Tentative Subdivision Map
The Tentative Subdivision Map would reconfigure the site’s twelve existing parcels into seven parcels, each sized to a building and its parking. Because the driveway spacing issue identified in Section IV.A and the Driveway 2 throat depth issue identified in Section IV.C are functions of this parcel and access configuration, PRN believes the map’s supporting findings should not be made until those access design issues are resolved, consistent with the Access Study’s own recommendations.
XI. Procedural Request — Hold the Record Open
PRN requests that the Commission hold the administrative record open following this hearing to allow adequate time for public review and comment on the technical studies referenced above, and to allow the specific access, noise, and air quality issues identified in this letter to be addressed in the record before final action is taken. If the staff report and supporting CEQA documents were posted only shortly before this hearing, PRN requests that the specific posting date be reflected in the record in support of this request.
XII. Requested Action
For the reasons above, PRN respectfully requests that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Decline to approve the Addendum and the associated entitlements (PL25-0496), and direct staff to prepare further CEQA review addressing the issues identified above; or, at minimum,
2. Continue the hearing and hold the record open to allow the traffic, noise, and air quality issues identified above to be resolved and incorporated into the record before final action.
XIII. Conclusion
PRN appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and the substantial work reflected in the applicant’s technical studies. PRN’s review of those studies, however, identified specific unresolved traffic, noise, and air quality issues — several drawn directly from the project’s own Access Study, noise study, and HRA — that PRN believes are not yet adequately addressed in the current record. PRN requests that this letter, and the technical citations herein, be included in the official administrative record for this application.
Respectfully submitted,
Protect Roseville Neighborhoods
[email protected]
Roseville, CA
916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Eric Singer, Associate Planner
Date: August 12, 2026
Re: Agenda Item # 6.1 – Sierra View Shopping Center – Response to Comments The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with updated information regarding public input on the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center project, File # PL25-0496. This includes a summary of neighbor letters and staff’s responses. Additionally, this memorandum includes a modified Condition of Approval for Condition #48, with further detail provided below.
Neighborhood Input
Since the publication of the staff report for the subject project on August 10, 2026, staff received four opposition letters to the proposed development, including one from Protect Roseville Neighborhoods (PRN). Three of the letters are from residents of Roseville (see Attachment 1) and one is from a group called Protect Roseville Neighborhoods (PRN). The letter from PRN presents concerns that address the specific CEQA analysis of the Addendum, including traffic and safety, noise, air quality, and cumulative impacts. A summary of the concerns presented by the letters is presented below, along with staff responses. More detailed responses to the comments on the Addendum can be found within the original PRN letter included as Attachment #2.
General Concerns
Traffic Concerns: The first general area of concern for surrounding residents is increased vehicle traffic to the project site, including increased congestion, wait times at adjacent intersections, and late-night truck activity like commercial deliveries.
The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) were designed to include a mix of homes, businesses, parks, open space, and some industrial areas. After nearly 20 years, most of West Roseville is built out and Sierra Vista is well underway, bringing more residents, workers, and visitors to the area as expected.
These plans accounted for that growth. The City uses the specific plan process to design an efficient road network, supported by the City’s long‑term Capital Improvement Program. Both plans included detailed traffic modeling to estimate future vehicle trips and plan the roads needed to handle them. This approach has consistently helped the City manage growth and keep the transportation system functioning effectively. The development of the proposed project site and the commercial sites referenced by the comment letters were all cumulatively considered as part of the Specific Plan analysis, and are consistent with the anticipated growth within the City’s General Plan and traffic demand model.
Additionally, the project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which allows the City to restrict the hours of operation and deliveries for the project. As part of the CUP, the City has restricted deliveries to the hours of 7am to 10pm.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 3
916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us Lighting Concerns: The second general area of concern is potential light pollution from the proposed development, including from parking lot lighting, buildings, and signage.
The City’s design guidelines require that project lighting does not spill onto neighboring properties. The City reviewed the lighting plan and Condition of Approval #59 limits light poles to 15 feet in height to ensure the avoidance of impacts on surrounding homes.
Public Safety Concerns: The third general area of concern is potential public-safety hazards, including the possibility of increased loitering, disturbances, vandalism, and other criminal activity associated with having a commercial area operating 24 hours a day.
The City’s Police Department works closely with businesses to ensure neighboring residents’ safety and security for businesses within a commercial center. In addition, the City recently established a new patrol area for West Roseville (Beat 5) which adds additional police resources to West Roseville 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Comments on the Addendum
The PRN letter states that an addendum to the SVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. The letter from Ms. Brown raises the same concerns in a summarized form, and therefore the staff responses to the PRN letter also address the concerns of the letter from Ms. Brown. The PRN letter states that due to the changed circumstances since adoption of the original SVSP EIR, the cumulative impacts of development since its adoption, and concerns with traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, and land use compatibility, the Planning Commission should decline to approve the Addendum and associated entitlements for the project.
Stephanie Brown’s letter also states similar concerns.
The foundation of many of the comments in the letter is the allegation that the impacts of cumulative development and land use compatibility has not been considered. As discussed in the Addendum for the proposed project, the SVSP EIR included detailed evaluations of plan buildout, which for the project site included a concept plan (SVSP Figure B-31) which anticipated 250,000 square feet of commercial development. Development of the project site, surrounding uses, and other commercial development referenced by these comment letters is consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR.
These projects do not represent changed circumstances; they effectuate the adopted SVSP.
Detailed staff responses for each topic-specific concern are included in Attachment 2, but a summary is provided below.
Noise: The comments indicate the apartment site should have been evaluated to determine whether existing people would be exposed to significant increases in ambient (existing) noise on that site. The noise analysis correctly applied the City’s thresholds of significance. Potential noise impacts to the underconstruction apartment complex were evaluated for compliance with the City’s compatibility-based noise thresholds. Separately, the City also has a noise standard that addresses whether existing residents will experience a significant (defined as more than 3 dB) increase in noise, compared to the environment they are currently experiencing. There are no existing residents at the under-construction apartment complex, so that noise standard does not apply to that site.
Air Quality: The comments indicate that the trash compactors and loading dock should have been considered in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA). The HRA was prepared consistent with the methodology required for these studies. Trash compactors and loading docks are not significant sources of toxic air contaminants that require study. The study focused on the gas station, as appropriate.
Access/Circulation: The recommendations of the transportation analysis were incorporated into the design of the site and into the Conditions of Approval. Furthermore, a sight distance analysis was
916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us performed for project driveways to confirm the safe functioning of the access design. The City’s Engineering and Fire Department staff confirmed the site plan was designed appropriately.
Condition of Approval #48
Staff is recommending modifying Condition of Approval #48 to make it clear that in addition to the reimbursement of oversized utility infrastructure, the project is also responsible for the reimbursement of roadways (including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape improvements) benefitting parcel JM-41. This revised language is consistent with the provisions of the SVSP Development Agreements, specifically the Mouier/Computer Deductions Development Agreement applicable to the project site. The modified Condition #48 reads as follows:
“Pursuant to the SVSP Development Agreements, prior to issuance of the first building permit, the developer of SVSP Parcel JM-41 shall pay a pro-rata share of the reimbursement owed to the developer of the adjoining West Roseville Specific Plan for past construction of oversized utilities (water, sewer, and recycled water) and roadways (including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape improvements) benefitting parcel JM-41 per exhibits “HH” and “GG” of the Mourier/Computer Deductions DA. Said pro-rata fees shall apply to all remaining large lot parcels in the SVSP and shall be paid to City for disbursement to the WRSP developer. Said fees applicable to high density residential and commercial parcels shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. Said fees applicable to low and medium density residential parcels shall be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering, Planning)” The applicant has received and agreed to the condition as amended.
Recommendation
Staff finds that the concerns presented by the letters have been adequately addressed by the project evaluation included in the staff report and Addendum, as described in this memorandum. The Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the neighborhood comments and staff evaluation and take the actions recommended in the staff report.
Attachment 1 – Letters from Stephanie Brown, Patti Catalano, and Mary Gale Attachment 2 – Protect Roseville Neighborhoods letter with detailed staff responses
From: Stephanie Brown
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Hocker, Lauren
Subject: Comment on PL25-0496 – Sierra View Shopping Center Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 7:53:14 PM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
My name is Stephanie Brown, and I live near the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center project. I am writing to share my concerns about several impacts this project may have on our neighborhood.
Because of how close I am to the site, I am especially worried about:
Traffic and safety: The Pleasant Grove/Fiddyment intersection is already heavily congested during peak hours. Adding a grocery store, a fuel station, and three drive-through restaurants will significantly increase traffic and turning movements. The City’s own access study shows that one of the driveways does not meet spacing standards and that queue spillback could occur onto Pleasant Grove. As a nearby resident/worker, this directly affects my daily travel and safety.
Noise: The project includes a loading dock, trash compactor, and multiple drive-through lanes located close to the new Sierra Vista Apartments and nearby homes. The noise study did not evaluate the increase in noise levels at the closest apartment buildings. This is concerning for anyone living nearby, especially during early morning deliveries or late-night operations.
Air quality: There will be a second fuel station within a short distance of homes and apartments. The health risk assessment did not appear to evaluate the closer apartment buildings as the nearest sensitive receptors, even though they are much closer than the singlefamily homes used in the analysis. As someone who lives/works near the site, I am concerned about exposure to emissions from two fuel stations and multiple drive-through lanes.
Cumulative impacts: With the Safeway center, CVS, the approved Grocery Outlet, and now this project, the area is experiencing a rapid increase in commercial intensity. I ask that the City fully evaluate how all of these projects together will affect traffic, noise, and air quality for the surrounding neighborhoods.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission not approve the project at this time and instead require additional environmental review to fully address these issues. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Brown
132 Laysan Teal Ct, Roseville, CA 95747
[email protected]
Attachment 1
From: Patti Catalano <[email protected]>
Date: August 10, 2026 at 4:10:53 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sierra View Shopping Center-objection
Please accept this email as our formal objection to the proposed plaza development.
We live in Del Webb Westpark, and our property backs up to Pleasant Grove Boulevard. We understood and accepted the traffic associated with Pleasant Grove when we purchased our home. However, what we did not anticipate was the extremely dense concentration of commercial development that has
occurred between Upland Drive and Fiddyment Road.
All summer, we have endured significant dust, dirt,
construction equipment noise, and constant truck traffic. Now, we are facing the prospect of enduring these conditions again next year, directly behind our homes.
With Safeway, Costco, and the new gas station already located on the south side of Baseline Road, is additional commercial development really necessary in this relatively small area? The proposed center will bring even more traffic, delivery trucks—including the possibility of late-night truck activity— additional lighting, noise, and increased air pollution directly into an area surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Our quality of life is already being affected, and this additional development will only intensify those impacts. Increased noise, light, and air pollution are particularly concerning, as is the potential impact that a high-traffic commercial center could have on surrounding property values.
We welcome Costco, Target, Home Depot, and other
commercial development along Baseline Road. However, we believe this particular center is unnecessary and poorly located at an already extremely busy intersection.
Traffic at this intersection is already a serious concern. Drivers regularly run red lights after becoming frustrated by long lines of traffic and having to wait through multiple signal cycles.
Adding another major commercial center will only increase congestion and create additional safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians.
We also sincerely hope that the mature trees lining the south side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard will not be impacted,
removed, or compromised to accommodate access or egress driveways associated with this development. Those trees provide an important buffer between the roadway and
surrounding neighborhoods and should be preserved.
I sincerely question whether residents’ voices truly matter when it comes to development decisions in Roseville. The significant neighborhood opposition to the Grocery Outlet location did not appear to change the City’s decision, despite the concerns raised by residents.
Nevertheless, we feel obligated to make our concerns known and formally object to this proposed development. We
respectfully ask the City to reconsider whether another commercial center is appropriate or necessary for this already heavily developed and congested area, and to carefully
consider the impact this project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the concerns of the residents who will be most directly affected by this project.
David and Patti Catalano
2128 Benton Loop
Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Mayor, and
Members of the Roseville City Council:
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center (PL25-0496) at Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
I have been a resident of The Club at WestPark, a 55-and-older active adult community of single-family homes, since 2014. Our neighborhood is bounded by Fiddyment Road, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and Village Green Drive. We chose this community because of its residential character, quality of life, and peaceful enjoyment of our homes.
The proposed Sierra View development threatens those qualities.
Our neighborhood is already experiencing extreme traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, and increased nighttime activity from the commercial development that has occurred around us.
The shopping center across Pleasant Grove, anchored by
Safeway, has already brought substantial traffic and noise to the area. The newly opened Costco center has added another major source of traffic and activity.
There is already a gas station directly across the intersection from the proposed Sierra View site. Adding another fuel station, multiple drive-through restaurants, additional retail, and a grocery store to this already heavily commercialized intersection would substantially intensify the problems surrounding residents are already experiencing.
