statements regarding VMT analysis: “Quantitative analysis would not be required if it can be demonstrated that a project is consistent with the General Plan and would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in this General Plan EIR.” Following the preparation of the General Plan Update and the accompanying City of Roseville General Plan Update Final EIR, the City’s travel demand model and VMT metrics were updated as part of the City’s Housing Element Update and accompanying Final Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update. This effort was more than just a study of modifications in zoning for the Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the City Council on August 18, 2021. Accordingly, the VMT impact analysis presented in the Final Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update represents the most comprehensive and up-to-date VMT metrics for the City. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-114 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page TI 16-22 of the January 2021 Amendments to the City of Roseville Design and Constructions Standards contains the following statements regarding VMT analysis:
“A project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it meets one or more of the following criteria. These criteria are based on the Governor’s [OPR] Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.”
1. Within Scope of Prior CEQA Analysis. The VMT generated by the Proposed Project is within the scope of a prior CEQA analysis, and is therefore covered by a prior analysis, Prior analysis includes analysis performed for the General Plan.
VMT for the Proposed Project was calculated and compared to the VMT of the original planned uses of the Project parcels under the WRSP. Refer to Section 3.18.2 above for the methodology used to calculate VMT. As shown in Table 3-16, the Proposed Project, if implemented, would result in a net decrease of 11,275 total daily weekday VMT when compared to the VMT that would be generated by the site if it were developed with its planned land uses under the WRSP EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would generate less VMT than what was proposed in the WRSP EIR and would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 (b). No new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
TABLE 3-16. WEEKDAY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED COMPARISON
LAND USE QUANTITY DAILY VEHICLE
TRIPS DAILY VMT1
Planned Land Uses2
Park – Parcel WB-50E 3.1 acres 8 54
Park (Sports Complex) – Parcel WB60A 6 fields3 2,870 22,3444 Industrial – Parcel WB-60B 30 acres (561.924 ksf)
5 2,3046 24,1927
Total 5,182 46,590
Proposed Roseville Sports Complex Project
Roseville Soccer Complex 10 fields 4,800 35,3144
Total 4,800 35,314
Difference (Project Minus Planned)
Total -382 -11,275
Notes:
1 Refer to technical appendix of Attachment H for detailed calculations. 2 Planned land uses represent those identified in the West Roseville Specific Plan. 3 Planned 25.2-acre sports complex would accommodate an estimated 6 fields. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-115 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 Average trip lengths for trips derived based on the geographic distribution of residents aged 5 to 17 years old in Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Granite Bay, Antelope, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Fair Oaks, Carmichael, North Highlands, Rio Linda, and Elverta based on US Census 2020 ACS data and their respective travel distances to/from the project site. In both scenarios, three fields would be utilized by the Placer United Soccer Club, which would draw from all of these communities. The remaining fields would be utilized by local teams and would draw from Roseville only.
5 Floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.43 derived from the proposed industrial park project analyzed in the Roseville Industrial Park EIR. 6 Trip generation based on trip rates from Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (ITE 2021). 7 Average trip length of 10.5 miles derived from the proposed industrial park project analyzed in the Roseville Industrial Park EIR.
Source: Attachment H
Question C
Would the project: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact. The Proposed Project would modify the Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive North and Westbrook Blvd./Brookstone Drive South intersections. The proposed intersection modifications would adhere to applicable City roadway design standards. The Proposed Project would not include any modifications to the existing circulation system in the vicinity of the Project Site that would result in a traffic safety hazard. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No new impact would occur.
Question D
Would the project: Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Roseville’s existing roadway and transportation network provides accessibility for fire, police, and other emergency service providers. Additionally, traffic signals in the City include emergency vehicle pre-emption equipment that would allow emergency responders to turn the signal green, allowing for efficient access to the scene. The Proposed Project would not create roadway and transportation facilities that impede access for emergency response vehicles.
Construction of the Proposed Project could result in temporary lane closures. Lane closures, if not properly regulated, could potentially result in inadequate emergency access. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with the City of Roseville Construction and Design Standards would require the preparation and approval of a Traffic Management Plan prior to the start of construction activities. The Traffic Management Plan would describe the locations and duration of anticipated lane closures and would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to all land uses adjacent to construction activities. No new impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. As described above, the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on VMT.
The Proposed Project, as well as other potential construction projects in the vicinity, would be required to implement a Traffic Management Plan, which would ensure that no transportation impacts would 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-116 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration occur related to adequate emergency access. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts and no new impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact to transportation not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-117 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.19 Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
§ 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
SETTING
California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities. Because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue are included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on tribal cultural resources (TCR). TCRs can only be identified by members of the Native American community, thus requiring consultation under CEQA.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-118 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Regulatory Context
AB 52, signed into law in 2014, established a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Pursuant to PRC, Division 13, § 21074, TCRs can be either:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the eligibility criteria for the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1(c)). In applying these criteria, the lead agency must consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area may have expertise concerning their TCRs. In light of this, AB 52 requires that, within 14 days of a decision to undertake a project or determination that a project application is complete, a lead agency shall provide written notification to California Native American tribes that have previously requested placement on the agency’s notice list. Notice to tribes shall include a brief project description, location, lead agency contact information, and the statement that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a tribe.
Consultation
A request was sent to the NAHC on March 22, 2022 asking for a search of the Sacred Lands File and for a list of contacts who might have information regarding cultural resources within the Proposed Project area. The NAHC responded on April 8, 2022. The City completed AB 52 consultation, sending notification letters on February 3, 2022 to the following tribes: UAIC, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Tsi Akim Maidu, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and Wilton Rancheria. Responses were received from UAIC and Wilton Rancheria, initiating consultation. However, Wilton Rancheria did not respond to subsequent communication and a letter was sent on April 19, 2022 closing consultation with the Wilton Rancheria.
UAIC responded on February 18, 2022 stating that they had no knowledge of TCRs near the Project Site and asking that both recommendations and unanticipated discovery mitigation measures be added to the Subsequent IS. UAIC is a federally recognized Tribe comprised of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area surrounding the Proposed Project. The Tribe has a deep spiritual, cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes. The Tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. It is the Tribe’s goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generations. UAIC stated that they conducted a records search for the identification of TCRs for the 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-119 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposed Project which included a review of pertinent literature and historic maps, and a records search using UAIC’s Tribal Historic Information System (THRIS). UAIC’s THRIS database is composed of UAIC’s areas of oral history, ethnographic history, and places of cultural and religious significance, including UAIC Sacred Lands that are submitted to the NAHC. The THRIS resources shown in this region also include previously recorded indigenous resources identified through the California Historic Resources Information System Center as well as historic resources and survey data. UAIC provided recommended mitigation measures regarding post-review discovery procedures, which have been included as Mitigation Measure TCR-1 below.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. As discussed above in Section 3.6, no TCRs were identified during cultural resources investigations or during consultation with Native American tribes. However, there is the possibility that unanticipated discoveries of subsurface archaeological deposits or human remains may occur. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 of the WRSP EIR, which provide for the protection of unanticipated finds made during ground disturbing activities, would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less-than-significant level. During consultation performed in 2022, UAIC provided new recommended mitigation measures to ensure proper post-review discovery procedures. These measures are included as Mitigation Measure TCR-1 below. With implementation of new Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Question B
Would the project: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. As discussed in Section 3.6, no TCRs were identified during cultural resources investigations. However, there is the possibility that unanticipated discoveries of subsurface archaeological deposits or human remains may occur. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 of the WRSP EIR, which provide for the protection of 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-120 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration unanticipated finds made during ground disturbing activities, would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less-than-significant level. During consultation performed in 2022, UAIC provided a new recommended mitigation measures to ensure proper post-review discovery procedures. These measures are included as Mitigation Measure TCR-1 below. With implementation of new Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. Development of the Proposed Project may impact TCRs, adding to cumulative impacts from other projects in the region. TCRs that could be affected by the Proposed Project as well as others in the region are subject to protections under PRC §§ 5024.1, 21083.2, and 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. Given the non-renewable nature of TCRs, any impact to TCRs is potentially cumulatively considerable. If resources are uncovered during construction, application of the consultation process under WRSP EIR MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2, and new Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less-than-significant level. Application of similar measures to TCRs located within the region would similarly reduce the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to TCRs to a less-than-significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
TCR-1 Post-Review Discovery Procedures
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or TCRs, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City’s Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately contact a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations. All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.
The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural resource or has the potential to be a TCR. The subsequent actions will be determined by the type of discovery, as described below. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to TCRs, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to TCRs, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-121 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a TCR, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.
The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative. No further notifications or tribal consultation is necessary because the discovery is not a TCR of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation of this finding to the City.
Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-TCR from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a). The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City. The City will notify the tribe(s) who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-TCRs. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether or not the find represents a TCR. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a tribe(s), the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a TCR, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a); or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially TCR that does not include human remains, the tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a), or a TCR, as defined in PRC § 21074. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a); or 2) not a TCR, as defined in PRC § 21074; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction. Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-122 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (PRC § 5097.98). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. PRC § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (PRC § 5097.94). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (PRC § 5097.98). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-123 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.20 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SETTING
Regulatory Setting
California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, mandates management of non-hazardous solid waste throughout California. The purpose of AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible; improve regulation of existing solid waste landfills; ensure that new solid waste landfills are environmentally sound; streamline permitting 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-124 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration procedures for solid waste management facilities; and specify the responsibilities of local governments to develop and implement integrated waste management programs.
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen requires that at least 50% of the weight of non-hazardous job site debris generated by new construction be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. CALGreen requires submission of plans and verifiable post-project documentation to demonstrate compliance.
City of Roseville Ordinance 4822
This Ordinance is known as the “Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance” and was designed to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharge and prohibits nonstormwater discharges into the stormwater system.
Environmental Setting
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities The Roseville Electric Utility provides electrical services to the City, including the Project Site (Roseville Electric Utility, 2019). Overhead power lines are present on the Project Site. The Roseville Electric Utility produces a portion of the energy needed to meet the electrical demands of the City through the REP.
The Roseville Electric Utility also receives power from the federal government, the Northern California Power Agency, and the open electricity market (Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). At the time the WRSP EIR was drafted, it was proposed that the electrical demands of the WRSP area would be met by either the Roseville Electric Utility or PG&E. The REP was proposed at the time and was not considered as an electricity source for the Roseville Electric Utility in the WRSP EIR.
PG&E provides natural gas in the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on mapping of PG&E natural gas lines, there is an existing PG&E natural gas line running along the eastern boundary of the Project Site that connects to the Pleasant Grove WWTP and the REP (PG&E, 2022). A PG&E easement is located along the eastern border of the Project Site. The WRSP EIR identified PG&E as the anticipated natural gas provider for the WRSP area.
Various private telecommunications providers provide telecommunication services to the City and the WRSP area.
Water Supply
According to the City of Roseville’s 2021 water quality report, potable water in the City is provided via surface water sources such as Folsom Lake, and via groundwater (City, 2021). A portion of the potable water supply is provided by the Placer County Water Agency. Additionally, the City maintains a recycled water program that provides recycled water to areas like parks and golf courses for water uses such as landscaping irrigation (City, 2022c). As discussed in Section 2.3.3, existing municipal water lines exist in the vicinity of the Project Site along Westbrook Blvd. in a north-south direction (24 inch), along Durango Way (6 inch), and Brookstone Drive at two locations north (6 inch) and south (8 inch) of Durango Way in 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-125 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration an east-west direction. The WRSP EIR considered both surface and groundwater supplies to service the WRSP area.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Wastewater treatment in the City is largely provided by the Pleasant Grove WWTP and the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. According to Table 4.11-12 of the WRSP EIR, the WRSP is expected to produce 2,828,665 gallons per day of wastewater for treatment at the Pleasant Grove WWTP The Pleasant Grove WWTP is located adjacent to the Project Site, west of Phillip Road and south of Blue Oaks Blvd. In 2019, the Pleasant Grove WWTP received approval to expand its capacity, following which it will have a 10.8 million gallon per day capacity (City, 2022d).
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Solid waste services to the Project Site would be provided the City. Collected solid waste would be delivered to the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facility located on Fiddyment Road. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority owns a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) which receives, separates, processes, and markets recyclable materials removed from the waste stream. Residual waste is transferred to the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Western Regional Sanitary Landfill located on the same site.
Drainage
A Drainage and Utility Plan is included as Sheet L5.1 of Attachment B. Stormwater runoff volumes were modeled within Section 4.12 of the WRSP EIR. A stormwater drainage system is maintained by the City, and there is a gutter with storm drains present along Westbrook Blvd. adjacent to the Project Site.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No New Impact.
Water Supply
As discussed above, the Proposed Project would tie into the existing municipal utilities. The Proposed Project is within the scope of the size of the Regional Sports Park originally anticipated by the WRSP EIR and would not require water in addition to what was evaluated in the WRSP EIR. Movement of the Proposed Project from the location identified in the WRSP EIR to the Project Site would not require additional expansion, relocation, or new construction of water supply facilities as municipal connections are already available adjacent to the Project Site. The WRSP EIR evaluated the expansion and new construction of water delivery systems and available water needed to ensure the WRSP area was adequately supplied with water. The WRSP EIR determined that impacts resulting from expansion and 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-126 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration new construction of water delivery systems were less than significant and that no mitigation would be required. No relocation of facilities was anticipated. The Proposed Project would not require the expansion, relocation, or new construction of water supply facilities beyond those already anticipated in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new impact would occur.