From: mary gale <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2026 1:49 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: mary gale <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to SVSP PCL JM-41 – Sierra View Shopping Center, File PL25-049
● Traffic, with thousands of additional vehicle trips affecting surrounding roads and residential streets.
● Noise, including drive-through activity, customer traffic, deliveries, trash collection, and nighttime operations. ● Air pollution from increased vehicle traffic and idling vehicles. ● Light pollution from parking lots, buildings, signage, security lighting, and nighttime operations.
● Commercial deliveries and activity immediately adjacent to established residential neighborhoods.
● Potential public-safety concerns, including the possibility of increased loitering, disturbances, vandalism, and other criminal activity associated with having a commercial area operating 24 hours a day. A continuously operating location with fuel, food, parking, and multiple drive-through businesses can become a gathering place during overnight hours for individuals or groups, including potentially organized groups or gangs. The City should carefully evaluate this potential impact on the surrounding residential community before approving the project.
Our residential streets should not be transformed into a 24-houra-day traffic conveyor belt and expressway serving an everexpanding commercial district.
Our Mello-Roos contribution:
Residents of West Roseville continually pay the substantial surcharge toward the infrastructure and public facilities associated with the development of this area through Mello-Roos Community Facilities District taxes.
Residents have therefore already made a significant financial contribution that makes continued development of West
Roseville possible. That development cannot be endless if West Roseville is to continue to be a highly desirable residential
destination.
We understand that paying Mello-Roos does not give residents a right to prevent future development. However, it is reasonable to expect the City to consider the cumulative burden that continued development places on the residents who are already paying for and living with the consequences of that growth.
We should not be expected to accept an ever-increasing level of commercial traffic, noise, pollution, nighttime activity, and potential public-safety concerns simply because additional development is possible.
Please scale down this project
I respectfully ask the City not only to consider denying the project as currently proposed, but, if the City determines that some development of this property is appropriate, to require that the project be substantially scaled down.
The current proposal—with a grocery store, multiple drivethrough restaurants, a new fuel station, retail buildings, extensive parking, deliveries, and potentially 24-hour activity—is simply too intensive for this location next to established residential neighborhoods.
A smaller, less intensive development with significantly less traffic and fewer late-night uses would be far more compatible with the surrounding community.
Meaningful notice to affected residents
I understand that the City’s formal public-hearing notification requirement may be limited to property owners within 300 feet of a proposed development. However, the effects of Sierra View will extend far beyond an arbitrary 300-foot boundary.
Residents and Home Owners throughout The Club at WestPark will experience the increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and light
pollution generated by this development. Every resident who will be affected should have been given meaningful notice and an opportunity to understand and comment on a project of this magnitude.
While the City may be complying with the minimum legal
notification requirement, limiting notice to a 300-foot radius does not adequately serve the broader residential community that will experience the consequences of this project.
As residents and taxpayers who contribute substantially to the City of Roseville, we deserve transparency and meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that directly affect our homes and quality of life.
I therefore respectfully request that the City:
1. Reject the Sierra View Shopping Center as currently
proposed;
2. If development is permitted, substantially scale down the project and reduce its traffic-generating and late-night uses;
3. Conduct a thorough evaluation of the cumulative traffic, noise, air-quality, light-pollution, and public-safety impacts of Sierra View together with the existing Safeway center, existing gas station, Costco development, and other surrounding commercial development;
4. Give surrounding residents timely notice of all future public meetings, hearings, significant project revisions, and decisions concerning PL25-0496, even when residents fall outside the City’s minimum 300-foot notification radius; and
5. Ensure that residents have a meaningful opportunity to provide public comment before any final approval is granted.
This is not simply a question of adding another shopping center.
It is a question of how much additional commercial development
an established residential community can reasonably absorb without sacrificing its quality of life.
I ask the Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council to remember that behind the traffic counts, development plans, and zoning maps are people who have lived here for years, paid their taxes, invested in their homes, and contributed to the community.
Please do not sacrifice the peaceful use and enjoyment of our homes—and potentially our property values—for an
unnecessarily intensive commercial development when a more appropriately scaled project could serve the community without imposing such severe impacts on surrounding residents.
Please enter this letter into the public record for Sierra View Shopping Center, PL25-0496.
Sincerely,
Mary Gale
2112 Coryton Lane
Resident and Home Owner, The Club at WestPark
Roseville, California 95747
ATTACHMENT 2
Letter from Protect Roseville Neighborhoods
Staff responses to specific points raised in the letter below have been included in italicized, Arial font text after each specific point and are preceded by “Staff response:”.
Letter Sections I and II are introductory or are summarizations of more detailed points which follow later in the letter. Reviewers should refer to the more detailed staff responses beginning in Letter Section III.
August 13, 2026
To: Roseville Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk, City of Roseville
Re: PL25-0496 – Sierra View Shopping Center (Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map)
I. Introduction
Protect Roseville Neighborhoods (“PRN”) submits these comments on the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center (PL25-0496). PRN is a coalition of residents living adjacent to and within the immediate impact area of the project, including homeowners and townhome residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and future residents of the Sierra Vista Apartments, which is currently under construction on the parcel immediately west and south of the project site.
PRN supports well-planned development in this corridor. However, based on PRN’s review of the staff report, the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“SVSP EIR”), the Site Access Study, the noise study, and the Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”), PRN has identified unresolved traffic, noise, and air quality issues, and land-use compatibility concerns with adjacent residential uses, that warrant further review before the Planning Commission approves this project. For the reasons below, PRN concludes that the City has not demonstrated that an Addendum to the SVSP EIR is the appropriate environmental document for this project, and that further CEQA review is warranted.
II. Summary of Requested Actions
PRN respectfully requests that the Planning Commission:
1. Decline to adopt the Addendum to the SVSP EIR;
2. Direct staff to prepare further environmental review — at minimum a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR — addressing the impacts and unanalyzed conditions identified below;
3. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the three drive-through restaurants and the 24-hour fuel station, on the current record;
4. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Design Review Permit, on the
current record;
5. Decline to make the findings necessary to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map, on the current record; and
6. Hold the administrative record open to allow adequate public review of the CEQA documents and technical studies.
III. CEQA — The Addendum Is Not the Appropriate Environmental Document The staff report recommends that the Commission “consider the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.” PRN respectfully disagrees that an Addendum is legally sufficient for this project, for the following reasons.
A. Changed circumstances since the SVSP EIR (2010)
The SVSP EIR was certified in 2010. In the years since, the immediate project vicinity has changed substantially. Per the project record: the West Roseville Marketplace center directly across the intersection — anchored by a Safeway grocery store, an eight-pump fuel station, and a drivethrough restaurant — is under construction; a CVS drugstore has been built on the intersection’s southeast corner; and the 192-unit Sierra Vista Apartments project is approved and under construction immediately adjacent to the site. In addition, published City Council records reflect that a Grocery Outlet grocery store at 1751 Pleasant Grove Boulevard — roughly a quarter mile from the project site — received Planning Commission approval in 2023 and a City Council parcel map approval in February 2026. PRN requests that staff confirm the current entitlement status and case number for that project and incorporate it into the record for purposes of the cumulative impact analysis below.
None of these approvals existed when the SVSP EIR was certified in 2010. PRN believes these represent substantial changes in circumstances under CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(2) that are not addressed in the Addendum’s discussion of changed conditions.
Staff Response: This comment is incorrect. As discussed in the Addendum for the proposed project, the SVSP EIR included detailed evaluations of plan buildout, which for the project site included a concept plan (SVSP Figure B-31) which anticipated 250,000 square feet of commercial development. All of the development described in this comment is consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR; these projects do not change the development assumptions or conditions, they effectuate the adopted SVSP.
B. Impacts not evaluated in combination
The Addendum does not appear to evaluate, in combination: a second grocery store within roughly a quarter mile of the existing and approved grocery stores in the area; a second extended-hours fuel station within roughly a quarter mile of the existing Safeway fuel station; three additional drive-through restaurants sited directly adjacent to a 192-unit apartment project and a single-family
neighborhood; and the cumulative traffic, noise, and air quality effects of this commercial intensification occurring concurrently with the buildout of adjacent residential parcels. PRN requests that staff confirm whether these combined impacts were analyzed and, if not, that a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR be prepared to do so.
Staff Response: As described in the response to the previous comment, the cumulative impact of development within the SVSP was analyzed within the SVSP EIR. This project, and all of the other projects listed by this comment, have been evaluated and found to be consistent with the development assumptions and described impacts of the SVSP EIR. The ongoing buildout and effectuation of an adopted Specific Plan does not, in and of itself, require a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section, none of the conditions requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred, and this comment is conclusory and fails to provide any evidence to the contrary.
C. The fair argument standard
Under CEQA, if substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR isrequired, notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record. PRN believes the traffic, noise, and air quality issues identified in Sections IV through VI below — several of which are drawn directly from the project’s own technicalstudies — constitute substantial evidence sufficient to trigger this standard.
Staff Response: See responses to the more detailed/specific comments below.
IV. Traffic and Circulation
The Fehr & Peers Site Access Study (June 2026) (“Access Study”) identifies several unresolved issues that PRN believes warrant Commission attention before approval.
A. Driveway spacing does not meet the City’s design standard Per the City’s Design and Construction Standards, a driveway permitting a left turn into a six-lane roadway must be located at least 400 feet downstream of an intersection containing left-turn pockets. The Access Study confirms that Driveway 4, on Fiddyment Road, would be located 390 feet downstream — 10 feet short of the standard. (Access Study at 121.) The Access Study notes that relocating the driveway approximately 10 feet to the south would bring it into compliance, and recommends that the City and applicant discuss revising the site plan accordingly. (Id.) PRN requests that the Commission require this correction, or an equivalent fix, as a binding condition of approval rather than approve a site plan that does not meet the applicable design standard as submitted.
Staff Response: The project is conditioned to incorporate all the site plan recommendations from the Fehr & Peers Site Access Study (COA #25) and conditioned
for improvements along Fiddyment Road (COA #28 & #29). Due to potential conflicts with the existing power tower located to the south of the proposed Fiddyment Road driveway, the plans show the driveway at 390 feet. Understanding that physical constraints may limit the ability to achieve the 400-foot distance for the driveway, the traffic study included a sight visibility analysis to ensure that vehicles turning left have the ability to safely make this movement. The study performs this analysis at the 390- foot driveway location and found that the left turn pocket has adequate sight visibility to safely make the left turn movement. The City Engineer has concluded that the access design is adequate and will function safely.
B. The project requires off-site roadway improvements not evaluated in the SVSP EIR To make the project’s driveways function, the Access Study recommends: a continuous bus turnout/deceleration lane on Fiddyment Road at Driveway 4 (id. at 122); a 300-foot northbound left-turn ingress lane at Driveway 4 (id.); a right-turn deceleration taper at Driveway 2 (id. at 123); and a right-turn deceleration lane at Driveway 3, extended to merge with the eastbound right-turn lane at the Fiddyment Road/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection (id.). These are off-site roadway modifications required to accommodate this specific commercial development. PRN is not aware of evidence that they were evaluated in the SVSP EIR’s traffic analysis and requests confirmation from staff on this point.
Staff Response: The recommendations of the Access Study are typical project-specific, minor modifications to achieve site access to a currently-undeveloped site. All of the improvements will occur within the existing right-of-way or within the boundaries of the project site and will have no impacts on the number, width, or design of the travel lanes.
The SVSP EIR evaluated the full buildout and utilization of the right-of-way of all proposed roadways, and thus these improvements remain consistent with the SVSP EIR.
C. Driveway 2 has inadequate outbound queue storage
The Access Study’s own queuing analysis shows that Driveway 2’s available outbound storage is 65 feet, while the maximum expected outbound queue is 75 feet — the only driveway of the four where the projected queue exceeds available storage. (Id. at 124, Table 3.) The Access Study acknowledges that when three outbound vehicles are queued at Driveway 2, an inbound leftturning vehicle would be blocked, which could lead to following inbound vehicles queuing back onto Pleasant Grove Boulevard. (Id.) The Access Study recommends widening the driveway and re-striping the lanes as a fix. (Id.) PRN requests that this recommendation be adopted as a binding condition of approval, not merely a recommendation left to future discretion.
Staff Response: The project is conditioned to incorporate all the site plan recommendations from the Fehr & Peers Site Access Study (COA #25), which includes a 38-foot-wide driveway at Driveway 2 (COA #26). City standard driveway widths are 35
feet wide, so this driveway will include an additional 3 feet per the recommendations of the Access Study. The City’s standard process for the review and approval of Improvement Plans will ensure the project conditions are met. The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations of the Access Study and the City Engineer has concluded that the access design is adequate and will function safely.
D. The drive-through queuing impact of three restaurants has not been analyzed The Access Study expressly states that it did not analyze vehicle storage requirements for the project’s three proposed drive-through restaurants because no specific users are known for those buildings. (Id. at 126.) In other words, the queuing impact of up to three simultaneous drivethrough operations — sited along the project’s roadway frontages, near residential uses — remains unanalyzed in the current record. PRN requests that the City require queue analysis based on reasonable worst-case operating assumptions before approval, rather than deferring this analysis until after tenants are identified.
Staff Response: All three drive-through’s meet the City’s design standard for queue lengths, and thus a queuing analysis was not required.
E. Internal circulation issues identified by the project’s own traffic engineer The Access Study’s review of internal circulation identifies two unresolved issues. First, the twoway drive aisle behind Building 2 is straight and lacks traffic controls, such that speeding could occur; the current site plan appears to add speed bumps in response, but the Access Study does not confirm this resolves the concern. (Id. at 125.) Second, motorists entering from Driveway 4 who want to reach the fuel pumps must perform a reverse U-turn at the first internal intersection — a movement the Access Study says would likely be challenging for trucks and large SUVs, given the lack of a curb return radius and a receiving lane less than 15 feet wide when a vehicle is fueling. (Id.) The Access Study’s own recommendation — to redesign the southerly portion of the fuel station layout — does not appear to have been reflected in the site plan under review. (Id.) Staff Response: Contrary to this comment, the Access Study (page 7) specifically states that speed bumps had been previously recommended and were incorporated into the site plan to address this concern.
The Access Study states the issue of the turning movement related to the fuel pumps as described by this comment: the movement would be “challenging.” The recommendation of the Access Study also specifically states that a redesign to make this easier would “better accommodate” traffic. This is not a design issue related to safety or hazards. Furthermore, vehicles entering the site from Driveway 4 also have two locations where they can access the fuel pumps: the one nearest the driveway that is more challenging, and the location at the northern side of the fuel station, which is a standard turning movement. The City Engineer has concluded that the access design is
adequate and will function safely.
V. Noise
The noise study prepared by Saxelby Acoustics (June 23, 2026) models the project’s stationary noise sources — including the trash compactor, rooftop mechanical equipment, and drive-through speaker boxes — and concludes that predicted noise levels at all ten modeled receptors comply with the City’s absolute daytime and nighttime noise standards. (Noise Study, Table 11, at 101.) PRN does not dispute that finding on its face.
However, the noise study’s separate analysis of increases above existing ambient noise levels — which the City’s Municipal Code treats as a significant impact where the increase exceeds 3.0 dBA — expressly excludes Receivers R9 and R10, which represent the Sierra Vista Apartments, the residential use closest to the project’s grocery loading dock, trash compactor, and drive-through lanes. The tables carry the note that R9 and R10, representing the “approved but not constructed” apartments, “are not analyzed in this table.” (Id., Tables 12–13, at 102.) As a result, the incremental-increase analysis — arguably the more protective of the study’s two noise metrics— was not performed for the sensitive receptor located nearest to the project’s noisiest fixed sources.
PRN requests that this analysis be completed for R9 and R10 prior to approval.
Staff Response: This comment misunderstands the application of the City’s thresholds for increases in ambient noise experience by existing people (existing receptors). As discussed in the noise study (see page 5), a 3 dB increase in ambient noise is the threshold at which a change in noise becomes perceptible to existing people experiencing the ambient noise environment. However, there are no existing people at locations R9 and R10. There is an apartment project under construction, and the noise study appropriately evaluated this site for compliance with noise thresholds adopted for the purpose of establishing land use compatibility (see noise study Table 11). However, the threshold for increases in ambient noise applies not to future land use compatibility, but to existing people experiencing increases in the noise environment. Since there are no existing sensitive receptors this threshold does not apply. The footnote to noise study Tables 12 and 13, which address ambient noise, include this explanation.
It is also worth noting that the largest predicted increase in ambient noise at any of the existing sensitive receptor locations – which are all close by – is still less than 1 dB.
Though not explicitly included in Tables 12 and 13 (which report ambient noise increases), given the data provided in the noise analysis on ambient noise and on predicted noise in Figure 3 and Tables 2 and 11, plus the 6-foot masonry wall that will separate locations R9 and R10 from the site, the evidence does not support a conclusion that these locations would experience an increase in ambient noise exceeding 3 dB.
VI. Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
The HRA prepared by Raney Planning & Management (June 2026) identifies the Sierra Vista
Apartments, along with nearby single-family residences and Rex Fortune Elementary School, as sensitive receptors. (HRA at 44.) However, the HRA’s health risk modeling identifies the “nearest sensitive receptor” as a single-family residence approximately 500 feet from the proposed fuel station, outside CARB’s recommended 300-foot siting buffer. (Id. at 45.) The Sierra Vista Apartments, by contrast, are documented elsewhere in the project record as being as close as approximately 134 feet from the grocery building and 267 feet from the loading dock and trash compactor — both substantially closer than the 500-foot distance used to identify the maximally exposed receptor. (Project Description at 5.) PRN requests that staff confirm whether the HRA’s dispersion modeling accounted for these shorter apartment distances and, if not, that the HRA be revised accordingly.
PRN further notes that the HRA does not appear to include a cumulative analysis of toxic air contaminant exposure from the existing Safeway fuel station in the adjacent West Roseville Marketplace, notwithstanding that both facilities would expose overlapping sensitive receptor populations. PRN requests that a cumulative TAC analysis be added to the record.
Staff Response: Neither CARB nor the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) identify grocery store docks or trash compactors as significant sources of TAC; of the uses proposed on the site, only the gas station is a potential source of significant TAC that requires preparation of an HRA. The HRA was prepared using the methodology required by CARB and PCAPCD. In addition, the gas station will require a Permit to Operate from PCAPCD, and this permit requires the submission of an HRA that is reviewed and approved by PCAPCD staff. The HRA and the Addendum have adequately and appropriately addressed potential impacts related to TAC.
VII. Land Use Compatibility
The project site is bordered by the High Density Residential Sierra Vista Apartments to the west and south, and the Low Density Residential neighborhood on Parcel JM-2 farther south, with age-restricted residential across Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north. The General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and SVSP direct the City to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods and to require adequate buffering and compatible land-use transitions between commercial and residential uses. Given the unresolved traffic, noise, and queuing issues identified above — several of which involve uses (drive-throughs, a 24-hour fuel station, a loading dock and compactor) sited within roughly 150 to 270 feet of the adjacent apartments — PRN does not believe the current record supports a finding that the project achieves the buffering and compatibility called for in these policies.
Staff Response: Refer to responses to the traffic, noise, and queuing comments above.
None of these issues are unresolved. Furthermore, this comment implies that these adjacent land uses are inherently incompatible – or at least, that their compatibility has not been studies. This is incorrect. The site, the adjacent apartment site, and the adjacent single-family residential uses have been designated for commercial uses, high
density residential uses, and low density residential uses since the original approval of the SVSP. The residences, apartments, and the proposed project all effectuate the original SVSP as approved. The SVSP EIR evaluated the impacts of all of these land uses located next to one another, and the Addendum demonstrates that project-level studies still conclude that impacts remain within the scope of the SVSP EIR.
VIII. Conditional Use Permit Findings
A Conditional Use Permit is required for the three drive-through restaurants and the fuel station because they are contiguous to residentially designated parcels. (RMC § 19.12.020.) The applicable findings require, among other things, that the use be compatible with surrounding uses and not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Given the unanalyzed drive-through queuing impact (Section IV.D), the Driveway 2 queue spillback issue (Section IV.C), and the noise analysis gap for the nearest apartment receptors (Section V), PRN does not believe the record currently supports these findings, and requests that the Commission decline to make them until the issues above are resolved.
Staff Response: See the response to the comments in Section IV (Traffic and Circulation).
IX. Design Review Permit Findings
For related reasons — the unresolved internal circulation issues identified by the project’s own traffic engineer (Section IV.E) and the driveway spacing non-compliance (Section IV.A) — PRN does not believe the record currently supports the findings required for the Design Review Permit, including consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and compatibility with adjacent uses.
Staff Response: See the response to the comments in Section IV (Traffic and Circulation).
X. Tentative Subdivision Map
The Tentative Subdivision Map would reconfigure the site’s twelve existing parcels into seven parcels, each sized to a building and its parking. Because the driveway spacing issue identified in Section IV.A and the Driveway 2 throat depth issue identified in Section IV.C are functions of this parcel and access configuration, PRN believes the map’s supporting findings should not be made until those access design issues are resolved, consistent with the Access Study’s own recommendations.
Staff Response: See the response to the comments in Section IV (Traffic and Circulation).
XI. Procedural Request — Hold the Record Open
PRN requests that the Commission hold the administrative record open following this hearing to allow adequate time for public review and comment on the technical studies referenced above, and to allow the specific access, noise, and air quality issues identified in this letter to be addressed in the record before final action is taken. If the staff report and supporting CEQA documents were posted only shortly before this hearing, PRN requests that the specific posting date be reflected in the record in support of this request.
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff has concluded the evaluation of the project is adequate and recommends Commission take action on the project as recommended in the staff report.
XII. Requested Action
For the reasons above, PRN respectfully requests that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Decline to approve the Addendum and the associated entitlements (PL25-0496), and direct staff to prepare further CEQA review addressing the issues identified above; or, at minimum,
2. Continue the hearing and hold the record open to allow the traffic, noise, and air quality issues identified above to be resolved and incorporated into the record before final action.
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff has concluded the evaluation of the project is adequate and recommends Commission take action on the project as recommended in the staff report.
XIII. Conclusion
PRN appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and the substantial work reflected in the applicant’s technical studies. PRN’s review of those studies, however, identified specific unresolved traffic, noise, and air quality issues — several drawn directly from the project’s own Access Study, noise study, and HRA — that PRN believes are not yet adequately addressed in the current record. PRN requests that this letter, and the technical citations herein, be included in the official administrative record for this application.
Respectfully submitted,
Protect Roseville Neighborhoods
[email protected]
Roseville, CA
August 12, 2026
Via Email Only
Roseville Planning Commission
City Clerk, City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Roseville Planning Commission, Aug. 13, 2026 – Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map for Sierra View Shopping Center at 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd. (PL25-0496)
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners:
We submit these comments on behalf of Warberg Partners, Inc., the applicant for the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center (“Project”) located at 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard (PL25-0496) in response to the comment letter submitted by Protect Roseville Neighborhoods (“PRN”) on August 11, 2026 (“PRN Letter”) to explain and reiterate why the Planning Commission’s consideration of an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (“SVSP”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is appropriate under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 211000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”]) to support approval of the Project entitlements.
As more fully detailed below, contrary to PRN’s comments, substantial evidence indicates that the Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the SVSP EIR. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21166.) Moreover, neither PRN nor others have identified any evidence to the contrary. For these reasons, we urge the Commission to proceed with Staff’s recommendation to adopt the Addendum to the SVSP EIR, along with the findings of fact and conditions of approval in support of the Project’s Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”), Design Review Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map.
Christina L. Berglund
[email protected]
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 2
I. CEQA’s Subsequent Environmental Review Standard (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162)
Once an EIR has been certified for a project, as is the case here, CEQA prohibits preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR absent one of the following statutorily prescribed circumstances triggering further environmental review:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed to the project that require major revisions to the EIR due to “new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects”; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that require major revisions to the EIR due to “new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects”; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows that one or more significant impacts not discussed in the prior EIR will occur or “significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162; Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.) If none of these circumstances exists, but for minor changes or additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, the “lead agency … shall prepare an addendum.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, italics added.)
These limitations reflect the Legislature’s effort “to balance CEQA’s central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency.” (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949 (“San Mateo Gardens I”).) “‘The purpose behind the requirement of a subsequent or supplemental EIR...is to explore environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document…a change in a project is not an occasion to revisit environmental concerns laid to rest in the original analysis. Only changed circumstances...are at issue.’” (Id., pp. 949–950, italics added, citation omitted.)
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 3
Consequently, where the agency is reviewing a project for which an initial EIR has already been prepared, Public Resources Code, section 21166, provides a “statutory presumption against additional environmental review.” (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924, 934, italics added; see Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073– 1074 [“section 21166 indicates a quite different intent, namely, to restrict the powers of agencies by prohibiting them from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report unless the stated conditions are met”].) The “addendum process fills a gap in CEQA for projects with a previously certified EIR requiring revisions that do not warrant the preparation of subsequent EIRs.” (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 667.) Addenda are thus appropriate “for minor technical changes or additions to a project that do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.” (IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 119; see Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435 [“When there are changes in a project after the certification of a[n] [EIR], the agency can prepare an Addendum to the [EIR] if the changes do not substantially modify the analysis in the original report. The Addendum is acceptable, rather than a new or Supplemental EIR, when there are only minor technical changes or additions which do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment” (citation omitted)].) Nor does every increase in any environmental effect require a subsequent EIR. Even where a project change could otherwise substantially increase the severity of an impact, an addendum remains appropriate if mitigation reduces the impact to a less-than-significant level. (See River Valley Preservation Project v.