Wastewater Treatment
The Proposed Project would include public restrooms, which would require wastewater treatment. The size of the Proposed Project is within the scope of the Regional Sports Park originally analyzed in the WRSP; therefore, the number of restrooms necessary to support the Proposed Project would not exceed what would have been necessary for the project anticipated in the WRSP EIR, and sewer connections are available without expanding, constructing, or relocating infrastructure. The Pleasant Grove WWTP, which is adjacent to the Project Site, would service the Proposed Project, consistent with the analysis in the WRSP EIR. As discussed above, a WWTP expansion was approved in 2019 and would further expand the capacity of the Pleasant Grove WWTP. The WRSP EIR determined that impacts resulting from expansion and new construction of wastewater treatment systems could pose a significant environmental impact. No relocation of facilities was anticipated. Mitigation was included in the WRSP EIR (MM 4.11-5) to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Proposed Project would not require the expansion, relocation, or new construction of wastewater facilities beyond those already anticipated in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Stormwater Drainage
A Drainage and Utility Plan is included as Sheet L5.1 of Attachment B. The Proposed Project is within the size of the Regional Sports Park originally anticipated in the WRSP EIR and would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff when compared to the Regional Sports Park originally identified in the WRSP. Movement of the Complex to the Project Site would also not impact the analysis presented in the WRSP EIR as the storm drain system is interconnected and drains to the same system. The WRSP EIR determined that impacts resulting from expansion and new construction of storm drainage systems could pose a significant environmental impact. No relocation of facilities was anticipated. Mitigation was included in the WRSP EIR (MM 4.12-2 Pay fair-share of Roseville regional stormwater retention facility improvements) to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Proposed Project would not require the expansion, relocation, or new construction of stormwater drainage facilities beyond those already anticipated in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Electric, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
As discussed above, the Project Site would be serviced by the Roseville Electric Utility. This is consistent with the anticipated electrical source identified in the WRSP EIR. The WRSP EIR determined that existing electrical facilities were sufficient to support growth identified under the WRSP area and that no mitigation as it relates to electrical facilities was required. The size of the Proposed Project and electrical demand have not significantly changed since the WRSP EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would return energy to the grid through the installation of solar panels, which was not specifically considered in the WRSP EIR. Additionally, since the WRSP EIR, the REP has been constructed and is operational. This source of electricity was proposed at the time of the WRSP EIR and was not considered as an energy supply source at the time. Therefore, electrical facilities would not need to be expanded to support the 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-127 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposed Project beyond those identified in the WRSP EIR. Existing overhead electrical lines span the Project Site. The East/West trending overhead lines would be relocated underground. The North/South trending overhead lines would remain as is.
The Proposed Project would not require use of natural gas and would not require relocation of existing facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new, expanded, or relocation of natural gas facilities. Similarly, the Proposed Project does not require installation or relocation of telecommunications facilities. No new impacts would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
Question B
Would the project: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No New Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would require the use of water supplies for activities such as washing aggregates, dust suppression, and washing surfaces. However, these uses would be limited during the construction phase and quantities and, since the Proposed Project has not increased in size from what was proposed in the WRSP EIR, would not exceed water demands previously considered. Water supply services for operation of the Proposed Project would be required for restrooms, water fountains, and misting devices. Since the WRSP EIR, it has been determined that artificial turf will be used for the fields, further reducing water demand. Recycled water would be utilized for landscaping. The annual water demand for the Proposed Project is anticipated to be approximately 48,360,457 gallons per year.
The WRSP EIR determined that existing water supply would be sufficient in wet years, but that reduced groundwater pumping would be necessary during multiple dry years to avoid a significant impact to groundwater levels. Mitigation was included in the WRSP EIR (MM 4.11-2) to prevent significant impacts related to water supply in multiple dry years. The changes to the Proposed Project since the WRSP EIR would not result in an increased water supply demand compared to the Regional Sports Park originally evaluated in the WRSP EIR. Additionally, since the analysis presented in the WRSP EIR, the City has expanded recycled water infrastructure and delivery to reduce demands on potable water supplies compared to WRSP EIR recycled water amounts (City, 2022d). Correspondence with the City’s Environmental Utilities – Engineering department has confirmed that adequate water supplies exist to serve the Proposed Project demands (Hanson, 2022). No new impacts would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
Question C
Would the project: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New Impact. Wastewater services for the Proposed Project would be provided by the City and would be required to serve the four proposed restrooms. Wastewater would be processed at the Pleasant Grove WWTP, which is located directly to the east of the Project Site. The annual wastewater demand 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-128 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project is anticipated to be no more than the estimated water demand for the Proposed Project: 48,360,457 gallons per year. The changes to the Proposed Project since the WRSP EIR would not result in an increased wastewater treatment demand. Additionally, since the analysis presented in the FEIR, the capacity of the Pleasant Grove WWTP has been expanded. Correspondence with the City’s Environmental Utilities – Engineering department has confirmed that existing wastewater facilities have capacity to serve the Proposed Project (Hanson, 2022). No new impacts would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
Question D
Would the project: Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No New Impact. As discussed within the WRSP EIR, impacts to solid waste services would be significant and unavoidable. Construction demand for solid waste during build out of the WRSP area was determined to require expansion of the MRF and landfill capacity. However, at the time the WRSP EIR was drafted, it was unknown if these expansions would occur, and the impact was deemed significant and unavoidable, even with the inclusion of mitigation (MM 4.11-7, MM 4.11-8, MM 4.11-10, and MM 4.11-11). Currently, the Western Placer Waste Action Plan Draft EIR is under review and would increase capacity and recycling/diversion, amongst other actions (WPWMA, 2021). The Proposed Project is within the size of the Regional Sports Park originally analyzed within the WRSP EIR and would not produce construction or operational waste in excess of levels projected in the WRSP EIR. No new impacts would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.
Question E
Would the project: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and regulations. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the laws and regulations designed to divert waste from landfills, including, but not limited to, AB 939 and CALGreen. As the Proposed Project would comply with applicable regulations, no new impact would occur when compared to the WRSP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Utilities would not need to be constructed, expanded, or relocated beyond those impacts already identified in the WRSP EIR. Utilities available to the Project Site are sufficient to serve the Proposed Project and would not exceed the demand previously evaluated in the WRSP EIR. The WRSP EIR provided mitigation for impacts to utilities and the Proposed Project would not increase impacts identified in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no new cumulative impacts. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-129 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact related to utilities/service systems not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-130 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.21 Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WILDFIRE
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
SETTING
Regulatory Context
State Responsibility Areas
State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are lands in California where the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection and where CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) include land in cities, cultivated agricultural lands, unincorporated non-flammable areas, and lands that do not meet the criteria for SRA of Federal Responsible Areas (State of California, 2022a). California 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-131 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration PRC§§ 4201 through 4204 and California Government Code 51175-89 direct CAL FIRE to map fire hazard zones within state SRAs and LRAs, respectively, based on relevant factors such as fuels, terrain, and weather. These zones, referred to as fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), are based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30 to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. The zones also relate to the requirements for building codes designed to reduce the ignition potential to buildings in the wildland-urban interface zones.
Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Disaster Mitigation Act is federal legislation that encourage proactive pre-disaster planning.
Accordingly, the City has developed and maintained a Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan in an effort to reduce future loss of life and property resulting from disasters. Wildfire was one of several potential hazards identified in the Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan. Wildfire risk is assessed in the Plan, as well as fire prevention programs and standards (City, 2016).
Environmental Setting
At the time the WRSP EIR was written, wildfire analysis was not an impact under CEQA; therefore, wildfire impacts related to the WRSP were not analyzed. According to the City’s Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan (City, 2016), the City does not include any designated wildland-urban interface areas. A significant portion of the area around the City is developed. State maps show that the City has a moderate fire threat. While the City rarely has critical fire weather conditions, a combination of dry grasslands, the topography in northeast Roseville, and hot temperatures with limited rainfall could result in a risk of wildfire on occasion. The most likely wildfire hazards in the City include grassland fires on undeveloped properties in the WRSP Area or west or north of Roseville, fires in northeast Roseville where significant slopes are adjacent to ravines and residential development, and fires in open space and preserve areas within the developed sections of Roseville. The Project Site is located within a relatively flat and currently undeveloped area within City limits. The Project Site is surrounded by residential development to the immediate west and the Pleasant Grove WWTP to the immediate east.
The Proposed Project is not located in a SRA, but is rather located in a LRA (State of California, 2022b).
The Project Site is not located within a designated FHSZ. The closest land designated as a moderate/high FHSZ, is in the rural area east of Rocklin approximately 10 miles east of the Project Site.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. The Proposed Project is not located in a SRA or a very high FHSZ. Construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the Project Site boundaries and would not result in lane closures and thus would not affect emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-132 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in place through the State, County, or City. No new impact would occur.
Question B
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No New Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ.
The Proposed Project does not involve unique slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, wildfire risk would not be exacerbated and the potential to expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire is less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Question C
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No New Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ.
The Proposed Project would be constructed and located within the Project Site boundary. Overhead and underground utility lines exist in the vicinity of the Project Site. It is not anticipated that new electrical distribution lines, whether overhead or underground, would be necessary to serve the Proposed Project.
Impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Question D
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No New Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ.
As described in Section 3.8, the Proposed Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or soil and does not have a high risk of landslides or liquefaction. The Project Site is relatively flat and grading associated with the Proposed Project would not alter drainage patterns. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No new impact would occur.
3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-133 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Cumulative Impacts
No New Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project and cumulative projects could result in a cumulative impact if these projects exacerbated wildfire risk. The Project Site and surrounding area is within City limits and not within a FHSZ. Furthermore, the City does not include any designated wildland-urban interface areas, which reduces the potential for uncontrolled wildfire. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to wildfire and no new impact would occur compared to the WRSP EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Proposed Project would not result in any new potentially significant impact regarding wildfire not already analyzed in the WRSP EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-134 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.22 MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Question A
Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. As discussed in the previous sections, the Proposed Project could potentially have new significant environmental effects with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Recreation, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this IS. 3 Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
July 2022 3-135 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Question B
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. Cumulative impacts for each resource area have been considered within the analysis of each resource area. When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Question C
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation. The potential direct environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been considered within the discussion of each environmental resource area in the previous sections. When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
July 2022 4-1 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 LIST OF PREPARERS
CITY OF ROSEVILLE – LEAD AGENCY
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS – CONSULTANT
Project Manager: Kelly Boyle
Technical Staff: Kathleen Sholty
Kelli Raymond
Jedidiah Dowell
Jennifer Stucker
Marcus Barrango
Charlane Gross, RPA
SAXELBY ACOUSTICS – NOISE CONSULTANT
Luke Saxelby, Principal Consultant
FEHR & PEERS – TRAFFIC ENGINEER
John Gard, P.E., ESP, Principal
Greg Behrens, AICP - Associate, Sierra Region Office Leader MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING – LIGHT ENGINEER
Bob Crookham, Sales Representative
5 References
July 2022 5-1 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 REFERENCES
Bagera, Robert, 2022. Phone correspondence with the City and Robert Baqera of Roseville Police Department on June 20, 2022.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed June 2022.
CARB, 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed June 2021.
CARB, 2017. Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, 2017. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed June 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2022. Fire and Resource Assessment Program Viewer. Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed April 13, 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2010a. Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office-of-smartmobility-climate-change/smart-mobility-active-transportation/smart-mobility-framework. Accessed June 2022.
Caltrans, 2010b. Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan. Implementation of Deputy Directive 64- R1: Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System. Available: https://www.cailg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/completestreets_ip03-10-10.pdf?1443564712. Accessed June 2022.
Caltrans, 2013a. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, p. 2-20. Available online at: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdot.ca.gov %2F-%2Fmedia%2Fdot-media%2Fprograms%2Fenvironmentalanalysis%2Fdocuments%2Fenv%2Ftens-sep2013- a11y.pdf&clen=10864324&chunk=true&pdffilename=tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2022.
Caltrans, 2013b. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, p.37. Available online at:
https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4521. Accessed October 2020.
Caltrans, 2016. California’s Transportation Plan 2040. Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0004899_ctp2040_a11y.pdf.
Accessed June 2022.
Caltrans, 2019a. Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 – 2019 Update. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/risk-strategic-management/documents/2019-csm-plan-updatea11y.pdf. 5 References
July 2022 5-2 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Caltrans, 2019b. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available online at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa. Accessed May 4, 2022.
Caltrans, 2020a. VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. Adopted May 20, 2020.
Caltrans, 2020b. Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance.
California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 2019. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. Accessed May 3, 2022.
City of Roseville (City), 2016. 2016 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. September 2016. Prepared by Tetra Tech. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/fire_department/emergency_preparedness/ multi_hazard_mitigation_plan. Accessed June 2022.
City, 2018. City of Roseville GIS Data Portal. Stormwater Watershed. Available online at: https://dataroseville.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/d5e2bfb91bf942b18f0c041e8239b7d4_29/explore?locatio n=38.781143%2C-121.365143%2C15.25. Accessed May 27, 2022.
City, 2020a. City of Roseville General Plan 2035. August 2020. Chapter 6 – Parks and recreation.
Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_pla n_development_guidelines. Accessed May 2, 2022.
City, 2020b. City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards. Effective January 2020. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/engineering_land_de velopment/construction_management_inspection/design_construction_standards. Accessed May 4, 2022.
City, 2021. Environmental Utilities 2021 Water Quality Report. Available online at: https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Environm ental%20Utilities/At%20your%20service/Water%20supply/Water%20quality%20reports/EU_Wate rQualityReport_2022.pdf. Accessed June 2022.
City, 2022b. Fire Station Locations. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/fire_department/fire_station_locations.
Accessed May 26, 2022.
City, 2022c. Recycled Water Program Overview. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/environmental_utilities/at_your_service/recy cled_water/program_overview. Accessed June 2022.
City, 2022d. Pleasant Grove Wastewater Expansion. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/environmental_utilities/utility_infrastructure_ and_projects/capital_improvements___rehabilitation_projects/pleasant_grove_wastewater_expan sion. Accessed June 2022.
Department of Conservation (DOC), 2002. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces. Available online at:
5 References
July 2022 5-3 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
Accessed April 12, 2022.
DOC, 2015a. Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California. Available Online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. Accessed April 12, 2022.
DOC, 2015b. Department of Conservation, Landslide Inventory. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/. Accessed April 12, 2022.
DOC, 2015c. Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed April 13, 2022.
DOC, 2017. Department of Conservation, State of California Williamson Act Contract Land Map. Available online at: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fplanning.lac ity.org%2Feir%2FHollywoodCenter%2FDeir%2FELDP%2F(E)%2520Initial%2520Study%2FInitial %2520Study%2FAttachment%2520B%2520References%2FCalifornia%2520Department%2520o f%2520Conservation%2520Williamson%2520Map%25202016.pdf&clen=12747518&chunk=true.
Accessed April 13, 2022.
DOC, 2018. Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 7, 2022.
DOC, 2019. State Mining and Geology Board Guidelines. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines. Accessed May 3, 2022.
DOC, 2021a. Department of Conservation, Alquist Priolo Fault Zones Map. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed April 13, 2022.