Metropolitan Transit Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168.) Put differently, an applicant’s agreement to adopt additional mitigation measures preserves the project’s eligibility for an addendum. (See, e.g., Citizens Against Airport Pollution v.
City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 809–811 (CAAP) [upholding addendum that included additional mitigation measures to offset habitat loss]; Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v City & County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, 802 [rejecting claim that project changes resulted in significant impacts, as changes to project had mitigated those impacts].)
The law is crystal clear that mere controversy over a proposed project is not enough to require a private project applicant to bear the expense of an EIR.
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 4
(Bowman, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1080–1081.) Actual substantial evidence of a potentially significant environmental effect is required. “The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of [a subsequent or supplemental EIR] if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project” would have new or substantially more severe significant effects than previously analyzed. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (b), italics added.)
II. Analysis and Responses to PRN Letter
Substantial evidence supports the City’s use of and reliance on the Addendum to the SVSP EIR because none of the circumstances triggering subsequent or supplemental environmental review exist here. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15164; see Aug. 13, 2026 Staff Report [Staff Report], Exh. A [Addendum].)
A. The Substantial Evidence Standard Governs.
PRN incorrectly contends the fair argument standard applies to the City’s determination regarding whether a supplemental/subsequent EIR is required. (PRN Letter, p. 2.) The substantial evidence standard governs: (i) the City’s determination that supplemental environmental review is not required; and (ii) the City’s decision to prepare, use, and rely on the Addendum. (See San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 957–959; Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 610 (“CREED”) [“the fair argument standard does not apply to judicial review of an agency’s determination that a project is within the scope of a previously completed EIR”].)
Under this standard, the City’s decision to rely on the Addendum must be upheld so long as its determination that the Project will not have additional or more severe environmental impacts is supported by substantial evidence, even if there is evidence to the contrary. (CAAP, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at pp. 797–798, 804 [when “an agency has already prepared an EIR, its decision not to prepare [a] [supplemental/subsequent] EIR for a later project is reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard”]; Bowman, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 1081 [“The question, however, is not whether an addendum was authorized but whether a supplemental EIR was required”]; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).)
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 5
The City’s reliance on the SVSP EIR also warrants deference. In particular, there is a deferential presumption that the City has already conducted in-depth environmental review and imposed sufficiently stringent mitigation requirements, such that little benefit would result from a second—expensive and timeconsuming—round of review. (See San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 949–950; see also CAAP, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at pp. 797–798, 805 [“This deferential standard is a reflection of the fact that in-depth review has already occurred. . . .[A]fter a project has been subjected to environmental review, the statutory presumption flips in favor of the developer and against further review”]; CREED, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 611 [same].)
In addition to the deference owed to the City’s decision, the operative provisions of CEQA and its Guidelines make the use of an addendum mandatory when neither changes to the proposed Project nor changed circumstances result in new or substantially more severe significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (a), italics added [“The lead agency… shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions” triggering supplemental/subsequent review have occurred]; see Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 604–606 (“San Mateo Gardens II”) [if the original environmental document retains some informational value such that no subsequent EIR is required, the agency shall determine whether to prepare an addendum or other appropriate document].) Substantial evidence supports the City’s decision to proceed with preparing an Addendum for the Project because there are no changed circumstances or evidence that the Project may have substantially more significant unmitigated impacts.
B. No Changed Circumstances Have Occurred Since the City Certified the SVSP EIR in 2010.
There have been no changed circumstances since the City prepared and certified the SVSP EIR in 2010. (Cf., PRN Letter, p. 2.) The SVSP EIR analyzed the development of the entire SVSP area, which includes 2,064 acres slated for a mixture of uses. Among those, the SVSP designates parcel JM-41—on which the Project will be developed—for “Community Commercial” land uses, including largeformat commercial uses, such as a 250,000-square-foot commercial development. (SVSP, Fig. B-31; Addendum, pp. 3–4.) The Project’s proposed commercial shopping center, which will feature approximately 58,210 square feet of retail and restaurant
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 6
uses, falls squarely within the scope of the SVSP’s contemplated development scheme. (Staff Report, p. 2; Addendum, pp. 6–7.)
The City also accounted for buildout of sites adjacent to the Project. For instance, the City approved the North Roseville Specific Plan (“NRSP”) and related EIR in 1997, which analyzed impacts associated with forecasted development of residential, commercial, open space, parks, and public facility uses on 3,162 neighboring acres. (Addendum, p. 4.) Among those anticipated uses is the Grocery Outlet store at 1751 Pleasant Grove Road, which the City approved and deemed categorically exempt from CEQA as an “urban infill” development in 2023. (Cf. PRN Letter, p. 2.)
Taken together, all ongoing development surrounding the Project site, along with all development proposed by the Project itself, was contemplated by the SVSP and thus analyzed in and mitigated for in the corresponding SVSP EIR. Contrary to PRN’s urging, these developments do not change existing or future development conditions and assumptions; rather, they facilitate the precise development scheme that the City envisioned when it adopted the SVSP in 2010. For these reasons, substantial evidence supports the City’s decision to rely on an Addendum for the Project because there are no “changed circumstances” that would warrant the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.) C. The SVSP EIR Analyzed Cumulative Impacts of Anticipated Development in the Plan Area, Including the Project Site.
PRN also wrongly claims that the Addendum fails to evaluate the cumulative impacts associated with the Project’s proposed grocery store, fueling station, and drive-through restaurants, given their proximity to other analogous uses. (PRN Letter, p. 2.) But the SVSP EIR previously evaluated the cumulative effects of the proposed development’s type and intensity. The SVSP contemplated a mix of commercial, residential, and mixed uses within the plan area and evaluated that development together with reasonably foreseeable development in surrounding areas. (See Addendum, pp. 5, 8.) To account for this, the SVSP EIR evaluated cumulative impacts associated with development in neighboring plan areas, such as the NRSP, West Roseville Specific Plan, the Downtown, the Riverside, the Creekview, the Placer Ranch, the Regional University, the Riolo Vineyards, the Curry Creek, the Sutter Pointe, and the Elverta Specific Plans. (See generally SVSP
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 7
EIR, § 5.7, pp. 5-9–5-176 [Cumulative Impacts]; see, e.g., SVSP EIR, pp. 5-6, 5-10–5-
18.)
The SVSP EIR assumed that approximately 2,226.80 thousand square feet of commercial uses, 6,053 single-family dwelling units (DUs), and 2,816 multifamily DUs could be built out within the entire SVSP. (SVSP EIR, p. 5-11 [Table 5.7-1].) Based on those buildout assumptions, the SVSP EIR analyzed the cumulative traffic, noise, and air quality effects associated with concurrent buildout of these commercial and residential uses. (See SVSP EIR, pp. 5-18–5-128 [traffic], 5-128–5- 131 [air quality], 5-131–134 [noise].) Contrary to PRN’s assertion, the cumulative effects of commercial uses such as the Project, together with nearby commercial and residential development, including the Safeway fuel station and Sierra Vista Apartments, were previously contemplated and analyzed in the SVSP EIR. (Cf. ibid. with PRN Letter, p. 2.)
Here, the Project involves approximately 58,000 square feet of commercial development and would be developed at only approximately one-quarter of the intensity previously analyzed for the site in the SVSP EIR. (Addendum pp. 8–9.) That comparison is itself conservative because the Project total includes Building 1 and associated improvements that were separately evaluated in a prior mitigated negative declaration. (Ibid.) Thus, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental effects because it represents less intensive development than previously analyzed. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, PRN’s assertion that the Addendum “does not appear to evaluate” the cumulative impacts of the Project and surrounding development lacks merit. (PRN Letter, p. 2.) The relevant cumulative impacts were evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and the Addendum appropriately determined that the Project falls within the scope and intensity of development contemplated by that analysis. No subsequent or supplemental EIR is therefore required—(PRN Letter, p. 2; Bowman, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1079–1081 [supplemental/subsequent EIR not required if project impacts do not differ significantly from those described in prior EIR]; Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge v. City of Newark (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 460, 471–472 [subdivision’s development of some but not all of the developable area previously analyzed in prior EIR suggested project would have less of an environmental impact than initially anticipated].)
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 8
D. Traffic, Access, and Circulation Improvements are not CEQA Issues.
PRN asserts the Access Study identifies “several unresolved” traffic and circulation issues that were not previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR. (PRN Comment Letter, p. 3.) For instance, PRN contends the off-site roadway improvements to facilitate the Project’s driveways were not evaluated in the SVSP EIR’s traffic analysis and therefore must be further considered. (Ibid.) Access, traffic, and circulation impacts and related improvements, however, are not cognizable impacts under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3.) The Legislature amended CEQA in 2018 by passing Senate Bill 743. (Addendum, p. 11.) The bill added section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines to provide that “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT)—i.e., the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project—would now be the most appropriate measure for analyzing transportation impacts. (Ibid.) This requirement, however, did not apply retroactively, and thus would not affect the SVSP EIR’s traffic analysis. (Ibid.; see Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 624–626.)
Separately, the City later conducted a VMT analysis as part of the EIR it prepared for its General Plan Update (“GPU”). (Addendum, p. 12) The GPU accounted for the full scope of commercial development on the Project Site. (Ibid.) The GPU EIR’s corresponding VMT analysis explained that projects consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis, particularly when it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT equivalent to or less than that assumed in the GPU EIR. (Ibid.)
Here, because the GPU EIR anticipated large commercial development on the Project Site, and because the Project’s proposed scope does not exceed what was anticipated with buildout of the SVSP or analyzed in the GPU EIR, substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the GPU EIR’s VMT analysis, thus obviating the need for any additional analysis of the Project’s proposed roadway improvements. (Ibid.; id., pp. 40–42; see Bowman, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1078–1081 [project’s street reconfiguration proposed years after initial EIR was certified modified traffic flow but not overall impact of traffic projected in EIR, therefore a subsequent/supplemental EIR was not
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 9
warranted]; accord A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1803 (“ALARM”).)
E. The Project Will Not Have New or Substantially More Severe Noise Impacts.
PRN misleadingly suggests the Project may have significant noise impacts to sensitive receptors because the noise study prepared by Saxelby Acoustics (Noise Study) did not account for Receivers R9 and R10 at the Sierra Vista Apartments. (PRN Letter, p. 4.) PRN misunderstands the purpose and application of the City’s noise thresholds. As the Noise Study explains, a 3 dB increase in ambient noise marks the threshold at which changes in the existing noise environment may become perceptible to people already experiencing it. (Noise Study, p. 5.) The threshold therefore applies to increases in ambient noise experienced by existing sensitive receptors.
There are no existing sensitive receptors at R9 and R10. The Sierra Vista Apartments are under construction, so no residents currently experience the ambient noise at those locations. (PRN Letter, p. 4; Noise Study, pp. 6, 21–22.) Accordingly, the Noise Study did not apply the 3 dB ambient-noise increase threshold to R9 and R10, as expressly explained in the footnotes to Tables 12 and
13. This approach is consistent with CEQA’s general use of existing physical conditions as the environmental baseline. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125; see South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 337–338.)
Substantial evidence establishes that the Project will not have new or substantially more severe noise impacts. The Noise Study explains that the Project will construct a six-foot soundwall on the property line between the future multifamily development and the Project site. (Staff Report, pp. 5–6; Addendum, p. 35; Noise Study, pp. 6, 14.) With this wall, along with the Project’s compliance with SVSP EIR noise mitigation measures, operational noise will not exceed the allowable thresholds established in the City noise ordinance during daytime or nighttime hours, including at nearby sensitive receptors. (Addendum, p. 35.) In fact, the increases in noise are “small enough that they are likely to be imperceptible to the human ear…” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Project will not have new or substantially more severe noise impacts that require preparation of a supplemental/subsequent EIR. (See Bowman, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1079–1080.)
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 10
F. The Project Will Not Have New or Substantially More Severe Air Quality Impacts.
PRN questions the sufficiency of the Addendum’s Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) by asking the City to conduct additional air quality analyses. (PRN Letter, pp. 4–5.) Per the SVSP EIR, the City was required to prepare an HRA to assess the impacts of the Project’s proposed fueling station, located at Building 5. (Staff Report, p. 5; Addendum, p. 17; SVSP EIR, pp. 4.4-39–4.4-40, 4.4-55–4.4-56.) The analysis found that the closest existing sensitive receptor to Building 5 was located approximately 500 feet across Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north. (Ibid.) Other sensitive receptors were located approximately 2,000 feet from the Project Site. (Ibid.) By virtue of this, the HRA concluded that the increased cancer risk, noncancer chronic hazard indices, and acute hazard indices for exposed residents, workers, and non-gas-station workers would be below the significance thresholds. (Ibid.) To this end, long-term operation of the fueling station would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors through substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations. (Ibid.)