DOC, 2021b. Solano County Tsunami Inundation. Available online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/solano. Accessed May 3, 2022.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2022. Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor, Hazardous Site Map. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=2500+Westbrook+Blvd. Accessed April 13, 2022.
Fairfax County Park Authority, 2019. Athletic Field Lighting Systems. Performance Outline Specifications.
Available online at:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/sites/parks/files/assets/documents/plandev/athletic_field_light ing_pos.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2021). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=vacaville#searchresultsanchor.
Accessed May 3, 2022.
GeoTracker, 2022. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. Available online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed June 2022.
Hanson, 2022. Email correspondence between Terri Shirhall (City of Roseville Environmental Coordinator) and George Hanson (City of Roseville Principal Engineer). May 17, 2022. 5 References
July 2022 5-4 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe, 2002.
Historic Spots in California, Fifth Edition. Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP), 2011. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light.
Available online at: https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/1808/guidance-notes-for-thereduction-of-obtrusive-light. Accessed June 6, 2022.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2013.
Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Available online at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. Accessed June 2022.
Levy, Richard, 1978. Eastern Miwok. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, pp. 398-413.
W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2022. Custom Soil Resource Report. Accessed May 2022.
PAR Environmental Services, 2001. Cultural Resources investigation of the Westpark/Fiddyment Ranch and Liveoak Enterprises/Signature Property Development Project, Placer County, California.
Report prepared for Signature Properties.
PG&E, 2022. Explore our natural gas transmission pipeline map. Available online at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/gastransmission-pipeline/gas-transmission-pipelines.page. Accessed June 2022.
PCAPCD, 2021. Placer County Air Pollution Control District Policy – Review of Land Use Projects Under CEQA. August 2021. Available online at:
https://www.placerair.org/DocumentCenter/View/55349/Final-CEQA-Review-PolicyAmendment_8-12-2021?bidId=. Accessed June 2022.
Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce, n.d. Utilities. Available online at:
https://rosevillechamber.com/living-here/relocation-info/utilities/. Accessed June 2022.
Roseville Electric Utility, 2019. Generating a Path to the Future 2019 Annual Report. Available online at:
https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Roseville %20Electric%20Utility/Annual%20Report/Electric_AnnualReport_2019_WEB.pdf. Accessed June 2022.
State of California, 2022a. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Available online at:
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/. Accessed March 2, 2022.
State of California, 2022b. Office of the State Fire Marshall. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed March 2, 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau (UC Census), 2021. QuickFacts: Roseville, California. Available online at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221. Accessed May 26, 2022. 5 References
July 2022 5-5 Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2018. U.S. Geological Survey, Long-Term National Seismic Hazard Map. Available online at: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/2018-long-term-national-seismichazard-map. Accessed October 12, 2020.
USGS, 2020. Mineral Resources Data System. Available online at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/mapus.html. Accessed May 3, 2022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigation Climate change in California. April 20, 2007. Produced by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Air Resources Board.
West Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA), 2021. Waste Action Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: https://renewableplacer.com/eir/. Accessed June 2022.
Wilson, Norman L., and Arlean H. Towne, 1978. Nisenan. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8, pp. 387-397. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
ATTACHMENT A
CONCEPT PLANS
VAN NO PARKING
VAN
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO PARKING VAN NO
PARKING
VAN NO PARKING
BUS PARKING
PASSENGER DROP OFF BUS PARKING PASSENGER DROP OFF 95
94 93 92 95
96 97
97 96
97 94
93 92
94 93
92 95
96 91 STROLLER PARKING
92 90 VAN NO PARKING (45'X20') MAINTENANCE BUILDING WITH RESTROOM (50'X60') MAINTENANCE SHOP (60'X25') COVERED EQUIPMENT STORAGE (40'X25') COVERED WASH STATION WITH SEWER 5- (17'X9') MATERIAL STORAGE AREA (20'X25') STORAGE (20'X25') STORAGE (8'X24') DUMPSTER (8'X24') COMPACTOR (40') RAMP UP TO LANDING JUNE 27, 2022 City of Roseville Soccer Complex City of Roseville Westbrook Boulevard MASTER PLAN - CONCEPT NORTH FIELD 1 FIELD 2 FIELD 4 FIELD 3 FIELD 5 FIELD 6 FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9 FIELD 10 LEGEND FIELDS: 70 YARDS x 120 YARDS (SEE ENLARGEMENT) 20' SPECTATOR SIDE BUFFER 22.5' PLAYER SIDE BUFFER 15' ENDS OF FIELD BUFFER NORTH PARKING LOT 594 PARKING STALLS RESTROOMS AT PLAZA CONCESSIONS BUILDING PICNIC SHADE STRUCTURES (20' X50') TEMPORARY NETTING ALL ACCESSIBLE PLAY AREA (1 ACRE) PARK STORAGE/MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED FUTURE PHASE 1 SOLAR SHADE STRUCTURES - NORTH PARKING LOT (77,760 SQ. FT.) 135' X 40' = 30 PARKING STALLS (10 TOTAL) 108' X 40' = 24 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) 90' X 40' = 20 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) BIOREMEDIATION = 25,926 SQUARE FEET U10 & U12 COMBINED - YOUTH SOCCER STRIPING (45 YDS X 65 YDS) RESTROOM AT PLAYGROUND PLAYGROUND SHADE STRUCTURE (1-21'X' 38' ) EXISTING PUBLIC BUS STOP PIPE GATE BUS DROP OFF FOOD TRUCK PARKING 16' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND MAINTENANCE YARD 42" TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 8' TALL OMEGA II FENCE WITH 22' NETTING 10'X10' POP-UP TENT WITH SCORER'S TABLE SPORTS LIGHTING SHADE STRUCTURES - PROMENADE SOCCER GOAL PLAYER'S AREA WARM-UP AREA PARK ENTRY SIGN ON FENCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SOUTH PARKING LOT 361 PARKING STALLS FUTURE PHASE 2 SOLAR SHADE STRUCTURES - SOUTH PARKING LOT (51,120 SQ. FT.) 144' X 40' = 32 PARKING STALLS (3 TOTAL) 135' X 40' = 24 PARKING STALLS (2 TOTAL) 72' X 40' = 18 PARKING STALLS (8 TOTAL)
DURANGO
ROAD
DRIVE
BROOKSTONE PHILLIP ROAD 594 STALLS 11 7 13 3 4518 1 24 16 1234567891011121314151617 1819202122232425262728 21 28 21 23 14 24 1919 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 1 2 29 11 29 8 101010 101010 1010 1010 25 30 30 30 6 6 6 6 101010 101010 11 11 11 30 22 26
BROOKSTONE
DRIVE A 1"-20' FIELD ENLARGEMENT PLAN VIEW WESTBROOK BLVD. ENLARGEMENT A 29 21 21 222121 1919 21 21 24 24 24 24 24 20 16 12 12 1 11 17 15 25 25 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 ADD ALTERNATE 1: FIELDS 2 & 9 4 CANTILEVER SHADE STRUCTURES AT FIELDS SOUTH PLAZA AREA 186 PARKING STALLS- SOUTH FUTURE PHASE: FIELDS 1 &10 4 CANTILEVER SHADE STRUCTURES AT FIELDS MAINTENANCE ROAD/PERIMETER WALKWAY 175 PARKING STALLS - SOUTH 0' 50' 100' 200' 300' 1 345 25 30 1 25 11 18 1 9 25 1 25 361 STALLS 31 31 32 323232 323232 323232 3232 3232 25 25 V 0 ' ;::;;~Ja;;;a:aca===--=a,=aaa-..a;;;;;;;;a;;.a;;.;;;;;;;a;;;;;;="\;==:=a.:==-===-==a.:==aa==c'i==;;a::==ai===aa=;==~ ·:"=•=•=•:~:~:=:=:~~~=~=:=:~~~:=:=:=:=:•:;:=:=:=~==~=~=:=:=:~=:~:=:=:~~;;:;;:;;:~~:=:=:~:~~:;;:aa:aa:aa:aa:;;;:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:;;:aa:aa:::::;;.:::::aa:aa:aa:;;:aa:aa:::aa:;;.:aa:~:~;;:~:;;:=:=:=:=:~;:=:=:=:;:~:~~~~::~_=_~~~~~-~---- ~~~~~~~~~~:::::::~~:::::--------.,.~-~---..,...,.----.:-'+.---l"~--:~---«::::="::::---..LI ........,.=:.,.a..., ........ .. -=~=-----z:=-..=d::=z.~ --=~::;:::•:..., i • r----- --------~= ('~ : Lr --=-~-- 'u - :.;=~--i ____ =_"°_=_se~,==f=!=~i"_=r;c_=_=,c~-=-~=~=~=~=~',--c--'1"-=-=-~--=-~=~=~=~=1;:c_-=_· - - -, 181 ,------ -- - L--~ L--~L------ ,-- ---, L ______ ..J L_ __ _J 181 ,------ I -- L_ __ _J L _____ _ L_, _____ ...J 0 0 ..,- s. .,-"' ... • i • • Ii,. • I .. - ,, -· ' ~,-, -- {y;4j__ i \ , ~/ ;,) '',, (: ,, 11111110 11111 ! 111110 1 1111 0 11 l 1111 DHE ' '' 11111 1 Ff ~ ' \ 1.., ' i 11111110 11111 1111110 1 11111 1 1111 0 11 11111 w 1111 1,1-10 1 1111 I 11 I~ IOI jj I_I 111 1 IIII DHE - l- - -- L- -'C---r- - ---'- --1=-..---------+------- - - I -- -----r--1- I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROsEf fLLE
CALIFORN A
_J_ __ _J_----
l
_ ___,,--
I L~------
----r-1 --------'!-
---\ 711
I_ 1-
'
I '
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
11111111rnfl 111,1111 0m1
llllllllamllllllll OHH
------
----
7 - I
- 1,----=--~ ---:-_ -_-:-..:=-::-_:- --=----=--___::-
,------ /"" ,--- - -- ~
L__ .!,_ _J L ______ L ______ :_J L_ __ _J ,-------, ,- ------ L_ __ _J L :------ L _______ _J ·r:::_ _ . _ _J ,------ ,-- --, 181 ,------ ,-- - 7 , ,-- ·: J 1:>-:. / , •." _..,-----J;-¼-__J I : L_ ________.___r C ________ L----'- --_JL_ __ _J L_ __ _J L ______ L ______ :...J L_ __ _J 181 L_ __ _J L______ ~ - / 0 • \ .
'1: • J ,:
_ , I ',
-----
+-
" "
i'----..
$
-\..,,,
·~ •© k,1· I v
7 "·
' ' ' •
I '
' -~ n\.. -.
~ -/
!}
,-
• I I
I '
r-/
~\ •
I
!
•
• •
0 0
'
' ' ' ' ' ' '
\ "'. '•, ,,--·
• ! / • - ( •
,
•
D
I
I
I
I
r2
' ' ' •
-
0 0
0 I
;,·-
-'· ;· -,. __
• ,1 ( • 0
• • • • . .. •
0 0
•
\
OH
jj *
Ot +t
0 I
• •
0 Om 0
? jj
0 ~
I ----- ,-· •" , ~· ,~ 0 0 I • • • • • -
' . I I
i • ' ,,
)
.
• I
,, .
·:, • } II
·. -e( I i
• ;·: i I
·- 4 I
~J )I /
I /
' ' ' '
' ' '-,
' ' ' '
•
I
I
' I ' '
"----i--r-, : '
' ' ' ' '
----
---
--
--
•
--------
_ __._ _____ _
' I
c7
~ --
-----------------
/
I I I
D
L
_______________________________ _
VERDE DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd , Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
fax: 408.985_ 7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
ATTACHMENT C
VISUAL SIMULATIONS AND GRAPHICS
7 I
I
I 1•
I
I
I
I
I
1 l e
I
I
•
• •
•
NORTH
MOLDED BUCKET SEAT
SWAY FUN GLIDER
RETREAT CONE
OODLE SWING
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- ----
TURF
[ 90' X 145'
I
I
I
I
I
I
©
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
• •
•
•
•
•
• • •
5000 SERIES SWINGS
20'x38' STRUCTURE
SHAPE OF A FOOTBALL
O' 5' 1 O' 20' 40'
---
APRIL 1 8, 2022
~ ifOsEl fLLE
CALIFORNIA
Y:\Projects-FU\2021\210"800 - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\Grophic, & Moster Plon\_Revised Concept Plon\21W600_RSC-PlyGmd-CONCEPT 2.dwg Apr 19, 2022 06:51om I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
®
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
• •
GLOBAL MOTION SPINNER
TOPSYTURNY SPINNER
WE-GO-FOUND SPINNER
- QUANTIS A.2 -
---- ---- ----
•
•
HILL SLIDES
HILL CLIMBER
•
•
•
• •
• • • • • • •
• •
I
I
TYPOLOGY BENCH
GATHERING SPACE
I
I
\ \
. \ \ . "
•
\ ~
\
\
\.
\
\
"'
•
•
~
•
~- RETREAT CONE
~-ZIPKROOZ
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND CONCEPT 2 RENDERING
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard
STRUCTURE ON HILSIDE
RESTROOMS
TURF
25' X 13'
•
•
•
•
X
• 1 • • •
•
• • •
~ ROLLER TABLE
~-- SHADE SAILS
WITH SEATWALL
•
~
DETENTION BASIN
•
• • •
• •
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd, Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985. 7200
V E RO E O ES I G N fax: 408.985. 7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
r.)'"
r
['''''[
. l ~ ·> ' ..
~\ ' ~ '7s ,
,. . .: ' -,,
APRIL 1 8, 2022
~ ifOsEl fLLE
CALIFORNIA
RHAPSODY GRANDIOSO CHIMES
TODDLER SWINGS (2-5 YEARS)
Y:\Projects-FU\2021\210"800 - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\Grophic, & Moster Plon\_Revised Concept Plon\21W600_RSC-PlyGmd-CONCEPT 2.dwg Apr 19, 2022 09:IX'om
RHAPSODY KETTLE DRUM GROUP RHAPSODY CASCATA BELLS ROLLER TABLE OODLE SWING (5-12 YERAS) 5000 SERIES SWINGS (5-12 YEARS) QUANTIS A2 (5- 12 YERAS) GLOBAL MOTION (5- 12 YERAS) TOPSYTURNY SPINNER (5-12 YERAS) STRUCTURE ON HILLSIDE (5-12 YEARS) RETREAT CONE
SHADE SAIL STRUCTURE 20'X38' STRUCTURE SHAPE OF A FOOTBALL City of Roseville Soccer Complex
INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND CONCEPT 2 - IMAGERY BOARD
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard
SENSORY PLAY CENTER
SWAY FUN GLIDER ZIPKROOZ (5-12)
WE-GO-ROUND SPINNER (5-12 YERAS)
HILL SLIDES
TYPOLOGY RIBBON BENCH
VERDE DES IGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd, Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985. 7200
fax: 408.985. 7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
•
~ ½
~
~---------,
~
•
•
•
•
• • 11 111111 .,. ~'iii 11111111 ~
............. ~~[::~ ---:, ----------------·· ------
• •
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
APRIL 04, 2022
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\2lOJaOO - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\EXHIBIT-ENlSIGNS_210J50D_RSC.Owg /,pr 04, 2022 0~:54pm \ I
I \ I I
I \
\ I
I \
\ I
I \
\ I
I \
\ I
I \
\ I
I \ ~~1,~~r'
J
e'!:
• • •
C
• •
• •
111111
• •
~---=----=- ----------=--=-=-==-- -~----~-----t-~ - ~ r-· --------~- ------7 I ~ I a
;I I I
' __ J
• • I
. -=------:
---------------------------- O' 15' 30' 60'
MPLEI
MPLEX .
•
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
FENCE PANEL ENTRY SIGN DESIGNS
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard
~
•
120'
.:::::::::::::::J~;'.:;;~i~l~!t ;~~l~l~lll!lllL.;.:-:-:-·-. . .. .. ' ....................... -....................................... :.·.·.·:.·.·.·;:
·--•:::.:•:::::::::!:~:!:!:!:1:!:l:!:!:!:~:i:!l~}~:}~}tfl . •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: :•:• •o;< >;•:-::-: :-:
PERFERATED PANEL EXAMPLES FOR OPTION 1
VERDE DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd, Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
fax: 408.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
- - - - - ---- - -
VIEW OF NORTH ENTRY LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM SOUTHBOUND LANE ON WESTBROOK BLVD.
VIEW LOOKING SOUTH DOWN WESTBROOK BL VD. AT NORTH ENTRY APRIL 04, 2022
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\2lOJaOO - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\EXHIBIT-ENlSIGNS_210J50D_RSC.Owg /,pr 05, 2022 0~:44om City of Roseville Soccer Complex
WESTBROOK BLVD. VISUAL SIMULATIONS
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard
------
------
------ ------
------
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd, Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
VE RD E DE 5 l G N fax: 408.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
-- - - - --------
VIEW OF NORTH ENTRY LOOKING EASET FROM OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET STANDING ON SIDEWALK.
VIEW FROM DURANGO WAY INTERSECTION LOOKING ACROSS WESTBROOK BLVD. TOWARD THE NORTH ENTRY APRIL 04, 2022
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\2lOJaOO - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\EXHIBIT-ENlSIGNS_210J50D_RSC.Owg /,pr 05, 2022 0~:45om ~
=
- -
VIEW LOOKING NORTH WALKING DOWN
-
WESTBROOK BLVD.
TOWARD THE NORTH ENTRY
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
WESTBROOK BLVD. VISUAL SIMULATIONS
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard VERDE DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd , Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
fax: 408.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
- ------
APRIL 29, 2022
• •
I l-l--f-11l--l ,_--4~ --1" -l----1-----1 - _ ,__,; f-+--++-+-1:---lfi-)--I---J 1---1--f+lf-+4--++--+----I ~ f-+--++-+-f-+f+---1---J 1---1--f+t~~~-,~ -~/' +-+----1 ,_,__,; f--+--++,--l;.,,, ' 'l+'>___j-_j l-+------11, , _'--,,-+------J ~~~: f--+--~ f-.--+---l ai I :. f----+----i - ~ -==I ~ = ~ -==I ~c¥=== , - ~ f----+----i - ~-~ ~ --'--i - j : I
or1111111111111111111111111ro 141111111l111111111ro :::::_" • ·~ ~- El • , , • 11 ,1 · 1 : , ,n
## ...... I _J -------- --=-= • : ··-------------------------------t-' .. .. ,.. ..... -,,r-- !"" -- ____ :~~~- -:_~-_:--~•_:-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- I ---------- -----
---
EGRESS GATE REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL TEAMS PER TOTAL TOTAL 0.2" PER TOTAL
VENUE USE SPECTATORS FIELD PER
FIELDS
PEOPLE PER
PERSON
PEDESTRIAN
& TEAM DAY VENUE GATES REQIRED
YOUTH TOURNAMENT 15 PLAYERS, 2 COACHES 24 8 10 1,920 384 4 Ul O TOURNAMENT 15 PLAYERS, 2 COACHES 24 8 20 3,840 768 8 ttt-H-1------- -- -- ------
------ - -- _)-) __ +H-1->ll_+l-_l - -
20' WIDE VEHICULAR GATE
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\210Jaoo - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\exhibit-,ntsigmL210"8DO_rsc.dwg Apr 27, 2022 04:51pm City of Roseville Soccer Complex
ENHANCED GATE DESIGNS
City of Roseville
Westbrook Boulevard
[
I I
~ - - - --
TOTAL PEDESTRIAN
GATES PROVIDED
10 10
1 O' WIDE PEDESTRIAN GATE
~ O' 50' 100' 200'
NORTH
VERDE DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd, Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408,985.7200
fax: 408.985,7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
400'
DISTANCE OVERALL
FILED SIGN
30'
APRIL 29, 2022
16'
/--,
: 2. : MID DISTANCE OVERALL
, _ _, FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\210Jaoo - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\exhibit-,ntsign,;_210«\DO_rsc.dwg Apr 27, 2022 04:52pm (i 1 DISTANCE OVERALL FILED SIGN •- '
FIILD
4 1A
10 (2) MID DISTANCE SECONDARY FIELD SIGN
- -
/--,
', 2.1 MID DISTANCE OVERALL FILED SIGN •- ' AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS 1A
FIELD
,--, l 3.) MID DISTANCE
,_,, SECONDARY
FIELD SIGN
(4.: FENCE PANEL PEDESTRIAN . ,
-- SCALE FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
-~------ ---------------- ------- ·-~---
I--±==_-=-----
--+---.-----------,--------;------;-----------. --. --~--------. --- . --- .--- . --. ------ ,.
'
, __ '?iii . -::,, ""f--~ -~=-=-- .. --•• ---=~~=----t- 1 ~:___3j j ~ ___ J 2x ___ JGJ_i _=1=- ~== =-- -' 3 ~-[ _____ \ 2L __ Jt73 12' 10 1/8"
I
SHADE STRUCTURE PEDESTRIAN SCALE FILED
SIGN AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
9' 7 9/16"
11'
(4 .')FENCE PANEL PEDESTRIAN ( s.': SHADE STRUCTURE PEDESTRIAN SCALE FILED SIGN AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS . , , _, SCALE FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
WAYFINDING SIGN PALETTE OPTION 1
City of Roseville
---------t
---- .------------------------------------------------
~ O' 50' 100· 200· 400·
NORTH
• • ••·• • • • • • • • ..,_~!Iv~~. -,.-.-•· • -•·• ·•·•-• • • • • • • ·•·•·•·• ·•·•••-·•w--· • •• • • • .-.-.-,-,"••• •·-...••• "i ••........................ L-' ~ O • • • •. • •••••••I•• I""·.•••• • .............. • ............................. • I • • ,....... . • • ,. , o • • • • • • ••••••• ••••••••• "'• • ••• .......... ..•••••• • ...... . ...... ......... i . ;" .. ,. , •. ,. .......... ...... ........... .. ( . .... , ." ........ .................. . . . .. ~ •·········· .~--.... _., ......................... ..... ······ .... ····•· .. ..... .. •I•• • .... •.•: • ., .. • • "- • • • ,s <I • ••• ••• • • ,' •, ... • • • ,• .. • .. • • ••• • .. . • .. • • ..... ... • .. I •I•• ...... •I I tt ,..i ••• , ... ,..... . •• ••e - •••••.•••• .. • ••••••ei •••••••• .. •'" •••o <J •,s••••• • - •--•:•,•,•••• ............... .... ... . . . . . . ........ ....... .. .. _ ................ ~ . .... <I ,~ ••• •:::.•.•.'.'• • • • • .. ~•••••." •. /.-a,. 0/ .'1 '.'l.' lofcf',/<t Q.,o,,-.,,;~." •"• 0/.,\-.t,• • '\: • :.•.• ................ , ..... • • • • -~••••• • •:: •••.••............... , ............ ........ ,,~ "'··· .. ........••• .l.::• ....................... ,,i •••••••••• • ·• ·········••••,., ....... ••-.10 •·••••• .. ••••••· ·•··••••·• .. ••• .. ••:.:l •••••••••••• ..... . .. . . . .... . . . , .,c,•••••••>J:t ••••• ••••• •·• ••·•···••••u,,., •••••••••••· .... •. , •. • . .. • • • • • • • t,(lt• 11• •0 •~····· ·•••••· • • .. • • • • • .............. 4 ••••••••· · • ,. .. . , . . .. . .. • • • .. ,.oe••• .. .. • .. ••• ••••• "" · • .. .. ·•• •• u•• ••• •••••·. • . •: • . •. • •. • • •. • • . . . . •. c,::.i,:;:;,<0"' .. ''"" • ••••••· • . . • • • • ..... ...... ••••J •••••:::::.:.:.:.: .. ·. · ..... · ..... • .. ,-....... ·., .•.•. , ....... o1.•,,"l.."' .. ~/ .. •: .. ".._.._,. ~ ...... _..: .: . : .. : ...•.. .-:. ·:: ••• :.•.4:,,.i ••••··· ..... . ........... . . ..... ~ .............. , ••••• . .. ........ :•••11 ••••••• •• ........... ... . ..... . . .. ... . ... . . . ~•• ........ ~ •••••· ....... , ......... ,•••••I ••·•····. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .... . . ······ .......... . .-:.•:;: :.:. :•:·:•:·:•:·:· ... •.-.·:. · .·.•.•.·.·.·.·:.· .·.·.· . • . ·.•.•.• ." ;,,."',.,",;\"', ., 0 .-.-.-.. :•:•:·:••···•····;.·.•.e.,.• .... \•:•:•:o .. :J .. .... . . ·••···· .. . ... . ' ..... .. . . "·•·-: .••• . .. . . . ........ ••1 •••" • •.-.. .-.-....... ••d•••• l•• • • · · · · • • • • • • • · • •••• ••• .... _. ...... · • · · · · ·••••.,••• " · · ···: ....... . ... ...... ei • ., • • · · ····· ····-•• tl<I .. . . ... . . . ........ . .. . ..... -.~~ • ••.. • • •• • • • • •• .. • • • • .. ~ "" · . . . ... . . .• , , .,., ,.,. • ••• • • .... . ............. ! , . . . . . . .... ........ _ ........ . ........·..··..··.·.••·····~• ...... ,:, ....··.·.···· ... ....•..•·...····· .....··..··..... ·····.•.•.··...·...·•·.·. · .-·········· .. ··· ~ ·· : •• • • • •.••••• • • ~ ··· · ltl • .... .. .. .. ... ... ... . . . .. . ...... .... . . ........... .. .... "'"'"· • · · • : ::::.-.. .-............. ........ . . . .......... - ....... _ ....... •.. • •••• .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-• :· ... ... .. ~ • • • .. .-.-: .. .-.-:• :· :-: • • .. f; ... ....... ·.,1 ,. •, • • • • • •••••• ••• O• ,.,. ., .,.,.,.,.,.., • • . . • • • • .... • • . • • • • • . . • • .. • .. • • • • ~~ ·::::: .-.-.-.................... ~ ~ ....................... :,:: .. · ...................... : ................. •: •: ·: .-.. .- .-.·.·:.·.·.·.•:,:, ,. • • • • • • • . •••••• •• • ,_. ....... ,••••"• • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • .......... • • •• .. • I ,. ,. ... , . . ••••••••' , • ., .. •••••••• .. ..,~~• ••· ··••····••··••·· .. ···••: •••u•<> • ............................................ .... .. ' ... .-... ... .. ·····••1 .. . . . . . . . . . ........ . ............................... .. ....... ......... .. • •••• •••• ••• •• ••••• •••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••• ••• •• •• ••• ............. • .. 11 •••1 ...... ...... . ... .. .. (1 .. ..... .............. ..... .. . .... . .......... ... ····i ·••·., .... .. .... ................................................... :····· , ............... .................................. ..................... ~ . ......... ' ....... .. ·••··················· .. ........................... .. •••••• •• • • ••' • •' • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • . ... • • • . . ••••.·••• .. .. ••a• ~.-.-.·::.·:.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· ...................................................... ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· ....... · .............. ...... ' .. .. .... ........................................................ . ........ .. . . . . . . . . . . .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . ......... ........• ........... • • • • • • • • • • ·..··· ...... · ···· ....... • ·••·.... • ·•.•..· · ..···...· ·..• ••· ...• .• ..• • .• .... • • • • .•.•..•• ..••• ..... , • ••.• . I .............. .. . ' ........................................ ............... . • .. ............... •••• .. ••••• •·••..•.••..... ••••.•........ ••••••• ... ..••....••••..... o••• ........... --' ••••••··.... •••••••••• ........••...••• . ~ . .. ............................... .......... . ... ................ ·••···••· ...................... . ............. ..... . . .... . 0. 1 ····•···••ll'•••· • ·•• 1 1t• t I ••• .. •• .. •••••••·••• .. ••••••••••••••••••' ••••.-> o•••••o•• .. •••••o••••••••• ..... .•:.-... , .... _.~ . ..... ~ . ............................... ~t>Oi••• .. ••• · "a• .... ".:.'.,"l.•:.~."": .. .-: .. .,•}:.•.•.•::. ' ........................................................................... . , ................ ,.. ... ........................... ~ ........................ . ,_........... ...... .... • • • • • ••••• ••••••••••• •?-1' " .. ~ .... .. .. .... ,, ..... ........... , [I . .. .................... "ir:: ... ~ .......................................... ~•.,•.-.-.;::e":;•.":•"'••/:::~":;: , .:::, ............................................ .......................... •• • •• •• .... • .. • • • .. _. _. _._ .. _. _ .. _. _ • ._._._ .. _ .. _._• -• ·• • -• -• _ .. _.. _._ .. _. ._ .. _. _._._.__. _._ • .J! e• •• • •
PERFORATED PANEL EXAMPLES FOR ENTRY SIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANN ING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd , Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
Westbrook Boulevard VERDE DESIGN fax: 408.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
30'
DISTANCE OVERALL
FILED SIGN
APRIL 29, 2022
16'
MID DISTANCE OVERALL
FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
Y:\Projects-F0\2021\210Jaoo - Roseville 6 Soccer Complex\CAD\exhibit-,ntsign,;_210«\00_rsc.dwg Apr 27, 2022 04:54pm /--.,_
l 1.1 DISTANCE OVERALL FILED SIGN •-'
10'
r,.......,'-
( 3. I MID DISTANCE SECONDARY FIELD SIGN --~-.I
FIELD
(2-.J MID DISTANCE OVERALL FILED SIGN
, _ _, AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
1A
FIELD
,---....
l 3.) MID DISTANCE
·--
SECONDARY
FIELD SIGN
(4 .': FENCE PANEL PEDESTRIAN . ,
.. SCALE FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
-~------ ---------------- ------- ·-~---
I--±==_-=-----
--+---.-----------,--------;------;-----------. --. --~--------. --- . --- .--- . --. ------ ,.