PRN contends that the HRA should have analyzed the Project’s operational impacts to receptors at the yet-to-be-developed Sierra Vista Apartments, citing potential risks due to the proximity of the Project’s loading dock and trash compactor. (PRN Letter, pp. 4–5.) The SVSP EIR did not identify trash compactors and grocery store loading docks as significant sources of potential TAC emissions that would necessitate analysis in an HRA. (See SVSP EIR, pp. 4.4-55–4.4-56.) This is because neither the California Air Resources Board (CARB) nor the Placer County Air Pollution Control District identifies grocery stores or trash compactors as considerable sources of TAC emissions. (HRA, p. 5.) As such, the HRA was not required to analyze potential emissions from these sources.
Finally, PRN requests that the City prepare a cumulative TAC analysis to assess TAC exposure to future Sierra Vista Apartment residents. No such analysis is necessary. First, as noted above, grocery store uses are not significant sources of TAC emissions that must be analyzed in an HRA. Instead, consistent with the SVSP EIR, only the Project’s fueling station necessitated preparation of the HRA.
Second, while the Sierra Vista Apartments will be located next to the overall Project Site, they will be considerably separated from the fueling station at Building 5 by virtue of several intervening buildings. (See HRA, p. 4 [Site Plan].) Absent evidence to the contrary, PRN presents no substantial evidence of a new or substantially
R o s e v i l l e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
S i e r r a V i e w S h o p p i n g C e n t e r ( P L 2 5 - 0 4 9 6 ) A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 6
P a g e | 11
more severe impact that would require further analysis. Finally, the SVSP EIR explained that airborne TAC emissions were addressed in its cumulative air quality analysis. (SVSP EIR, p. 5-138.) The SVSP EIR explained that the full buildout of the SVSP—of which the Project is a part—would not cumulatively result in a considerable impact on airborne TAC emissions, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. (Ibid.) As such, the HRA and the Addendum appropriately concluded that cumulative air quality and TAC impacts from Project operations would not be substantially more severe to require preparation of a supplemental/subsequent EIR. (Addendum, p. 17; Staff Report, p. 5.) III. Conclusion
For these foregoing reasons, the Addendum is the appropriate approach to CEQA compliance for the City’s review and consideration of the Project. Contrary to PRN’s contentions, none of the conditions triggering subsequent or supplemental environmental review exist here. Specifically, the Project will not result in new or significantly more severe environmental impacts than those previously considered and mitigated in the SVSP EIR. In the absence of these conditions, CEQA requires the City to prepare an addendum. On behalf of our client, we thus urge the Commission to proceed with accepting staff’s recommendation to consider the Addendum and adopt the findings of fact and conditions of approval in support of the Project’s CUP, Design Review Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map. * * *
We appreciate the Commission’s consideration of the above analysis and urge the Commission to adopt staff’s recommendation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of the matters outlined in this letter.
Very truly yours,
Christina L. Berglund
With Courtesy Copies To:
• Eric Singer – [email protected]
• Derek Ogden – [email protected]
• Lauren Hocker – [email protected]
• Greg Bitter – [email protected]
Outlook
Opposition SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20- Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496 From Megan Drouhard <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/24/2026 10:15 AM
To Singer, Eric <[email protected]>
External: This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or taking further action.
Caution: The sender name (Megan Drouhard) is different from their email address ([email protected]), which may indicate an impersonation attempt. Verify the email's authenticity with the sender using your organization's trusted contact list before replying or taking further action.
Dear Eric Singer and Members of the Planning Commission, My name is Megan Drouhard (my husband is James Coghill) and I am a resident living in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project site at 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd. I am writing to formally voice my strong opposition to the requested Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Permit for the Sierra View Shopping Center (File #PL25-0496).
As a directly impacted neighbor, I have significant concerns regarding the scope of this development— particularly the fueling station, drive-through restaurants, and overall 58,000-square-foot commercial footprint. My primary objections center on the following issues:
Proximity & Noise Pollution: Operating a gas station and drive-through facilities immediately adjacent to a residential parcel will introduce persistent noise from drive-through speakers, vehicular idling, late-night deliveries, and increased foot traffic at all hours, severely impacting our quality of life.
Child & Pedestrian Safety: Our neighborhood is home to many children who ride bikes, walk, and play outside. The heavy traffic generated by drive-throughs and a fueling station will create dangerous congestion and increased vehicular hazards on streets meant for families.
Disruptive Behavior & Security: Introducing high-turnover commercial uses directly against residential homes opens our neighborhood up to disruptive behavior, trash, loitering, and unwanted foot traffic. Residents are concerned about safety risks, potential property casing, and unauthorized access to our private residential areas and the new community park being built.
Property Values: The combined impacts of traffic, light pollution, noise, and security risks will make our neighborhood a far less desirable place to live, negatively impacting the property values of our homes.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
7/31/26, 2:55 PM Mail - Singer, Eric - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AA49siX9rWUSJx31HzgDgbAAC1zYcZQAA?nativeVersi… 1/2 CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 4
If the City or Planning Commission chooses to approve this project despite resident opposition, I strongly urge you to require strict, mandatory mitigation measures to protect our community, including:
1. A Solid Concrete Sound/Privacy Wall:Construction of a tall, substantial concrete barrier separating the commercial parcel from the residential neighborhood to buffer noise, block visual intrusion, and preserve home privacy.
2. Access Control / Neighborhood Gating: Implementing physical barriers or gates to restrict direct pedestrian and vehicle access from the shopping center into our residential streets and new park, preventing foot traffic from wandering into our community.
Please include this letter in the public record for the upcoming August 13, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Thank you for your time and for considering the safety and well-being of local residents.
Sincerely,
Megan Drouhard & James Coghill
7001 Lakehaven Dr
316-215-4851
Get Outlook for iOS
7/31/26, 2:55 PM Mail - Singer, Eric - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AA49siX9rWUSJx31HzgDgbAAC1zYcZQAA?nativeVersi… 2/2
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
8th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496 Project Location: 1875 Pleasant Grove Blvd, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95747 Project Description: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fueling station and three drive-through restaurants adjacent to a residential parcel. The application also includes a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a
14.5-acre commercial shopping center with retail and restaurant uses, along with associated access, parking, lighting, and landscape improvements. The proposed combined building area is approximately 58,210 square feet. A Tentative Subdivision Map is also requested to reconfigure parcels consistent with the site plan.
Project Applicant/Developer: Warberg Partners, Inc.
Property Owner: SVC1, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Eric Singer, Associate Planner, (916) 774-5536 An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the analysis below has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the EIR certified for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 7
Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 13
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 15
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 16
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 18
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 20
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 21
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 21
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 24
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 26
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 29
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 32
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 33
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 34
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 36
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 37
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 39
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 40
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 43
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 45
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 47
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 48
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 50
Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project address is 1875 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, on the northeast border of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), with a small portion of the site within the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP), south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, west of Fiddyment Road, north of Vista Grande Boulevard, and east of Upland Drive.
Figure 1: Project Location (project site bordered in red) Background
The project site is identified as eleven parcels (13.9 acres) labeled Parcel JM-41 within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), with one parcel (0.6 acres) identified as Parcel W-20 within the WRSP.
Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road. The SVSP consists of a mix of land uses and designates parcel JM-41 for Community Commercial land use at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. The SVSP identifies this corner as a commercial site to be developed with large format commercial uses as shown in Figure B-31 of the SVSP. The SVSP provides concept design for a commercial center with up to Fiddyment Rd.
Project Site
Pleasant Grove Bl.
Sierra Vista Specific Plan
West Roseville Specific Plan
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
250,000 square feet of development. Prior to approving the SVSP, the City adopted Resolution 10-160 certifying the SVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, collectively analyzing and reducing to the extent feasible impacts associated with development that would occur pursuant to the SVSP. Additionally, Development Agreements between the SVSP property owners and the City were entered into to outline SVSP development obligations.
West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP). The WRSP was approved in 2004 and includes 3,162 acres east and west of Fiddyment Road and generally north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The plan includes 8,792 single- and multi-family units, with a mix of uses — residential, commercial, open space, parks, and public facilities. In approving the WRSP, the City adopted certified the WRSP EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, analyzing, and reducing to the extent feasible, impacts associated with the development would occur pursuant to the WRSP The City and property owners entered into Development Agreements to address development obligations. The 0.6-acre Parcel W-20 is on the southern edge of the WRSP. The WRSP is nearly built out.
Coffee Kiosk Project on WRSP Parcel W-20 (PL20-0142). In April 2021, the City approved the Coffee Kiosk Project on the 0.6-acre Parcel W-20 for a drive-through coffee kiosk (910 square feet) with outdoor seating, parking, and landscaping (PL20-0142). The project changed the Parcel W-20 land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to CC. The project also included a conditional use permit and rezone with a Special Area overlay to ensure that only uses considered compatible with adjacent residential land uses would be permitted or conditionally permitted. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Coffee Kiosk project on Parcel W-20. The Coffee Kiosk Project MND evaluated impacts of the project in the context of the WRSP EIR. The Coffee Kiosk project was approved but not constructed.
The proposed Sierra Vista Shopping Center project includes a drive-through restaurant building (coffee) (Building 1) on Parcel W-20, partially overlapping the area of the previously-approved Coffee Kiosk project, with minor site plan modifications to tie into the overall Sierra View Shopping Center site plan. Although development of Parcel W-20 was evaluated by the previously certified in the 2004 WRSP EIR and the Coffee Kiosk Project was further evaluated in the 2021 Coffee Kiosk Project MND, the impacts of the entire Sierra Vista Shopping Center project, including the drive-thru (Building 1) square footage and use, are evaluated in this Addendum. Refer to the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section.
The 2021 Coffee Kiosk MND identified four WRSP EIR mitigation measures applicable to the Coffee Kiosk Project on WRSP Parcel W-20 which remain applicable to the Parcel W-20 portion of the Sierra View Shopping Center project. The four WRSP EIR mitigation measures are equivalent to the following four SVSP EIR mitigation
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
measures applicable to the Sierra View Shopping Center Project: The four SVSP EIR mitigation measures listed below are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project.
WRSP EIR Mitigation Measures
from Coffee Kiosk MND
Applicable to WRSP Parcel W-20
Equivalent SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures
Identified in this Addendum
MM BIO-1: Avoid Nesting Sites MM 4.8-3: Avoid Nesting Sites MM NOI-1: Commercial Noise Control MM 4.6-2: Commercial Noise Controls MM 4.8-1: Cease Work and Consult with a Qualified
Archaeologist
MM 4.9-1: Cease Work and Consult with
Archaeologist
MM 4.8-10: Cease Work Until Review Conducted by
Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations
Implemented
MM 4.9-3: Cease Work and Consult with
Paleontologist
Reconfiguration of SVSP Parcels JM-30, JM-41 and WRSP Parcel W-20 Into Single Commercial Site (PL21- 0368). On August 3, 2022, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map to adjust the boundary between High Density Residential (HDR) SVSP Parcel JM-30 and Community Commercial (CC) SVSP Parcel JM-41, converting 0.44 net acres from HDR land use to CC land use. The zoning designation was also modified to reflect the land use changes. The Tentative Subdivision Map created 12 total parcels, dividing large lot parcel JM-41 into 11 commercial parcels and reconfiguring parcel JM-30 to align with the proposed land use changes. The land use adjustment also connected the SVSP Parcel JM-41 commercial site with adjacent WRSP Parcel W-20. Effectively, the land use boundary adjustment allowed parcels JM-41 (13.9 acres) and W-20 (0.6 acre) to function as one commercial site. In approving the project, the City Council adopted an MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program evaluating impacts of the project in the context of the SVSP EIR.
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site Community
Commercial Community Commercial Leveled and graded, undeveloped North SingleFamily Low-Density Residential W-1 Low-Density Subdivision constructed South SingleFamily Low-Density Residential JM-2 Low-Density Subdivision constructed East Community
Commercial Community Commercial WW-40 CVS Pharmacy constructed East Open
Space Open Space Open space, Roseville Electric utility easement West MultiFamily High-Density Residential JM-30 Apartment complex approved, under construction West Open
Space Open Space Open Space, Roseville Electric utility easement
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Environmental Setting
The project site was rough-graded and has been annually maintained and is therefore dominated by relatively flat topography and is devoid of trees, wetlands, or other natural features. The site is primarily populated by nonnative annual grasses, and aerial photography shows evidence of ground disturbance, including areas of bare ground and furrows from discing on the property. There are no structures on the property. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcels.