'
, __ '?iii . -::,, ""f--~-~=-=-- .. --•• ---=~~=----t- 1 ~:___3j j ~ ___ J 2x ___ JGJ_i _=1=- ~== =-- -' 3 ~-[ _____ \ 2L __ Jt73 I
,--~
: 5. ) SHADE STRUCTURE PEDESTRIAN SCALE FILED . ,
.. SIGN AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
9' 7 9/16"
( 4.'i FENCE PANEL PEDESTRIAN ( 5.', SHADE STRUCTURE PEDESTRIAN SCALE FILED SIGN AND SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS . , -- SCALE FILED SIGN AND
SECONDARY FIELD SIGNS
,
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
WAYFINDING SIGN PALETTE OPTION 2
City of Roseville
---------t
---- .------------------------------------------------
~ O' 50' 100' 200' 400'
NORTH
• • .-.-. • • • • • • • ..,_~!Iv~~. -,.-.-•· • -•·• ·•·•-• • • • • • • ·•·•·•·• ·•·•••-• ....... • •• • • • .-.-.-,-•"••• •--....-. "i ••........................ L-'~ O • • • •. • •••••••I•• I""·.••••• ............ • . ........................ • I ••••••••• •• ~• o • ••••••••• ••• •••••••••"'• • ••• •••••••• ••••••11 • ...................... i .t .. ~• ••,e••······· ............ ( .•. ,. 0 :.•········ · ········ · · .. ~ -'••••••I •··········· I I• •,•:,•,••., .~--.. ·• ~· • "- • _., • • ,s ..<I •..... ••• ••• • • . ,• .•., .... ....• • ..... • •• •• • • ...•••• • ..• • • ...• .. • . . ...·.. ·• ···· • I I •I• ···· I ....···· .. II I ·tt ·· _,..i ••••••••••• ••••e - •••••.•••••• ••••••ei ••••••••••'" •••o <J •,s••••• • - •--•:•,•,•••• ............ ••••••••••••••• ........... .. .. _ . . .................. <I ,~ ••• •:.•:••••::. , 1 , 1 , ~• ... •: • . /.-a,. o,°.'. •:l.' l,r.,,:,/.,, Q.,o,,-.,,;~ • ., •"• "/.,\ -.t,• • '\: • :, ...... ........... -_•,• .... • • • , •~••••• 1 •:: •••••••............ •. , .................... ,,~ "'··· .. ... ........ ,l.,•.·· ......................... ,i •••••••••• • .. .. ... . ........ ,., ....... ••-.10 •·••••• .. ••••••··•··••••·•••••• .. •:.:l •••••••••••• ..... . .. . . . .. ... . . ,e c,•••••••>J:t ••••• ••••• •·•••·•···••••u,,., •••••••••••· .... •. , •. • . .. • • • • • • • ""••11•• 0• •· .. ••• ...... · • • .. • • • • • .............. 4 ·······•· ...... ... . .. .. .... .... 0 .............. ••••• ........ .......... .. •••••••• ·. • . •: •. •. • • . • • •. • • . ... •. c,::.i,:;:;<0'-'•• •-•• ••••••· • . . • • • • ... •••• ......... . j •.•.•:::.•:.:.:.:.: •• •• • ••••• • ••••• • •• .-••••••• ·.' ••••• ' ••• ' .•• o1.•,,",.f#.,"'.~./" .. ·: ..-....... ~ ........ .-: .: • : •• : •••••• .-: ............. • .. 4:,,,, ••••··· ..... . .... ... . ... .. .................... , ••••• . ......... ,:•••11 •••••• ••• ........... ... . ..... . . .. ... . ..... ........ ...... ~ •••• .......... , ........ ,•••••I ••·•····. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .... . . ······ .. _ ....... . .-:,•:;::.:.:•:·:•:·:•:·:· ... •.-.·:.·.·.•.•. ·.·.·.·:.·.·.·.·.•.·.•.•.•.•;,,."',.,",;\"', .,"::.•::•:•:·:••···•···;.·.•.e.,.•:.\•:•:•:o .. :J ... ,.., • • ••••••• • • • • • • •' • • • • • • • • • .. .... .; ,.... •., • • • ....... ,. ...I ••• ,., •.-.. .-.-.... .-. 11 .\ • .. • • 110, ,, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••· ••• , ........... • • • • • .. . .... .,•.• II •••••:••··•·••••••••• .. CJ ""' ' • · ···• • •••··•• tl<I .. • • •·• • • ·· ....... . . ......... •.~~ •.. • •. • . . . . . . •• • • • • •• .. • • •• .. ~ " " · •. . ••• • • •• , , . , .. ,.,. • ••••• . .... .··· ...•..• · ·••• _ ...... ..•••... • .. l ........···.. ..··.·.••·····~• ....... ,:, ....··.·.····• ..........•·..······ ..... ..··.··..·..··•..•.~•...•...·•·.·. · .-·············· ~ : •• .•.....••••• ~··· ·ltl•• .. .. ....... ...... . . . .. . ..... . .... ... .......... ...... """'"·• .. . •:::::::: .-.•:.·:: ••• ·.·: ••......... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ........ •.,· .... .-.. .-.-.. .-.-..... :· ........ ~•.•,-.-.-: .-.-.. :• :· :-: • •• f;.·::.•.·.,1 .. • • • • • • • •••• • • •• .. O• ••• ••---•-• • • • • • • • •••• • • • • ••• • • • • ........ ••• ~~ ·:::::: .-.-.................... ~ ~ ............. ·.·.·.·,..:,:: ... · ...................... .-................. •: •: ·: .-.. .- .-.·.·:.·.·.·.·· .. ,:. .. "• • • • •. •••••••• • •••••••••• .. • .. • • . ... . • • ... • .. .. • .. • • .............. •••I .. .. . . ... . ... .... 11 , • ., ...... . ....... ..,~ ~ · · ··· ······ · ········ .. ··· · •: · ..... . .. . ......... .. . . ..... . . ... ................... . . . . ...... . .. . . . ..... . .......... . . 1 • • • • • • • • • • . ••••••• ••••••••••• .......... • • • .. .. • • . • • • • .. . • . • . • • ••••••••o ••• •••• ••• •• • · • • · ·· .................... . .. . ... .... . .. ............ ........ ,. • • • 1 ...... ...... . ... .. .. (1 ...................... ..... .. . .... . ................. . ! ·••· ...... .................................... ......... ............ :····· , ... ·••··· .. ....... ··' .............. ...··.. ..•··· ...··..······ ......... ······ ....... ................. ...... ...... .......... ......... ........ ......~ . .. •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••• .. ••••••••••• • • • • . ... • • • . . •• •• .. ••• .... ••a• ~ ...... ::. ·: ...................................................................... .-............................ .-...................... . ...... ' .. .. ........................................... ................ . ......... . . . . . . . . . . ............................. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . ....... .......• ........... • • • • • • • • • • ........... ............. · • ·••·•.....·•.•..·····.....··.•.••· ....• • ..• • .• ... • • • • • • •• ••• , •••• I ' ............ . ......................................................... ................ ••••• ............. •••••• ••. • .• ...•••..................... •••••••••••• .. ••••••o•• .............. • .., ., ....... • ...• •• .•...' •••..•••...• ... . • ~ . .................................. .......... ... ................. ·••···••· ........... • • • • ••••• • •••••••••••••••••• .. .. • 0 11 •••• ••••• .. " ••• • • ••••••• • .. .......... •••••• .. ·••••• .. ••••••••••• .. ••••' ••••.-> 11 •••• .. a•• .. •••••o••••••••• •••• :::: ..... •.•~ • ... •. ~ ........................ .-... •.. ~t>Oi••••••• . ""• .... ".:.',/l: .... ~ .... •.•:.•.•.,•}:.•.••••••• .. , ......................................................................... . , .............. ,.. ... ........................... . ~ .......................... . ,_........... ...... ••• • •••••••••••••••••••• •?-1' " .. ~ .... .. .. ... ,, ................ , [I . .. .. ••••--••:: .. • ... •."i;): .. .-. ~ .......... •:.•:.•:.•: .................. ~•.,•.-.-.;,::e":;.•.••"':/:::~":::,.• ..•:, ..................................................................... ••• .. • .. •••••• • • .. _•-•-"---•-• -• -• -• ._._._. _ .. _._• -• ·• • -• -• -• -.. _._,._. "---•-• -"---•_.__• _._ .. .J! e•••••
PERFORATED PANEL EXAMPLES FOR ENTRY SIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANN ING & DESIGN
1843 Iron Point Rd , Suite 140
Folsom, CA 95630
tel: 408.985.7200
Westbrook Boulevard VERDE DESIGN fax: 408.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
Site Furnishings
Mnfc. Model Color/Style
Soccer Goal with Skids Sportsfie Id SG824RS Color: White Specialties Frame, Black Net
Soccer Goal Sportsfie Id SG824R Color: White
Specialties Frame, Black Net
Soccer Wheel Kit Sportsfield SGWKL n/a
Specialties
Soccer Corner Flags Sportsfield SG6B1404 Color: Red
Specialties
Skate Deterrent Grind To A Cylinder Solid Stainless Steel Halt GrinderMinder w/ Brushed Finish
Trash Receptacle Wabash TG3D33S 32 Gallon with
Valley Liner, Dome Top
Bench Wabash SG315P Color: TBD
Valley
Picnic Table Wabash SG205P Color: TBD
Valley
Bike Rack Steelcraft WBR-700 Color: TBD
Products
Restroom & Concession Buildings Public 24'x31'4", Internal Restroom Layout Varies
Solar Picnic Shade Structure TBD
Solar Parking Shade Structure TBD
Cantilever Shade Structure TBD
Sports Lighting Musco
Drinking Fountain Most 10145 SMFA Color: TBD
Dependable
Fountain
Playground Equipment Landscape
Structures
2" Synthetic Turf FieldTurf Vertex Prime with Green, Striping Infill Varies
Fencing
30' Tall Protective Netting Sportsfield TNPPUC
Specialties
Orn a menta I Fencing Omega II Black, 8'
Chain Link Fencing TBD Black Powder
Coated, 42", 8', 12',
16"
Excellence from Design to Installation 4 1155 State Hlgh1ay 10, PO Box 231, Doi hi, NY 13753 CALL· 8811-975-3343 r AX· oC7-746-8481 I
ited States Patent #7,527,569, Issued May 5, 2009
ited States Patent #8 777 784 Issued Jul 15 2014
Meets an excee s ASTM F2950-14
tandard Safety and Performance
pecification for Soccer Goals and ASTM
F1938-98 Standard Guide for Safer Use of
Movable Soccer Goals p Iona quIpmen :
SGWKL5 - Levered Soccer Goal with Skids External Wheel Kit SG2S® - Soccer Goal Safet S stem Standard White Powder Coated Finish 2" x 2" Square
Aluminum Tube
Rear Ground Bar
Inside Height
(See Table)
Finish Grade
Inside Width
(See Table)
4" Round Faced
Aluminum Extrusion
Crossbar & Uprights
Welded 1/2" x 5"W
Aluminum Skid Plate
(Grass & Net Removed for Clarity)
Braided Knotless Polypropylene
White Net with Rope Bound Perimeter
and 4" Square Mesh
3" x 2" Rectangular Aluminum Tube
End Frames
(See Table)
Anchoring Pin for
Natural Grass Applications
(Grass & Net Removed for Clarity)
I
Front of Post
i------------------- to Rear of Ground Bar
(See Table)
Inside Inside Front of Post Net Twine Part No. Size to Rear of Height Width Ground Bar Diameter SG824RS Regulation 8'-0" 24'-0" 8'-0" or 8'-4" 5mm
SG721RS Youth 7'- 0" 21'-0" 7'-0" 3mm
SG618RS Youth 6'-6" 18'-6" 7'-0" 3mm
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE
THIS INFORMDRAWi ANG
TION IS THE CONTSOLE AINED PROPERTY IN Round Faced Soccer Goal with Skids OF SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES INC. ANY REPRODUCTI ON IN PART OR AS A
WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMIS SION OF SPORTSFIELD
SPECIALTIES INC. IS PROHIBITED. Not To Scale Sportsfield Specialties Inc 12172020
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWi NG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A
WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SPORTSFIELD
SPECIALTIES INC. IS PROHIBITED.
Excellence from Design to Installation 4 1155 State Hlgh1ay 10, PO Box 231, Doi hi, NY 13753 CALL· 8811-975·3343 r AX· oC7-746·8481 Oval Crimp
(Net Removed
for Clarity)
3/16" Wire Rope Clips
(Net Removed
for Clarity)
3/16" Black Vinyl Coated
Galvanized Wire Rope
~---soccer Net
Mounting Clip
(Lifetime Warranty)
Bolt on 1/2" Diameter Stainless Steei·· .. ,"-
Formed Handles-------- /
,,,'
Round Faced Soccer Goal with Skids
Not To Scale Sportsfield Specialties Inc 12172020
nI
United States Patent #7,527,569, Issued May 5, 2009
United States Patent #8 777 784 Issued Jul 15 2014
p Iona quIpmen :
SGMKR - SGMobile® Integrated Soccer Goal Wheel Kit
SGWKL - Levered Soccer Goal External Wheel Kit
SG2S® - Soccer Goal Safet S stem
I nside Width
---..-. _ (See Table)
2" x 2" Square
Aluminum Tube
Rear Ground Bar 4" Round Faced
Aluminum Extrusion
Crossbar & Uprights
Excellence from Design to Installation 4 1155 State Hlgh1ay 10, PO Box 231, Doi hi, NY 13753 CALL· 8811-975-3343 r AX· oC7-746-8481 Meets and exceeds ASTM F2950-14
Standard Safety and Performance
Specification for Soccer Goals and ASTM
F1938-98 Standard Guide for Safer Use of
Movable Soccer Goals
Standard White Powder Coated Finish
Soccer Net
Mounting Clip
(Lifetime Warranty)
Braided Knotless Polypropylene
White Net with Rope Bound Perimeter
and 4" Square Mesh
(See Table)
3" x 2" Rectangular Aluminum Tube
I nside Height
(See Table)
Finish Grade
End Frames Anchoring Pin for
Natural Grass Applications
(Grass & Net Removed for Clarity)
I
Front of Post
i-,,----------------to Rear of Ground Bar
(See Table)
Inside Part No. Size Height
SG824R Regulation 8'-0"
SG721R Youth 7'- 0"
SG618R Youth 6'-6"
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWi NG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES INC. ANY REPRODUCTI ON IN PART OR AS A
WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SPORTSFIELD
Inside
Width
24'-0"
21'-0"
18'-6"
SPECIALTIES INC. IS PROHIBITED. Not To Scale
Front of Post Net Twine to Rear of
Ground Bar Diameter
8'-0" or 8'-4" 5mm
7'-0" 3mm
7'-0" 3mm
Round Faced Soccer Goal
Sportsfield Specialties Inc 12172020
Excellence from Design to Installation 41155 state H1gh1ay 10, PO Bo, 231, Oolh1, NY 13753 C~LL· 888·975·3343 FAX· &C7·746-84RI Compatible with Soccer Goal Models:
SG824R,SG721R,SG618R
SG824S SG721S SG618S
Quick Release Stainless Pull Pin
with 12" Lanyard,
Allows Removal of Assembly
7 Ga. Steel Mounting Brackets,
Black Powder Coated Finish
8" Semi-Pneumatic Swivel Casters,
450 lb Capacity Each,
Setof4------
8 3/8"
Wheel Kit can be Installed with
Soccer Net Attached to Goal
(Net Removed for Clarity)
Portable Position
Removable Lever with
Ribbed Rubber Grip
to Rotate Wheel,
1 per Wheel Kit
Retractable Spring Plunger
to Release Wheel into
Playing Position and to Lock
Wheel into Portable Position
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWi NG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A
WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SPORTSFIELD
SGWKL Levered Soccer Goal
External Wheel Kit SPECIALTIES INC. IS PROHIBITED, Not To Scale Sportsfield Specialties Inc 06182021
RED NYLON FLAGS WITH
WHITE CLOTH EDGES
5'3'H X I' O.D.
HIGH IMPACT, WHITE
PVC UPRIGHT
12' DIAMETER, STACKABLE, UV RESISTANT
BLACK WEIGHTED RUBBER BASES--~
SUITABLE FOR ALL ATHLETIC SURFACES
Excellence from Design to Installation 41155 State Highway 10, PO Box 231, Delhi NY 13753 CALLBBB-97S 3343 FAX 607 746 B481 5'-3'
PIDPRIET ARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DRAWNG ISTHE SOLE PROPERTY OF
SPORTSFIE lD SPECIALTIES INC. ANY
RE PRODUCTION IN PART OR ASA IM-IOLE
WTHOUTTHE \IIJRITTEN PERMIS9ON OF
SPORTSFIElD SPECIALTIES INC. IS
SG6B14O4 - SET OF FOUR (4)
KWIKGOAL® PREMIER SOCCER CORNER FLAGS
PROHIBITED NOT TO SCALE Sf'ORTSFIELD SPECIALTI ES INC 021220 16 @ihm
TOA HALT
PRODUCT DETAIL
The new Cylinder GrinderMinder is another version of our original spherical design. The "Cylinder" will give a lower, flat profile and is inserted at a 90 degree angle into the stone or concrete, rather than at an angle. The stem of the "Cylinder" is identical to our original GrinderMinder, so that it will provide the same stability and resistance to vandalism.
AVAILABLE FINISHES
SOLID STAINLESS STEEL WITH
A BRUSHED FINISH STANDARD
(our most popular choice)
CAN BE UPGRADED TO:
SOLID STAINLESS STEEL WITH
A BLACK OXIDE FINISH
(soft matte black appearance)
INSTALLATION & PRODUCT DETAIL
GRINDERMINDER™ -----ti
=11 II II
=11 II ID
=11 II II
=11 II ~I□
CYLINDER
GRINDERMINDER™
SKATEBOARD AND BIKE DETERRANT
TOP VIEW
t---CIDI--+:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
FRONT VIEW
I I
I I
I ...lllll!I....I
'~'
GRINDTOAHALT.COM PO BOX 221 I ELBURN, IL 60119 1 P 630.365.2375 IF 630.365.1075 © 2016 COPYRIGHT GRIND TO A HALT, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TF/PF
model no:
PF7532P,
TF3C32P,
TF3D32P,
TF3F32P,
TG3C33P,
TG3D33S,
& TC/PG-Trash/Planter
PG7533P,
TF3C32S,
TF3D32S,
TF3F32S,
TG3C33S,
TG3F33I,
TF3C32I,
TF3D32I,
TF3F32I,
TG3C33I,
TG3D331,
TG3F33P,
TG3D33P,
TG3F33S
INGROUND, PORTABLE & SURFACE RECEPTACLES & PLANTERS - FAUX WOOD & SLAT c'UBtomer service:
ASSEMBI FRS· If you find any part. mining or damaged, or If you're having dlfflculty anembllng your furniture/equipment, call ■ at:
• Before calling, have your product model number available. 1-800-253-8619 (Inside U.S.A.)
260-352-2102 {Outside U.S.A.)
Monday thru Friday,
8:00 NA - 4:J0 PM Eastern Time
(EXCEPT HOLIDAYS)
maintenance:
Regular inapection and maintenance of all parta, and faatenera is necenary. Tighten all bolt. and nuta. Inspect Tope, Seate, Legs, Brace11 and Fastener■ p11riadlcally for wear or vandoll m. Replac:e broken or worn part. lmmedlately or take equipment out of 11en,lc;e until repaira are made. U11 lj)enuine Urbanscape replacement parta.
KEEP THIS ASSEMBLY/SPECIF1CA.llON SHEET FOR FUT1JRE REFERENCE. specifications: NOTE: We l'IHMI the right to change 1pecification11 without notice.
Framework 01Nmbliea are finished with powder coatinljJ, electrollatically applied and oven cured according to powder manufacturer's apeclflcatlon11. F oateneni ant atalnleaa steel to real at corroalon.
RECEPTACLE LEGS:
uigs are contructed of 12 gage ,c 2 3/s• diameter structural steel tubing. Mounting plate conaista of 10 gage sheet steel and gusset supports are 14 gage sheet steel. Base plate on surface mount leg is 7 gage plate steel.
RECEPTACLES/PL»ITT:RS:
All tops, bottom, rings and domes are cast aluminum. Sides are aluminum tubing.
GENERAL DIMENSIONS:
Portable ground space requirements for trash receptacles with flat tops are 24 1/2" diameter x J1 J/4• tall.
Surface mount and in ground ground space requirements for trash receptacles with flat tops are 24 1 /2'" diameter ,c 38 ,;2• toll. Portable ground space requirements for trash receptacles with domes are 24 1/2'" diameter ,c 39 1;2• toll. Surface mount and inground ground apace requirements for trash receptacles with domea are 24 112• diameter ,c 46 1/4'" tall. Portable ground space requirements for trash receptacles with domes with ash troys are 24 112• diameter K 39• tall. Surface mount and in~round ground space requirementa for trash receptacles with domes with ash troys are 24 112• diameter ,c 45 3/4- tall. Planters are 2-4• diameter ,c 15• tail.
NOTE: Minor scratches to the faux-wood furniture e<1n be touched up using Wood Finish Touch-Up markers or pens.
Some recommended touch-up markers ore the MINWAX WOOD FlNISH STAIN MARKERS. The cherry marker works well with the wheat faux-wood, the Provincial marker closely matches the weathered and italic, and the Dark Walnut marker matches the espresso fouK-wood. The touch-up markers can be obtained at a local hardware store or may also be obtained through Urbanscape by contacting cuatomer aervlce.
Al356B paQe 1
asseNV!lbly procedures· IMPORTANT: A9Hmj:llera should be rea11onably 9kil~ in the anembly of commercial , , " • grade/heel~ duty fabricated llteel equipment.
To ensure proper 01111embly, it i11 11u11geaf:ed that you toke adequate time lo locate and identify each port. To prevent 11crolchin11 of the finished pieces, we recommend thia unit lo be a~bled on a clean, flat, 1101id, surface with a drop cloth, allowing plenty of workin11 room. Aleo pleo11e read the insln.lctions and study the sketches very carefully. A little extra time spent before assembly will be well worth it in performing a complete, proper o-mbly. Plea• note that all porta hove been pr11eut and pre-drilled.
During the aaembly procea leave all bolt■ and nuts "finger tight", until the antJre unit la completely anembled. Thia allawa room for movement to level or adjuat all Natl!, topa, benchee, framewor1t and braces if nec:eaary. After final adju9l!nent and leveling, permanently tighten all nub, bolt9 and fastenef"II.
A.AT TOP INSTALLATION:
When installing Flat Top (4077) for proper receptacle door clearance use three flat washers, per MS threaded Bolt (3). Tighten to a snug fit.
DOME TOP INSTALLATION:
When installing Dome (4072 &: 4073) for proper receptacle door clearance use three flat washers, per MS threaded Bolt (3). Tighten to a snug fit.
LEG INSTAl..lATION:
See Leg Hardware Package instructions.
FRONT THRfADED BOSS (2)
(3) FLAT WASHERS - 3 PLACES
(NOT TO SIZE)
SURFACE MOUNT OR INGROUNO LEG
DOME - 4072 (SHOWN)
4073
THREADED BOSS
16118
i'rtBtallation: WARNING: The proper installation for Urban9Cape producte may depend upon many factors unique to the lte, location, or uae of a partlcular product. Conault with your contractor or other profeaslonal lo determine your specific lnstallatlon requirements.
.Al356B page 3
product diTnensians:
Al3568
1 I I
15"
_J
PF7532P/PG7533P
i- 41124 1/2" -1
7 31 3/4"
_ _J
TF3F32P/TG3F33P
39 TF3C32P/TF3D32P
TG3C33P/TG3D33P
r \
i
\ /
l
TF3C32I/TF3C32S/TF3D321/TF3D32S
TG3C331/TG3C33S/TG3D331/TG3D33S
i-41124112· 7
r ------,-
31 3/4"
L~_l 38 1/2"
l
TF3F32I/TF3F32S/TG3F33I/TG3F33S
page 4
a.
1nodel no:
SG300D, SG300P, SG301D,
SG303P, SG304D, SG304P,
SG307D, SG307P, SG312D,
SG313P, SG315D, SG315P,
SG318D, SG31BP, SG319D,
SIGNATURE SERIES
SG301P, SG303D,
SG306D, SG306P,
SG312P, SG313D,
SG316D, SG316P,
SG319P,
6' & 81 BENCH WITH & WITH OUT BACK - EXPANDED METAL
& PERFORATED - PORTABLE, IN"GROUND & SURFACE MOUNT
c'U8to1ner service:
ASSEMBL,ERS: If you find any parta mlalng or damaged, or If you're having dlfflculty ■■embllng your furniture/equipment, call ■ at:
• Before calling, have your product model number available. 1-800-253-8619 (Inside U.S.A.)
260-352-2102 (Outside U.S.A.)
Monday thru Friday,
8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Eastern Time
(EXCEPT HOLIDAYS)
1naintenance:
Regular inapection and maintenance of all porta, and fastener■ ■ neceaary. lighten all bolts and nuts. ln pect Top11, Seat■, Leg11, Brace■ and Fastener■ periodically for wear or vandallsm. Replace broken or worn ports immediately or take equipment out of ervlce until repair■ are made. Use genuine Wabash Valley replacement parts.
To reatare ploatl al coating to It■ luster ofter prolonged UH, waah/rlnae/dry and use Armar-AII (I) or 11lmlllar quality vinyl pratectont. l<EEP THIS ASSEMBI.Y/SPECIACA.TlON SHEET FOR FVT\JRE REFERENCE. specifications: NOTE: We reserve the right to change specifications without notice.
Heat fused poly-vinyl coating, finished on Inner-metal structure, to an approximate 3/15• thlcknn11.
Framewortc a11Nmblies ani fini11hed with powder coating: electro!ltatically applied and 01111n cured according to powder manufacturer's apeclflcatlona. Faateneni are etalnlell11 steel to resist corrosion.
BENCH FRAt..tE:
Main supports are constn.icted of 2 3/8• od x 12 gajle stn.iclural steel tubing. Braces are 1 " od x 15 gage structural steel tubing. Mounting brackets on legs are 1/4• x 2 steel flat bar or 10 gage sheet steel. Base plates are 1/4" plate steel.
SEATS:
Seat and back uses 3/4• #9 expanded steel mesh and 12 gage sheet steel for the perforated. Framing conaista of die formed 10 gage mitered angles 3/4" x 1 J/4". Center brace and mounting brackets are 1/4• x 1 1/2" steel flat bar.
GENERAL:
6' bench iround space requirements are; inground and aurface mount with out back is 10 3,a• x 72 3f8", with back is 19 5/8 x 72 3/8", F,rtable with out back is 18 1/8• x 72 3/S", with back is 23 3/16 x 72 3/S". Seats are 10 3/8 wide x 72 3/8 long, 19• to top of seat and J1 3/4• to top of bench. Comer radius is 3• to the outside. 8' Bench iround space requirements are; inground and surface mount with out back is 1 O 3(8" x 96 3(8", with back is 19 5/8 x 96 3/8", ~rtable with out back is 18 1/8" x 96 3/8", with back is 2J 3/16 x 96 3/8. Seats are 10 3/8 wide x 96 3/8 long, 19" to top of seat and 31 J/4" to top of bench. Comer radius is J" to the outside.