The project site is bordered by Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north, which is a four-lane road. The site is bordered on the east and west by Fiddyment Road and Upland Drive, respectively. A 375-foot-wide power line corridor, containing 230 kV power lines and transmission line towers, traverses from east to west through the south part of the site. The site is encumbered by several easements for power lines, transmission line towers, a gas line, landscape, and public utilities. Infrastructure (water, recycled water, sewer, drainage) and utilities are stubbed to the site. The Club at Westpark age-restricted residential community is north across Pleasant Grove Boulevard. A single-family residential neighborhood with one- and two-story units is to the south of the powerline corridor on SVSP Parcel JM-2.
The approved 192-unit affordable Sierra Vista Apartments project is under construction on the 7.2-acre parcel (SVSP Parcel JM-30) west of the site and east of Upland Drive. Within the adjacent apartment project, parking areas and a pickleball court are planned on the east, and three-story apartment buildings are planned on the north closest to the project.
Proposed Project
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fueling station and three drive-through restaurants adjacent to a residential parcel. The application also includes a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a
14.5-acre commercial shopping center with retail, restaurants, uses, and a fueling station. along with associated access, parking, lighting, and landscape improvements. The proposed combined building area is approximately 58,210 square feet. Specific tenants are unknown at this time. The project proposes seven freestanding, singlestory buildings facing the Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard frontages.
A Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to reconfigure the existing twelve parcels into eight parcels. The reconfigured parcels will be sized to accommodate each of the seven buildings with their corresponding parking areas. No development is proposed on the eighth parcel (3.0+ acres ) on the site’s south side.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Figure 2: Site Plan
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the abovedescribed project. The document relies on previous environmental documents and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project as well as updated technical analyses, prepared by qualified consultants. This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.
Where, as here, an EIR addressing an earlier version of the project has been previously prepared and certified, the lead agency considers the relevance of that prior EIR in light of the proposed project and any changed circumstances since the time of the preparation of the prior EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162–15163, if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that new information of substantial importance, or changes to the project or surrounding circumstances will require major revisions to the previous EIR due either to a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect on the environment, the lead agency is required to prepare a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement to analyze the
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
project at hand. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164, if the agency finds no basis for requiring the preparation of either a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement, but some changes or additions are necessary, an Addendum shall be prepared.
The Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SVSP EIR) was certified by City Council on May 5, 2010 (State Clearinghouse Number 2008032115). The document analyzed the impacts that would occur as a result of development of the SVSP area, including a 250,000 square-foot commercial center on the project site.
A copy of the SVSP EIR is available for review online at www.roseville.ca.gov/planning under Specific Plans and then the Sierra Vista Specific Plan page. The City Council adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it certified the SVSP EIR. The EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts associated with development of the SVSP area, including the buildout of the project area:
Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
Inducement of substantial population growth
Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Construction debris demand for solid waste services
Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity New sources of light and glare
For buildout of the SVSP project area, the SVSP EIR also identified the following significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts:
Agricultural land conversion
Air pollutant emissions from construction
Air pollutant emissions from operation
Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming On-site noise levels that exceed City standards
Off-site noise levels that exceed City standards
Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities Increased demand for water
Increased demand for recycled water distribution system Increased generation of solid waste
Change in visual character
The analyses below rely on the EIR analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate.
The project impacts remain within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the SVSP EIR, because the proposed project is of the scale, type, and form of commercial development anticipated within the SVSP EIR for the project site. The SVSP EIR anticipated up to 250,000 square feet of commercial development on Specific Plan Parcel JM-41, which results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.40. The FAR is a measure of development intensity, and represents the density and bulk of developed buildings. A FAR of 0.40 means that 40% of a given area would be developed with buildings while the remainder is developed with parking, drive aisles, and other supporting development. The proposed Sierra View Shopping Center, inclusive of the entire square footage and
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
proposed uses of the project, includes approximately 58,210 square feet of retail, restaurants, and fueling station, which results in a 0.09 FAR on the 14.5-acre site. In other words, the entirety of the proposed project would only develop at approximately one quarter of the intensity analyzed within the SVSP EIR. This is a conservative overestimate of square footage, since the development of Building 1 and its accompanying site improvements is covered by a separate Mitigated Negative Declaration but is nonetheless included in the project totals analyzed in this Addendum. Accordingly, the project development intensity is less than what was previously evaluated as it relates to the project site within the Specific Plan as part of the SVSP EIR, and therefore impacts associated with the proposed Sierra View Shopping Center project would not result in new or more severe environmental effects than were already analyzed in the SVSP EIR.
Impacts to physical resources (such as agricultural land, biological resources, etc.) are based on the grading and development of a site, not on the arrangement or use of buildings within the site. The entire project site was anticipated to be graded and fully developed with commercial uses within the SVSP EIR. For other types of impacts that are affected by size and use of buildings, such as air quality, minor technical updates have been provided, where necessary. The Environmental Checklist section below provides minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate, to demonstrate that the project remains within the scope of the impacts previously analyzed in the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that would result in a new significant impact, or would substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but rather that the potential impacts associated with the proposed project remain within the scope of impacts analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals, or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.
Any new Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that would substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.
Any new Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified or adopted is available requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.
Mitigation Measures Implemented or Addressing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time. If “none” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.
DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or has already been implemented.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Since the publication of the SVSP EIR, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form). These updates address legislative changes to CEQA, clarify language, and update language consistent with case law. None of the changes to the checklist require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared. The majority of the checklist changes clarified language, reorganized existing language, or eliminated analysis requirements. For analysis requirements which have been eliminated, this is in response to
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
case law affirming that analysis must focus on impacts caused by the project, not impacts to the project. An example of each of these types of changes is included below:
Cultural Resources (a): Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource as defined in pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The replacement of “as defined in” with “pursuant to” is a phrasing change which has no impact on required analysis.
Cultural Resources (c) has been moved to Geology and Soils (f).
Moving the topical section of this analysis requirement (which is related to paleontological resources) from Cultural Resources to Geology and Soils has no impact on required analysis. Noise (b): Exposure of persons to or Generation of excessive ground borne vibration of ground borne noise levels?
The above changes redirect the analysis from considering overall exposure of persons to ground borne vibration, and focus the analysis on any ground borne vibration generated by a project. This same change is reflected in all other checklist questions related to noise. Therefore, the EIR included more analysis than is currently required, because it included analysis related to exposing neighboring areas to noise, but also analyzed the effect of noise on the proposed uses; the latter analysis is no longer required.
The updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G also includes three new sections (Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, and Wildfire) and includes new and modified requirements as part of the Transportation/Traffic section. Although the Tribal Cultural Resources section is new, the analysis of this impact area was included in the SVSP EIR as part of the Cultural Resources section. The new Energy section was formerly included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, but has been moved into Appendix G, so while it is new to the checklist, it is not new to the CEQA Guidelines. In regard to Wildfire, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. Therefore, the Wildfire section does not apply because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area.
The changes to the Transportation/Traffic section—which is now called simply Transportation—refocus the analysis of transportation impacts on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “…vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project...” Section 15064.3(c) states that the section applies prospectively and did not require lead agencies to undertake VMT analysis until July 1, 2020. Even as of that date, the VMT requirement only applied to projects for which draft EIRs (or negative declarations) had not yet been issued. An addendum is considered together with a certified Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 (d)) and thus represents a later stage in the CEQA process that follows a period of time after the issuance of a draft EIR. The new VMT requirement, then, does not apply to an addendum. Here, the SVSP EIR at issue was certified in 2010, approximately 10 years before the VMT requirement took effect. Case law substantiating this includes “Citizen’s for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento” (2019).
Although, as explained above, VMT is not applicable to this addendum, the City of Roseville considered VMT in the SVSP EIR, albeit in a different context. The SVSP EIR’s chapter regarding Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions included an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the traffic
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
associated with the operation of uses allowed under the SVSP at buildout. As discussed in more detail in the Transportation section of this Environmental Checklist, the trip generation associated with the project is well within the trips that were assumed as part of the SVSP. Because the project’s proposed uses are also consistent with the uses allowed pursuant to the SVSP, the trip lengths associated with project trips would not be expected to meaningfully vary from the assumptions that were used to generate the original VMT analysis in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, even if VMT were required to be analyzed, the project would not generate new or more severe VMT impacts with respect to VMT than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR.
Moreover, the City also analyzed VMT in connection with the 2035 General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2019080418). The General Plan Update (GPU) EIR1 used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The VMT data was then normalized to residents as a “per capita” rate. As described in the GPU EIR, and consistent with the VMT reductions in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the City has adopted a VMT significance threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita. This threshold represents a 15 percent reduction to baseline per capita VMT. The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the remaining undeveloped areas of the City, consistent with existing land use designations and existing development agreements, would exceed the City’s adopted threshold, resulting in a significant impact in both the constrained and unconstrained buildout scenarios, and that mitigation requiring land use changes was not feasible because of existing development agreements in place for the undeveloped areas of the City.
As stated in the GPU EIR and pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA, projects that are consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis. Quantitative analyses are not required if it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the GPU EIR. The proposed project includes construction of a commercial development on a parcel with a Community Commercial land use designation. A large commercial development was anticipated on this parcel in the SVSP and GPU EIR and the proposed minor modification does not exceed what was anticipated with buildout of the SVSP (further discussion of this is found in the Transportation section of this Environmental Checklist) or analyzed in the GPU EIR; therefore, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with GPU EIR analysis as it relates to VMT, and the project does not require further VMT analysis.
Based on the foregoing, none of the modifications to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared.
Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to describe the impacts of the proposed project.
1 General Plan Update EIR: www.roseville.ca.us/GeneralPlan
CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? SVSP EIR Section 4.14 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Same No No No None
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Same No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.14-2 SVSP EIR MM 4.14-3
Discussion: Impacts to visual and aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable. The proposed project does not introduce development to properties not already planned for development, and the scale, type, and form of commercial development is consistent with the development anticipated within the SVSP EIR. The proposed uses are consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. The SVSP EIR found there were no designated or eligible scenic vistas or resources within or near the SVSP, and this evaluation remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. At the time of the SVSP EIR, the planning area was within a non-urbanized area, and impacts to aesthetic and visual resources were found to be significant and unavoidable because the SVSP would result in large-scale development within an area dominated by open space. The proposed project is currently within an urban area, and the project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. As it relates to aesthetics, these standards ensure the high-quality design and architectural character of any buildings developed, as well as establishing minimum landscaping standards. The proposed project does not conflict with
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; therefore impacts are less than significant. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. As it relates to light and glare, the SVSP EIR found impacts would be significant and unavoidable, because the SVSP would introduce artificial light into a rural area. Project lighting is conditioned to comply with current City standards (i.e., CDG), which require the project to limit the height of light standards and require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. MM 4.14-2 requires the use of low-glare materials for new buildings, where feasible, to reduce daytime glare impacts. MM 4.14-3 reduces light impacts on nearby open space through design measures and light direction and placement. Based on the above discussion, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR, and the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-2 (use low-glare materials), and MM 4.14-3 (avoid light spillover into Curry Creek and Open Space) can be found in the table of applicable mitigation measures included with this Addendum (see Attachment 1).
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.1 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-2
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? Same No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Same No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to agricultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. The SVSP EIR concluded development of the project area would convert fallow grazing land to urbanized development and have a less than significant impact with mitigation. The SVSP EIR found that while the project site did not provide opportunities for prime agricultural production, approving an urban land use designation would preclude any future agricultural use of the land. The SVSP EIR found that with mitigation in the form of 1:1 open space preservation, the impact would be less than significant. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The project site is no longer used for agricultural purposes, is not zoned for agriculture, is not within or adjacent to one of
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land under a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. For these reasons, project impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources remain less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not result in new significant effects. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2 required preservation of open space within Placer County to mitigate for the loss of open space in the SVSP area. Although this measure remains applicable to the project, it has already been completed via an established fee program that directs funds to the Placer Land Trust, which then sets aside land.
III. Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.4 No No No None
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, MM 4.5-1, and MM 4.5-2 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No WMM 4.4-7 (a)2
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Same No No No None
Discussion: a–b) The SVSP EIR previously analyzed up to 250,000 square feet of commercial development on Specific Plan Parcel JM-41, which results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.4. The FAR is a measure of development intensity, and represents the amount of 2 The SVSP encompasses area that had been subject to program-level analysis in the WRSP EIR. Mitigation measures from the WRSP EIR that remained applicable were incorporated into the SVSP EIR and are denoted by a “WMM” label.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
land area and building bulk.. A FAR of 0.4 means that 40% of a given area would be developed with buildings. The proposed project would total approximately 58,210 square feet, which is almost a quarter of the 250,000 square feet of the development intensity evaluated in the SVSP EIR. Regarding construction air emissions, the SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Because the project proposes less intense development than previously analyzed, construction activity associated with the proposed project is consistent with or reduced from the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. Regarding operational impacts, the SVSP EIR concluded that operational air emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Because the proposed project would be smaller in scale and less intensive than the development analyzed in the SVSP EIR, its buildout would generate fewer criteria pollutant emissions from mobile and area sources. Therefore, the impacts of the project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR, and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.c) Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are typically generated by stationary sources like facilities using solvents and heavy industrial operations, but can also be generated by more common uses such as gas stations. The SVSP EIR found that development of the s SVSP area would include certain uses, such as gas stations, which could emit TACs, and determined that mitigation could reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The project includes the construction of a gas station consisting of four dispensers (total of 8 pumps) and a ±4,700 square-foot freestanding building. A gasoline facility is a source of gasoline vapors that include TACs, primarily benzene. SVSP EIR Mitigation Measure WMM 4.4-7 (a) requires that proposed uses within the SVSP that could generate TACs demonstrate that the applicable health risk thresholds will not be exceeded by submitting an application for Authority to Construct (ATC) to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) prior to construction. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is required as part of the ATC permit application in order to confirm the potential cancer risk resulting from a project is within PCAPCD thresholds, and the ATC permit can be issued. Consistent with this mitigation, a project-specific HRA (Attachment 4), prepared by Raney Planning & Management (dated June 2026), is included as part of this Addendum. The HRA concludes the annual amount of gasoline dispensed from the facility will be below the significance threshold for cancer risk of 10 in one million. The HRA determined that the maximum cancer residential risk associated with the project would be 1.12 cancers/million, which is below the PCAPCD’s significance threshold of 10 cancers/million. The HRA also determined that the acute health risk would be 0.03, which is below the PCAPCD’s significance threshold of 1. Based on this evaluation, project impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure WMM 4.4-7(a) remains applicable to the project, to ensure an ATC permit is issued prior to construction. d) The SVSP EIR found that development of the SVSP would not involve the long-term operation of any new sources of odor and that odors from construction activities would be short-term; therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Consistent with this analysis, while diesel fumes from construction equipment and delivery trucks are often found to be objectionable, construction is temporary, and diesel emissions are minimal and regulated. Typical urban projects such as the proposed project do not result in substantial objectionable odors when operated in compliance with City Ordinances (e.g., proper trash disposal and storage). The project is a typical urban development that lacks any characteristics that would cause the generation of substantial unpleasant odors. Thus, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable, and impacts related to odors are less than significant.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 (dust and construction control measures), MM 4.5-1 (air quality measures to reduce GHG emissions), MM 4.5-2 (additional measures to reduce GHG emissions), and WMM 4.4-7(a) (risk assessment and site specific measures) were identified to reduce the impacts related to air quality to less than significant. These measures remain applicable to the proposed project.
IV. Biological Resources
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? SVSP EIR Section
4.8 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Same No No No None
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to Biological Resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the project area would impact on-site wetlands and could potentially impact special-status species found in the area. The EIR concluded that the impact on Biological Resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to wetlands, vernal pool species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other protected raptors nesting and foraging habitat to less-than-significant levels. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. As discussed in the Environmental Setting section, above, the project site has been rough-graded and regularly maintained through discing, and no wetlands, intact grasslands, or trees remain on the site to be impacted. The proposed project is within the scope of the development assumptions for the parcels created for commercial development within the SVSP area and is located on properties already anticipated for development. The SVSP EIR mitigation measures remain appropriate and no additional impacts will occur as a result of the project. EIR mitigation measures adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing impacts to special habitats (such as wetlands and grasslands) and their dependent species were implemented prior to rough grading of the site, and have been effectuated; these measures are no longer applicable. Mitigation measures which remain applicable are those requiring surveys for ground-nesting birds (MM 4.8-3) and avoiding light and glare into the Curry Creek open space (MM 4.14-3). Impacts remain less than significant upon compliance with the applicable mitigation measures. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: Effectuated mitigation measures which are no longer applicable are MM 4.8-1 (wetland permits and no net loss), MM 4.8- 2 (relocate western spadefoot), MM 4.8-4 (preservation of grassland habitat), MM 4.8-5 (wildlife movement protection), MM 4.8-6 (habitat restoration), and MM 4.8-7 (off-site surveys for infrastructure). MM 4.8-3 (protection for nesting birds) and MM 4.14-3 (avoid light spill into Curry Creek open space) remain applicable to the proposed project, and will ensure impacts to biological resources remain less than significant.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
V. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historic resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 and 4.9-3
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 and 4.9-3 Discussion: Impacts to cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. The SVSP EIR discussed the potential for subsurface remains or deposits to be found on the site, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found. Surveys performed in the SVSP did not detect evidence of prehistoric archeological resources. However, the impact to cultural resources was found to be potentially significant and unavoidable because there is always the potential that resources could be encountered during grading.
There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. Though the project site has been rough-graded and no resources were found, there is still the possibility that further grading and site development could unearth resources. The mitigation measures requiring a cessation of work and consultation should resources be discovered remain applicable (MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-3). MM 4.9.5 requiring studies before construction of any offsite work is also applicable to any off-site work that may be needed. The proposed project is consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 (cease work and consult with archeologist) and MM 4.9-3 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) remain applicable to the proposed project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
VI. Energy
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy inefficiency?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
Discussion: Impacts to energy resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR concluded that development and implementation of the SVSP would add land uses that would increase the demand for electrical services. However, Roseville Electric determined there were no constraints to providing a reliable energy source to serve the development proposed in the SVSP area. Electricity in the area is provided by Roseville Electric and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Impacts 4.12-5.1 and 4.12-5-2 in the SVSP EIR evaluated the potential for development of the SVSP to increase demands for electricity and natural gas and found these impacts to be less than significant.
The project includes development of an approximately 58,210-square-foot commercial center. The project would consume energy both during construction and operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. The proposed project is less than one-quarter of the 250,000 square feet evaluated in the SVSP EIR and would therefore result in less overall construction activity and likewise less construction-related energy consumption than previously analyzed. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or wasteful.
The completed project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the project. These operational energy demands would not differ meaningfully from those of permitted large format commercial uses analyzed in the SVSP EIR. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This includes, e.g., standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. The project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the project’s operational energy demand. The project plans were distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments and were found to conform to the standards of both providers; energy supplies are available to serve the project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
The proposed project will not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, nor would it conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed uses are within the scope of the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not result in new significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project.
VII. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstanc
es Involving
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
i) Ruptures of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) Same No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Same No No No None iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Same No No No None
iv) Landslides? Same No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Same No No No None c) Be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Same No No No None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Same No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 and
Section 4.9
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-3
Discussion: Impacts to geology and soils resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP area is located in Roseville, which is in southern Placer County. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies the South Placer area as a low-severity earthquake zone. No active faults are known to exist within the County.
The project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure, or landslides. The project site is considered to have low seismic risk with respect to faulting, ground shaking, seismically related ground failure, and liquefaction. The project site would also not be subject to substantial risks from slope instability or subsidence because the site is relatively flat and is located in an area with no known history of ground subsidence.
The SVSP EIR indicated that compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements would be sufficient to avoid any impacts related to these issues. This conclusion remains appropriate for the proposed project because there is no new information indicating that geologic conditions are different than previously understood and the proposed project is within the development area anticipated in the SVSP EIR.
As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, though the project site has been rough-graded and no resources were found, there is still the possibility that further grading and site development could unearth resources. Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g. fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations.
The proposed uses are consistent with the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-3 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) remains applicable to the proposed project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.5 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts relating to greenhouse gases (GHG) were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable. The SVSP EIR quantified the GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the SVSP and concluded that the SVSP would cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR, as previously discussed in the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section. Because the project is substantially smaller than the development previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR, it would require less overall construction activity and equipment use; moreover, construction engines and equipment have become cleaner and more efficient since certification of the SVSP EIR. For operational impacts, GHG emissions are primarily generated by building energy usage and vehicle travel. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and with the scale and intensity of development anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The proposed project includes less than half of the building square footage than was anticipated in the SVSP EIR and the California Building Code (CBC) requirements related to energy efficiency have become more stringent since publication of the EIR, and therefore GHG emissions related to building energy demands would be less than previously anticipated. The City evaluated the proposed project in order to determine whether the project falls within the scope of vehicle-related GHG emissions anticipated in the SVSP EIR, first by examining the trip characteristics of the project and then by examining the expected trip lengths. The SVSP EIR transportation analysis accounted for the various uses (e.g., strip malls, small-scale retail, and large format retail) that make up the Community Commercial land use. In other words, the traffic analysis assumed and accounted for large anchor uses like grocery stores that would generate a
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
higher volume of traffic as well as smaller retail uses, which would generate a relatively smaller amount of traffic. The project is consistent with the uses evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and with the number of trips an anchor retail use would have been projected to generate. In addition, City staff examined the City of Roseville traffic model for this area. The 2035 City of Roseville Traffic Demand Model anticipates 66,000 square feet of office use and 41,000 square feet of retail development on the site. When the office use is converted to retail, the site has a total estimated equivalent retail development of 80,000 square feet for the City’s Model assumptions. The project’s retail building area is 62,000 square feet of retail land use (which includes the gas station convenience store; the number of pumps is not a model input). So, the project is in conformance with the General Plan and would result in approximately 17,000 square feet of retail use remaining for future development at this location (e.g., remaining vacant land on the southeast side of the project). This finding is consistent with the discussion in the Purpose and Scope of Addendum section, which noted that the SVSP EIR assumed a FAR of 0.40 for commercial uses, while the project FAR is 0.09. The trip generation characteristics of the proposed project are within the scope of the SVSP EIR transportation analysis. In terms of trip lengths, the City developed analysis guidance and thresholds for VMT as part of the 2035 General Plan Update project approved in July 2020. The citywide VMT analysis was then used to model air quality and greenhouse gas impacts within the General Plan Update EIR.
Consistent with the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the analysis found that “local-serving” non-residential uses led to reductions in citywide VMT, because adding a local-serving center into an existing residential area simply re-routes existing travel from other – typically more distant – locations to a closer location. In other words, although a new commercial center will result in more trips arriving and departing from the project site, it will reduce the amount of travel (and therefore the amount of vehicle exhaust, i.e., GHG emissions) in the City. Any non-residential use which improves “destination proximity” – that is, shortens the distance people must travel to reach a use such as the proposed use – is considered “local-serving.” Many of the commercial uses anticipated for the Sierra View Shopping Center project are currently located several miles away from residents. By bringing these uses closer to those residents, the proposed commercial center will improve destination proximity, and therefore will reduce travel distances for those residents. Based on the foregoing analysis, GHG emissions, from both the construction and operations, will result in impacts within the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. The project has incorporated the applicable requirements of SVSP EIR mitigation into the project design, and will comply with the required mitigation in the SVSP EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 (construction emissions), MM 4.5-1 (operational emissions), MM 4.5-2 (greenhouse gas emissions) from the SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project, and have been incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? SVSP EIR Section
4.10 No No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment though reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Same
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Same No No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Same No No No None
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Same No No No None
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
g) Expose people or structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Discussion: Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. The SVSP EIR includes a brief overview for each impact topic, concluding that compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure most impacts will be less than significant. The exception was for unknown soil contamination, as land previously used for agricultural purposes may include undiscovered underground storage tanks or other contamination issues. MM 4.10-1 requires testing for potential hazardous materials before development, remediation or removal of any identified contamination or underground tanks, and proper closure of groundwater wells. If previously unknown contamination or tanks are discovered during construction, work must stop until the affected area is investigated and, if necessary, remediated in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The SVSP EIR analysis also found that there would be sufficient emergency services and facilities and that the area was not located within an airport land use plan or other aviation hazard area. These conclusions still fit for the proposed project, which is within the same development footprint. Standard construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents. These are common household and commercial materials routinely used by both businesses and average members of the public. The materials typically pose a hazard only if they are improperly used, stored, or transported either through upset conditions (e.g., a vehicle accident) or mishandling. In addition to construction use, the operation of the project would involve the use of common hazardous materials as well, including bleach, solvents, and herbicides. Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol. Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging. Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts from the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels. CAL FIRE is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. The project site is in an urban area, is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is adequately served by local fire protection services and therefore would not expose people to any risk from wildland fire. The proposed uses for the Sierra View Shopping Center site are small- and large-format retail and restaurants which are all typical uses found in the Community Commercial land use category. These uses are consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR, and therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The SVSP EIR included a mitigation measure to address the low possibility that some contamination of soils still lingered due to past use of the land for agricultural purposes. The measure, Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, indicates that if evidence of contamination is
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
observed (stained soils, unearthing of a tank, etc.), then proper testing and remediation is required, in coordination with the appropriate City Departments. This measure remains applicable to the project.
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? SVSP EIR Section
4.13 No No No
SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Same No No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Same No No No None
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site; Same No No No None
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Same No No No None
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Same No No No None
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Same No No No None
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Same No No No None
f) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? Same No No No None Discussion: Impacts related to hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. A Drainage and Storm Water Master Plan was prepared and approved by the City as part of the SVSP EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Drainage and Storm Water Master Plan demonstrated that the increases in impervious surfaces being caused by buildout of the SVSP would be offset by proposed drainage facilities and storm water improvements.