Al194 page 1
parts identification:
ITEM PAITT# DESCRIPTION
A1 7529R 6' EXPANDED METAL SEAT
A2 7527R 8' EXPANDED METAL SEAT
AJ 7994 6' PERFORATED SEAT
A4 7992 8' PERFORATED SEAT
81 7339 BENCH W/0 BACK INGROUND LEG
82 7340 BENCH W/0 BACK SURFACE LEG
83 7341 BENCH W/0 BACK PORTABLE LEG
84 7345 BENCH W/BACK INGROUND LEG
85 7346 BENCH W/BACK SURFACE LEG
86 7347 BENCH W/BACK PORTABLE RIGHT LEG
87 734B BENCH W/BACK PORTABLE LEFT LEG
88 7072 8' RE/PLAYER PORTABLE LEG
C1 7388 BRACE
C2 7120 MOUNTlNG PLATE COVER (OPTIONAL)
C3 7073 8' RE/PLAYER BRACE
hardware identification.·
~------®
ASSEMBLY TOOLS REQUIRED
1 - REGULAR TIP SCREWDRIVER
2 - 1 /r WRENCHES
1 - 3 OR 6' LEVEL
ITEMS INCLUDED IN HARDWARE PACKAGE If:
ITEM PAITT(J DESCRIPTION
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 2
2 2
2 D 17011 5/16-18 x 1 1/2" HEX HEAD BOLT - SS
E 170B8 5/16-18 x 1" TRUSS HEAD MACHINE SCREW - SS
F 17028 3/8" FLAT WASHER - SS
G 17032 5/16-18 HEX FINISH NUT - SS
H 17052 1/4-20 ,c 1" MACHINE SCREW - SS
I 17050 5/16" SPLIT LOCK WASHER - SS
page 2
er ~
0 ~~ 0
21011 21012 21013 21014 21069 21076 21101
QTY QTY QTY QTY QTY QTY QTY
6 8 10 4 4 8 0
2 0 2 0 0 0 0
16 16 24 8 8 16 0
8 8 12 4 4 8 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8 8 12 4 4 8 0
Al194L
asseNV!lbly procedures· IMPORTANT: A9Hmj)lera should be rea11onably 9kil~ in the anembly of commercial , , " • grade/hea~ duty fabric:oted llteel equipment.
To ensure proper assembly, it is suggested that you take adequate time to locate and identify each part. To prevent scratching of the finished pieces, we recommend this unit to be assembled on a clean, flat, solid, surface with a drop cloth, allowing plenty of wor1<ing room. Aleo pleaN read the insln.ictions and study the sketches very carefully. A little extra time spent before assembly will be well worth it in performing a complete, proper assembly. Please note that ell parts have been precut end pre-drilled.
During the assembly process leave all bolts and nuts "finger tight", until the entire unit is completely assembled. This allows room for movement to level or adjust all seats, tops, benches, framework and brcces if necessary. After final adjustment and leveling, pem,onently tighten all nut9, bolt9 anct fostenef"I.
PORTABLE WITH BACK
STEP 1
Invert the (A-) seat upside down on an elevated surface. Place edge of seat flush with surface. Attach both (B6) and (87) right and left legs to the outer most part of the seat's mountin9 brackets, with the tab on each leg facing each other toward the center of the seat, see FIG. 1. Use two, per leg, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per (D).
STEP 2
Attach one end of the {C1) brace to tab on leg. Use one (E), (G), (1) and two (F) per (E). Attach opposite end of brace to the center brace on the seat. Use one (D), (G), (1) and two (F) per (D). Repeat STEP 2 for other end.
STEP 3
Rotate bench to the upright position. Attach the second seat (A1) or (A2) to the outer most part of the bench's back mounting bracket, see FIG. 2. Use two, per each side, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per each (D). !FlG. 1 !
PORTABLE WITH OUT BACK
STEP 1
!FIG. 2 !
FLUSH W/SURFACE
Invert the (A-) seat upside down on a flat surface. Attach both (B3-6') or (88-8' not shown) legs to the outer most part or the seat's mounting brackets, with the tab on each leg facing each other toward the center of the seat, see FIG. 3. Use two, per leg, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per (D).
STEP 2
Attach one end of the (Cl -6') or {C3-8') brace to tab on leg. Use one (E), (G), (I) and opposite end of brace to the center brace an the seat. Use one (D), (G), (I) and two (F) the other end.
STEP 3
Rotate bench to the upright position.
!FIG. 3 !
two (F) per (E). Attach the
per (D). Repeat STEP 2 for
i'l'tStallation: WARNING: The proper installation far Wabash Valley products mcy depend upon many factors unique to the site, location, or use of a particular product. Consult with your contractor or other professional to determine your specific installation requirements.
Al194L page 3
product diTnensians:
i---------A
-------B
PORTABLE A B C D E F G H
6 W/0 BACK 72 3/8" 54 1/2" 19" - 7 3/4" 10 3/8" -
6' WI BACK 72 :us· 57 3/8" 19" 31 3/4" 6 5/16" 10 3/8" 15" 23 3116" 8' WIO BACK 96 :us· 62 112" 19" - 15 314" 10 318" -
8' WI BACK 96 318" 65 318" 19" 31 314" 14 5116" 10 318" 15" 23 3116"
A-------
t
J REF
INGROUND A B c D E F G H
6 WI0 BACK 72 318" 54 1/2" 19" 7 314"
6' WI BACK 72 318" 57 318" 19" 31 314" 6 5116" 10 3 a· 15• 19 518" 8' W/0 BACK 96 3/8" 62 1/2" 19" 15 3/4" 10 3, a· - - 8 WI BACK 96 3/8" 65 3/8" 19" 31 3/4" 14 5/16" 10 3/8" 15" 19 5/8" A-7JG~
::::::==::;;;:======================::;:;::=:::: T D
~. ll
i------ B ------
SURFACE A B c D E F G H
6 W/0 BACK 72 3/8" 54 1/2" 19" 10 3/8" - -
6' W / BACK 72 3/8• 57 3/8" 19" 31 3/4" 6 5/16" 10 3/8" 15" 19 5/8" 8' W /0 BACK 96 3/8• 62 1 /2" 19" 15 3/4" 10 3/8" - -
8' W/ BACK 96 3/8" 65 3/8" 19" 31 3/4" 10 3/8" 15" 19 5/B" page 4
18 1/8"
18 1 /8"
18 118"
18 118"
J
18 11B"
20 118"
18 1/8"
20 1/8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
Al194L
assembly procedures, cont'd:
SURFACE MOUNT WITH BACK
STEP 1
Invert the (A-) seat upside down on on elevated surface. Piece edge cf seat flush with surface. Attach both (85) legs to the outer most part of the seat's mounting brackets, see FIG. 4. Use two, per leg, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per (D).
STEP 2
Reinvert bench to its top side up position. Attach the second seat (A-) to the outer most port of the bench's back mounting bracket, see FIG. 5. Use two, per each side, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per each (D).
STEP 3
Prepare and place the foundations securement hardware in its chosen location. A detailed description of where the hole locations should be placed is shown on page 4.
When the foundations securement hardware has been installed, place the unit in its new location and secure to the foundation.
If mounting plate covers (C2) are used place halves around legs and secure with 2 (H) screws, see FIG. 12. Draw to a snug fit being careful not to over tighten.
IFIG. 41
SURFACE MOUNT WITH OUT BACK
STEP 1
IF1G. 5 I
FLUSH W/SURFACE
Invert the (A-) seat upside down on a flat surface. Attach beth (82) legs to the outer most part of the seat's brackets, see FIG. 6. Use two, per leg, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (1) per (D).
STEP 2
Reinvert bench to its top side up position.
STEP 3
Prepare and place the foundations securement hardware in its chosen location. A detailed description of where the hole locations should be placed is shown on page 4.
When the foundations securement hardware has been installed, place the unit in its new location and secure to the foundation.
If mounting plate covers (C2) are used place halves around legs and secure with 2 (H) screws, see FIG. 12. Drow to a snug fit being careful not to over tighten.
IF1G. 6 I
!FIG. 121
Al194L page 2a
asse-rnbly procedures, cont'd:
INGROUND WITH BACK
STEP 1
Invert the (A-) seatupside down on an elevated surface. Place edge of seat flush with surface. Attach both (B4) legs to the outer-most part of the seat's mounting brackets. see FIG. 7. Use two, per leg, (D) and (G) using two (F) and one (I) per (D).
STEP 2
Prepare two foundation holes as shown in FIG. 8. The distance of holes, center to center, are shown in o diagram en page 4. Reinvert the bench to its' top side up position and place the legs in the footing holes, see FIG. 8.
Before pouring concrete, make sure the bench is level horizontally as well as vertically and holds 19" to the top of the bench. Pour concrete to form the footings and let cure for 48 hours.
STEP 3
Attach the second bench (A 1) or (A2) to the outer most port of the bench's bock mounting bracket, see FIG. 9. Use two, per each side, (D) and {G) using two (F) and one (I) per each (D).
If mounting plate covers (C2) are used place halfs around legs end secure with 2 (H) screws, see FIG. 12. Draw to a snug fit being careful not to over tighten.
INGROUND WITH OUT BACK
STEP 1
FLUSH
W/SURFACE
IFIC. 9 I
IF1G. Bl
Invert the (A-) seat upside down on a flat surface. Attach both (B1) legs to the outer most pert of the seat's mounting brackets, see FIG. 10. Use two, per leg, (D) end (G) using two (F) and one (I) per (D).
STEP 2
Prepare two foundation holes as shown in FIG. 11. The distance of the holes, center to center, ere shown in a diagram on page 4. Reinvert the bench to its' top side up position and place the legs in the footing holes. Block the bench cs shown in FIG. 11.
Before pouring concrete, make sure the bench is level horizontally os well as vertically and holds 19" to the top of the bench. Pour concrete to form the footings and let cure for 48 hours.
If mounting plate covers (C2) ore used place hclfs around legs end secure with 2 (H) screws, see FIG. 12. Draw to a snug fit being careful not to ever tighten. IFIG. 11 I
IF1G. 10 I
page 3a Al194L
I
Q
1nodel no:
SG205D,
SG206P,
SG205P,
SG207D,
SIGNATURE SERIES
SG206D,
SG207P
6', 81 & 81 HANDICAP PICNIC TABLES - EXPANDED METAL
& PERFORATED - MULTI-PEDESTAL INGROUND
custo1ner service:
ASSEMBl,IRS· If you find any parta mlsalng or damaged, or If you'n, having dlfflculty asaembllng your fumltuni/equlpment, call ua at:
• Before calllng, have your product model number avallable. 1-800-253-8619 (Inside U.S.A.)
260-352-2102 (Outside U.S.A.)
Monday thru Friday,
8:00 AM - 4:J0 PM Eastern llme
(EXCEPT HOLIDAYS)
1naintenance:
Regular inspection and maintenance of all parta. and faateneni is neceaary. lighten all bolts and nuts. Inspect Tops. Seats, Legs, Braces and Fasteners periodically for wear or vandallsm. Replace broken or worn parts immediately or take equipment out of service until repain111 are made. Use genuine Wabash Valley replacement parts.
To reatare ploatl11al coating to lt11 luster ofter prolonged UH, wa11h/rln e/dry and UN Armor-All (I) or 11lmlllar quality vlnyl protectant. l<EEP THIS ASSEMBI.Y/SPECIACA.TlON SHEET FOR FVT\JRE REFERENCE. specifications: NOTE: Wa reaarva tha right to change apacificatlona without notice.
Heat fuNd poly-vinyl coating, finished on lnner-matal structuni, to an approximate 3/15• thlcknea11.
Framewortc a11Nmblies ani fini11hed with powder coating: alectro!ltatically applied and oven cunid according to powder manufactul"llf''s apaclflcatlon11. F'aatenera are atalnlea11 steal to nilliat corraalon.
TABLE FRAME:
Main support is constructed from a 4 • x 4 • x 11 gage galvanized structural steel square tubing. Seats in ground post mounting brackets are 1/4• x 1 1/2• steel flat bar, the top plate is made of 10 gage sheet steel. Top's inground post mounting bracket is 7 gage sheet steel, the top plate is 14 gage sheet steel and the gusset is made of 1 /a• x 1 • strip steel.
TOP &: SEAT:
Top and seat use fabricated 3/4• #9 expended steel mesh and perforated uses 12 gage sheet metal. Fremin~ consists of 10 gage mitered angles 3/4 x 1 3/4•. Tep and seat center brace and mounting brackets are 1/4• x 1 112• steel flat bar.
GENERAL:
SG205P and SG205D ground space requirements are 63 ~vs• x 72 :vs•. Table top is 30 3/8• wide and 30• to the top of the table. Sects are 10 3/a· wide and 19• to the top of seat. Corner radius is 3• to the outside.
SG206P and SG206D ground space requirements are 63 3/8 x 96 3/s•. Table top is 30 3/s• wide and 30• to the to_p of the table. Sects are 10 3/a• wide and 19• to the to,P of seat. Corner radius is 3• to the outside.
SG207P and SG207D ground space requirements are 6J 3/8 x 96 3/s•. Tobie top is 30 3/s• wide and 31 1/2• to the lop of the table. Sects are 10 3/s• wide and 19• to the top of seat. Comer radius is 3• to the outside.