The project is located adjacent to an open space preserve to the southwest, which contains grasslands and overhead powerlines. The project will include water quality features and a drainage system which will treat and convey stormwater into the City’s stormwater system. Any stormwater that will be conveyed into the City’s drainage system or open space area will be treated by the project’s water quality features (swales and basins) prior to discharge. The location and flow of this drainage is within the scope of what was anticipated in the SVSP EIR and Storm Water and Drainage Master Plan. Regarding stormwater quality, the EIR notes that there are existing programs, regulations, and permits in place to ensure that the project would not have significant effects related to water pollution from construction or operation, though a mitigation measure is included to require compliance with these regulations.
The project is in an area of flat topography and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project falls within the development footprint of the SVSP, and does not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts, and the prior conclusions remain appropriate. Thus, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR. The SVSP EIR analysis therefore remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1 was included to require compliance with the City’s stormwater quality standards, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This measure remains applicable to the proposed project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
XI. Land Use and Planning
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Physically divide an established community? SVSP EIR Section 4.1 No No No None b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-3, 4.6-1 and 4.6-2
Discussion: Impacts related to land use and planning were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, andwere previously identified as less than significant with mitigation. The SVSP EIR concluded that any potential land use incompatibilities, could be addressed through a combination of mitigation measures and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and Grading Ordinance. The EIR concluded that any potential land use impacts of the SVSP could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation. The Sierra View Shopping Center project involves commercial uses, that are principally permitted in the Community Commercial zone and Community Commercial designated land use parcel where the project is proposed. The same use types are , consistent with the development assumptions anticipated in the SVSP EIR; therefore, the conclusions of the SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project. The project is consistent with the policies of the Zoning Ordinance, SVSP, and the General Plan, which are adopted to avoid environmental effects. The project area has been planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community. The project involves frontage improvements including new driveways, sidewalks, and pedestrian connections. As such, the project will not physically divide an established community. As described above, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 (construction noise) and MM 4.6-2 (commercial noise controls) are applied during construction, so remain applicable to the proposed project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
XII. Mineral Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to mineral resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR indicated that there were no significant mineral resources in the area, and this finding remains accurate. Therefore, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
XIII. Noise
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.6 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1 SVSP EIR MM 4.6-2 b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration
of ground borne noise levels? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Discussion: Impacts related to noise were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previouslyidentified as significant and unavoidable for temporary construction noise and increases in traffic noise outside the SVSP. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an impact for all of the major roadways in the SVSP area. Traffic-related noise levels expected in the year 2025 plus project were found to be significant and unavoidable. SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 and MM 4.6-2 apply. The proposed Sierra View Shopping Center includes operation of a grocery store, retail tenants, a fuel station, and quick service restaurants, which are principally permitted uses on this parcel and are therefore consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR. Retail centers in general do not generate significant noise but can have noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The grocery store loading dock, trash compactor, rooftop mechanical equipment, drive thru speaker boxes, and vehicle circulation through the project site are the main noise sources associated with the project. A noise study was completed by Saxelby Acoustics LLC (June 2026), which analyzed potential noise from the proposed uses (see Attachment 1). For stationary noise sources, the City of Roseville General Plan and Municipal Code establish acceptable noise limits of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The noise study anticipated that a 6 foot masonry soundwall will be constructed on the property line between the residential uses and the project site; this wall is part of the proposed project and is shown on the site plans. According to the study, the project-generated operational noise levels for any of the stationary noise sources related to the proposed uses does not exceed 45.8 dBA Leq and 59.9 dBA Lmax during daytime hours and 42.5 dBA Leq and 59.9 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. These noise volumes do not exceed either the daytime or nighttime noise standards. The study also calculated the increase in ambient noise which would result from the addition of these stationary noise sources and concluded that only three noise receptor locations would experience any increase in ambient noise. The largest increase would be at receptors R7 and R8 (single-family homes to the south of the site), which would increase by
0.7 dBA during daytime conditions (from 49.3 dBA to 50 dBA). These increases are below the significance threshold of a 3 dBA increase. The increases are small enough that they are likely to be imperceptible to the human ear, based on data indicating that a 3 dBA increase is typically required before the change is barely perceptible. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased stationary-source operational noise would be considered less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. According to the noise study, existing roadway noise at all studied locations is greater than 60 dBA and in the case of Pleasant Grove Boulevard east of Fiddyment Road is above 65 dBA (see Table 3 of the study). In the cumulative condition without the project, the predicted noise environment will be above 65 dBA for all roadways except for Upland Drive, which will remain above 60 dBA. The maximum increase in traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 1.0 dBA, which will be along Upland Drive and will increase existing and cumulative noise from 60.7 dBA to 61.7 dBA, which is still an acceptable noise level according to Table IX-1 of the General Plan provided a noise study is completed and its recommendations implemented. This increase in noise is also less than the minimum significance criterion of +1.5 increase in noise. Additionally, given that all roadways already operate with noise volumes in excess of 60 dB project traffic would not cause an exceedance of the normally acceptable noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. Note that sound walls are already constructed adjacent to single-family residential uses on Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Fiddyment Road.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
The proposed project is predicted to generate short-term construction noise level increases of up to 11.8 dBA at the existing sensitive receptors. This is less than the threshold of 12.0 dBA. Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside normal daytime hours. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant. The project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 (construction noise), was applied in the SVSP EIR related to commercial and residential projects. Construction noise controls in the mitigation include locating fixed equipment away from noise-sensitive uses and having a construction disturbance coordinator to address noise concerns. This mitigation measure remains applicable to the proposed project. MM 4.6-1 (commercial noise controls) will be implemented with construction of the 6-foot tall masonry wall on the western property line of Parcel JM-41.
XIV. Population and Housing
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, though extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.2 No No No None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to population and housing were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable for inducement of substantial population growth. The SVSP EIR indicated the SVSP would increase the number of housing units above those anticipated in the General Plan, and analyzed the effect on supporting services,
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. The SVSP EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the result of adopting an urban land use plan over a non-urbanized area. The proposed project is currently within an urbanized area—which is planned for the proposed uses in the Sierra View Shopping Center, and does not include any housing units—consistent with the development assumptions for this parcel in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, the project will not have a new or more severe impact related to unplanned population growth. No existing buildings or residents are present on the project site; therefore, no residences or communities would be displaced.
The project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.
XV. Public Services
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any the public services:
a) Fire protection? SVSP EIR Section 4.11 No No No None b) Police protection? Same No No No None c) Schools? Same No No No None d) Parks? Same No No No None e) Other public facilities? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Discussion: Impacts related to public services were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. The SVSP EIR concluded that fire and police protection services, and other public services would not be negatively affected by the SVSP. Existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay a fire service construction tax, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the Fire Department. Sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for police services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less-than-significant impacts. An analysis of impacts on schools was included in the SVSP EIR, which concluded that two new elementary schools and one new intermediate school would be required in the SVSP area. The high school students generated from the SVSP were assumed to attend nearby high schools located outside the SVSP. A portion of the SVSP is located within the Center School District, and a portion is located within the Roseville City School District; Parcel JM-41 is entirely within the Center School District and Parcel W-20 is in the Roseville City School District. This Sierra View Shopping Center project is commercial, will contain no housing units, and will therefore not create an increased demand for schools or have an impact on schools. The property owner will be required to pay special taxes into a Community Facilities District, which funds park services. Park and recreation sites and facilities have been identified as part of the SVSP process and some park and recreation facilities have been constructed. The City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and green waste collection, to fund those services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less-than-significant impacts. The project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR because no development beyond what was analyzed in the SVSP EIR would occur and accordingly there would be no increased demand for services or need for construction of new facilities. Therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
XVI. Recreation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.11 No No No None
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Same No No No None
Discussion: Impacts related to recreation were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as less than significant. As described in the SVSP, parkland dedication for the project has been satisfied with dedication of parkland and payment of park dedication in-lieu fees. As noted in the EIR, the payment of Citywide and neighborhood park fees will be required, and the payment of fees combined with the dedication of parkland will ensure that impacts to park services are less than significant. As this is a commercial development, the project will not increase the number of residents anticipated for the SVSP area nor decrease the amount of area dedicated to park and recreation uses; therefore, this conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project. Moreover, because the level of development is consistent with what was analyzed in the SVSP EIR, the project would not cause the need for construction of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment beyond what was previously studied. Given the foregoing, the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the SVSP EIR, and will result in impacts consistent with the scope of those analyzed in the SVSP EIR; therefore, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
XVII. Transportation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1 to 4.3-5
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? n/a No No No None
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)?
SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Same No No No None
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
Discussion: The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that, with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to adjacent agency roadways were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, and mitigation to lessen the impact was adopted. These analyses were based upon the level of service criteria and metrics. Per changes in state law, level of service is no longer considered an impact under CEQA, such that this document need not further address the level of service impacts studied in the EIR. However, as discussed in the GHG evaluation above, the trips generated by the project are consistent with the SVSP EIR assumptions and thus the level of service conclusions in that EIR remain valid and unchanged. In accordance with the changes in the law adopted after the EIR was certified, wholly new CEQA documents must examine transportation impacts in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although there is no requirement to consider VMT associated with the project given the use of the existing EIR, the discussion below provides information regarding the project’s consistency with the VMT assumptions in the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter of the SVSP EIR and the GPU EIR. Checklist item “b” focuses on VMT. This metric was added to the checklist after publication of the SVSP EIR; however, the SVSP EIR did include quantification of VMT projected from SVSP implementation. The SVSP EIR’s chapter regarding Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions included an estimate of GHG emissions that would be generated by the traffic associated with the operation of uses allowed under the SVSP at buildout. As discussed in the GHG evaluation, the trip generation associated with the project is well within the number of trips that were assumed as part of the SVSP. Because the project’s proposed uses are also consistent with the uses allowed pursuant to the SVSP, the trip lengths associated with project trips would be expected to be consistent with the assumptions that were used to generate the original VMT analysis in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, VMT stemming from the project would be within the envelope of VMT set forth in the SVSP EIR, confirming that no new or more severe VMT impacts would result. In addition, the GPU EIR used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The VMT data was then normalized to residents at a “per capita” rate. As described in the GPU EIR, and consistent with the VMT reductions in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the City has adopted a VMT significance threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita. This threshold represents a 15 percent reduction from baseline per capita VMT. The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the remaining undeveloped areas of the City, consistent with General Plan land use designations and existing development agreements, would exceed the City’s adopted threshold, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact in both the constrained and unconstrained buildout scenarios.
As stated in the GPU EIR and pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA, projects that are consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis. Quantitative analyses are not required if it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT that is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the GPU EIR.
The City developed analysis guidance and thresholds for VMT as part of the GPU EIR. As discussed in detail in the Greenhouse Gases section of this Environmental Checklist, consistent with the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the analysis found that “local-serving” non-residential uses lead to reductions in citywide VMT because adding a local-serving center into an existing residential area simply re-routes existing travel from other – typically more distant – locations to a closer location. Any nonresidential use which improves “destination proximity” – that is, shortens the distance people must travel to reach a use such as the proposed
ADDENDUM
August 7, 2026
SVSP PCL JM-41 & WRSP PCL W-20 – Sierra View Shopping Center; File #PL25-0496
use – is considered “local-serving.” The proposed shopping center will improve destination proximity by providing additional commercial uses within existing residential areas and therefore will reduce travel distances for residents on the west side of Roseville. City staff also examined the City of Roseville traffic model for this area to determine whether the project falls within the scope of development anticipated within the GPU EIR. City staff analysis concluded that the project trip generation is consistent with the amount of trips a commercial shopping center use is projected to generate in the traffic model. Therefore, the GPU EIR analysis of VMT included more commercial trips than the proposed project will generate. Consequently, the project would not result in VMT impacts beyond those analyzed in the GPU EIR. The proposed project has no impact on air traffic patterns, and does not present substantial safety risks. The project design does not introduce hazards such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The project has been reviewed by the City Engineering Division and City Fire Department staff and a technical memorandum evaluating site access and circulation design was prepared by Fehr and Peers (June 2026) (see Attachment 2). These analyses recommended changes to the project design achieve consistency with the City’s Design Standards. All recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed site and circulation plans as part of the project. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City projects require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards. Compliance with existing regulations ensures that impacts are less than significant.
The proposed project is within the scope of the development assumptions of the SVSP EIR and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts or cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR relative to transportation. Thus, the SVSP EIR analysis remains adequate and applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures were included for each impacted facility (see SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1 to 4.3-5), but these measures have already been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and fee programs. The measures are no longer necessary to apply to individual projects, as a mechanism for their funding and construction is already implemented.