Al25eH page 1
parts identification:
ITEM PNUf DESCRIPTlON
Al
A2
l,;l
M
M
M
81 82
B3
84 c,
C2
D1
D2
7520R
7502R
7501R
7961
7964
7960
7529R
7527R
7994
7992
7474
7305
7322
7151
8' EXPMDED METAL HANDICAP TOP
8' EXPMDED METAL TOP
8' EXPMDED METAL TOP
8' PERroRATED HANDICAP TOP
6' PERroRATED TOP
8' PERroRATED TOP
6' EXPMDED METAL SE'AT
8' EXPMDED METAL SE'AT
6' PERFORATED SEAT
81 PERFORATED SEAT
8' HANDICAP INCROUND POST
INGROUND TABLE POST
INGROUND SE'AT POST
MOUNTING PLATE COYER (OPTIONAL)
hardware identification.·
ITEMS INCWDED WITH HARDWARE PACKAGE:
ITEM PNUf DESCRIPTION
QTY
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
4 6 SETS
E 17032 5/18-18 HEX FINISH NUTS - SS
F 17011 5/16-18 IC 1 1/2• HEX HEAD BOLT - SS
G 17028 3/8• FLAT WASHER - SS
H 17052 1/4-20 x 1 • MACHINE SCREW - SS
J 17050 5/18• SPLIT LOCI< WASHER - SS
page 2
121014 #21101
QTY Q1Y ASSEMBLY TOOLS REQUIRED
4 0 2 - 10• WRENCHES 4 0 1 - ,: E MFASURE
8 0 1 - 3' OR 6' LEVEL
0 2 1 - FLAT SCREW ORNER
4 0
Al256H
asseNV!lbly procedures· IMPORTANT: A9Hmj:llera should be rea11onably 9kil~ in the anembly of commercial , , " • grade/heel~ duty fabricated llteel equipment.
To ensure proper 01111embly, it i11 11u11geaf:ed that you toke adequate time lo locate and identify each port. To prevent 11crolchin11 of the finished pieces, we recommend thia unit lo be a~bled on a clean, flat, 1101id, surface with a drop cloth, allowing plenty of workin11 room. Aleo pleo11e read the insln.lctions and study the sketches very carefully. A little extra time spent before assembly will be well worth it in performing a complete, proper o-mbly. Plea• note that all porta hove been pr11eut and pre-drilled.
During the aaembly procea leave all bolt■ and nuts "finger tight", until the antJre unit la completely anembled. Thia allawa room for movement to level or adjuat all Natl!, topa, benchee, framewor1t and braces if nec:eaary. After final adju9lment and leveling, permanently tighten all nub, bolt9 and fastenef"II.
STEP 1
Invert the (A-) top so it's upside down on a flat surface. Attach each (C-) top's inground post to the outside of the top's mounting brackets, see FIG. 1. Use two, per each bracket, (F) and (E) using two (G) and one (J) per (F). Draw the fasteners to a snug fit with wrenches.
STEP 2
Invert both (8-) seats so they're upside down on a flat surface. Attach the four (D) seat's inground post to the outside of each seat's mounting brackets, see FIG. 2. Use two, per each bracket, (F) and (E) using two {G) and one (J) per (F).
Draw the fasteners to a snug fit with wrenches.
STEP 3
Prepare six foundation holes as shown on page four. The distance of holes, center to center, are shown in a diagram on the backside of this assembly instruction sheet.
STEP 4
Re-invert the table and seats to their topside up position and place them in the footing holes. Block the table and seats as shown in FIG. 3.
Before pouring concrete, make sure the table and seats are level horizontally as well as vertically and holds 29", for standard, or 31 1/2•, for handicap, to the top of the table, and 19• to the top cf the seats.
Pour concrete to form the footings and let cure for 48 hours.
STEP 5
Tighten all fasteners with wrenches.
If mounting plate covers (D2) are used, place halves around legs and secure with 2 (H) screws, see FlG. 4. Draw to a snug fit being careful not to over tighten.
IFIG. 31
%
IFIG. 41
i'rtBtallation: WARNING: The proper inlltallation for Waboeh Valley producta may depend upon many factora unique to the lte, location, or uae of a partlcular product. Coneult with your contractor or other profeaslonal lo determine your specific Installation requirements.
Al256H page 3
assembly procedures, cont'd:
1,m,enS1.ons:
i
page 4
S02ll1D - , .. ---
_, - 71 'J/8'
SQ20IID/9Gl2ll7 - Ill 3/8"
~==~~~ 7!1 21
1 1/r' U m - 04 1/4" g----·
SG2IXI) - 15 'J/8"
~---9G2IIIID/SGICl1 ____ -_S7_3/I" ___ ~ U 1/2"
I
SG2CIIIII/SG2II - 111'
Sll207D - ;?11 1/r'
--u
Al256H
I
Q
STEELCRAFT PRODUCTS MODEL
WLBR
SERIES BIKE RACK
SHEET
P.O. Box 90365 - Pasadena, CA 91109 1 of 2
PHN 626-798-7401 FAX 626-798-1482
*GALVANIZED OR POWDER COATED FINISH AVAILABLE*
2-3/8" OD SCH. 40
GALV. PIPE (TYP.)
2 3 36"
TYP.
GROUND LEVEL -------f-t-t------- -
-----1 ,~· -14--
WLBR-3
CAPCITY 3 BIKES
2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5
6" (TYP .)
- - rf-t-- 38" --------1--.
L 12" (TYP.)
WLBR-5
CAPCITY 5 BIKES
GROUND LEVEL --- -+-+-- ----- -- SURFACE MOUNT
OPTION DETAIL
i-1----- 64" -----~1
WLBR-7
CAPACITY 7 BIKES
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:
(4" X 1 /2" ANCHOR BOLTS
SUPPLIED BY OTHERS)
1. DIG HOLES IN PROPER LOCATION FOR A 6" DIA. X 12" DEEP CONC.
FOOTING.
2. SUPPORT THE BIKE RACK SO IT IS PLUMB AND LEVEL (36" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL).
3. POUR CONCRETE INTO THE FOOTING HOLES AND ALLOW 48 hrs.
BEFORE REMOVING THE SUPPORTS.
NOTE: SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING DATE: 10/7/09 DRAWN BY: AFS
STEELCRAFT PRODUCTS
P.O. Box 90365 - Pasadena, CA 91109
PHN 626-798-7401 FAX 626-798-1482
MODEL
WLBR
SERIES BIKE RACK
SHEET
2 of 2
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 2-3/8" OD sch. 40
GALVANIZED PIPE (TYP.)
36"
(TYP.)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
GRO~ND LEVE!,J_ ___ _
87"------1 ♦
6" (TYP .)
WLBR-9 L
CAPACITY 9 BIKES 12' (TYP.J
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROUND LEVEL ----It+--
11 O" .. I
WLBR-11
CAPACITY 11 BIKES
SURFACE MOUNT
OPTION DETAL
(4" X 1 /2" ANCHOR BOLTS
SUPPLIED BY OTHERS)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GROUND LEVEL
._I ....._ _____ 134" -------.. -ii
WLBR-13
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:
CAPACITY 13 BIKES
1. DIG HOLES IN PROPER LOCATION FOR A 6" DIA. X 12" DEEP CONC.
FOOTING.
2. SUPPORT THE BIKE RACK SO IT IS PLUMB AND LEVEL (36" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL).
3. POUR CONCRETE INTO THE FOOTING HOLES AND ALLOW 48 hrs.
BEFORE REMOVING THE SUPPORTS.
NOTE: SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING DA TE: 10/7 /09 DRAWN BY: AFS
PROJECT REF#: l l 169C-3/3/2022-0
----------------- -- ---------------------------~
_ _rr===s=,=;=..,..."F""'========s=;===;i :
· .. _ll
'RESTROOM- BUILDING 'C '
CONCESSION/
LOCKER BUILDING
ROSEVILLE, CAIFORNIA
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX Al!RSflMPU590N;;{} UMO£t./M(j cmYFOI.Uf:l:{SEMT/IT(ON. CDI.Ol.5AMOM/U"U./IUH.l 51,(JJ{UTO CJIIW(j{ COP'll./6HT XJ]l,Plt8UCU57l.OOM CD.'W'IW'fTHiS Mlml/li (S"ffll lXalfll.lf Pl.CRlT( Df PUJUCU57l.OOM CDMPA'IY AMO 5Hlil Mar lJE l.lPl.001.JCZO, u!lO OI. Di5d0!,EO TD aTHllSlXCEPr ASAUTHOI./ZlO BT7Hl Wt.fTTEM f::£l.MiS&OM Df PiAUCUSTl.OOM CD,WPAr-lT. :
I! ':
' '' :
www.PublicRestroomCompany.com
2587 BUSINESS PARKWAY
MINDEN NEVADA 89423
P: 888-888-2000 F: 888-888-1448
:;-
_J
«:
$ Ct'.
w
>
0 LL
0 0
QS
S'
"'1"
01 lilir PUBLIC RESTROOM
COMAt.NY
Buildirv B8tter Pl 11085 lb Go,•
.-.-. ooo-o<>o-20b0 I rws
=---- :-
0 0 co z N
b 01
SJ01
'I
' i I ,
-------t-'
12'-0" (MOD-'1')
r-------1 I
I
I
I
I L _______ J
11 '-4"
'-'-
' r-"----7 ' I I I I I I I I I
I / I I J I I / I
" ..J/ I ' .... _____ .., I I
24'-8" (ROOF OVERALL)
r-----7
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I
I
I
L
22'-8" (MOD-'2&3')
22'-0"
UTILITY
CHASE
PROJECT REF#: 111698-3/3/2022-0
L ____________________________________________ _
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
BUILDING TYPE RESTROOM BUILDING - 'C' REVISION# REVISION SHEET# RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS MATERIAL DATE: IS THE EXCLUSIVE A-1 PROPERTY OF PUBLIC - DRAV\IN BY RESTROOM COMPANY ANO PROJECT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED. USED, OR DISCLOSED TO ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR: OTHERS EXCEPT AS DATE: 31312022 AUTHORIZED BY THE WRITTEN ROSEVILLE, CA RESTROOM
PERMISSION
COMPANY
OF PUBLIC
. 11169C DRAV\IN BY EOR - - ~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE ____dt._T_QSf>!l_lL __ Y T-4"
..1'.llLlQSf>!l_lL __ V 7'-4" I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
____dt._[INISlj FLOQ.8_
Y0'-0"
I I I
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS lilir PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED.
COMAt.NY USED, OR DISCLOSED TO
OTHERS EXCEPT AS
Buildirv B8tter Pl 11085 lb Go,• AUTHORIZED BY THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY .
.-.-. ooo-o<>o-20b0 I rws
I
I I I
I
I I I
I
I I I
I
I I I
I
I I I
BUILDING TYPE
PROJECT
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
RESTROOM BUILDING - 'C'
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX
ROSEVILLE, CA
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE PROJECT REF#: 111698-3/3/2022-0
I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
"?
01 I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
REVISION# REVISION SHEET#
DATE:
- DRAV\IN BY A-2
PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
DATE: 31312022
11169C DRAV\IN BY EOR - -
PROJECT REF#: 111696-2/9/2022-l
i_ __ _
~-- ;,a,,) ,. .. J
, FLOOR PLAN
'TOURNAMENT' SCALE: NOTTO SCALE
CONCESSION/
STO RAGE BUILDING
ROSEVILLE, CAIFORNIA
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX Al!RSflMPU590N;;{} UMO£t./M(j cmYFOI.Uf:l:{SEMT/IT(ON. CDI.Ol.5AMOM/U"U./IUH.l 51,(JJ{UTO CJIIW(j{ COP'll./6HT XJ]l,Plt8UCU57l.OOM CD.'W'IW'fTHiS Mlml/li (S"ffll lXalfll.lf Pl.CRlT( Df PUJUCU57l.OOM CDMPA'IY AMO 5Hlil Mar lJE l.lPl.001.JCZO, u!lO OI. Di5d0!,EO TD aTHllSlXCEPr ASAUTHOI./ZlO BT7Hl Wt.fTTEM f::£l.MiS&OM Df PiAUCUSTl.OOM CD,WPAr-lT. www.PublicRestroomCompany.com
2587 BUSINESS PARKWAY
MINDEN NEVADA 89423
P: 888-888-2000 F: 888-888-1448
PROJECT REF#: 11169B-2/912022-1
34'-4" (MOD-'1&2')
T l 19'-4" j 12'-0" (MOD-'3') ~ , I ~ .i. 11'-4" ~"~
t. 3'-O" 31 '-4"
i l V T 11
.,._-~-----~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - _I+-----, 01 0
0 s sq-
;...-
S' ~
----1 ~--- 1✓~/
/f
/ I
/ I
: I
\ I
\ I
\ I \
'
:TI
iii
IJ
I
I
I "' s s ~~--+---+--+-<- I I
COUNTER
::::;-
_J
«,:
$ O'.:
w
>
0 LL
0 0
~
C>
~
"' ' 0
0 ;;,;:
"'r
;...-
6 ""
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED,
COM~NY USED, OR DIS CLOSED TO
OTHERS EXCEPT AS AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN Builcli111J B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go.$1 PERMISSION OF PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
r---------7
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I FLOOR SINK I I I I L _____ _J
.-.1----+--APPLli!IN CESARE
BY OTHERS,
OUTLETS T.B.D.
r---1
I I
I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
TOURNAMENT
ROOM
L
I I I I I I I I
~---1
2X FURR OUT -,-----,::t!!IRI
WALL WI
INSULATIONS
I I I I I I
I ~3-TIER SHELF 1 1 STORAGE BY
: : OTHERS
: : I --------1---------7 I II I I I II I I L ___ J 1----------...1....----- I
I
I
1------, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___L_ ____ _ ~ 0..______,__~-A~-~- 6'?-,.~-PL_A_N_
BUILDING TYPE: CONCESSION/ STORAGE BUILDING (TOURNAMENT) REVISION# ~i¥~~10N 21912022 1 DRAWN BY EOR
PROJECT ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX PROJECT#: START
DATE: 21812022
ROSEVILLE, CA 11169B DRAWN BY EOR
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE SHEET#
A-1 MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
- -
A__FJNISH_FLOQ.B.._
----.,:,o·-o"
A_T_~!!i.l!..._ __
Vl'-4"
A_~INISlj FLOQ_l:L V o·-o"
- I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
~ I I I
I
I I --- I
I
I
I
I
I
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS BUILDING TYPE: 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO PROJECT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COM~NY USED, OR DIS CLOSED TO
OTHERS EXCEPT AS AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN Builclil'IIJ B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go,$1 PERMISSION OF PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
I I I I I I I I
" I I I I I I I I I I
" I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I " ~ > I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I T T T T T I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I / I I T T T T T I
CONCESSION/ STORAGE BUILDING (TOURNAMENT)
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX
ROSEVILLE, CA
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE PROJECT REF#: 11169B-2/912022-1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
REVISION# ~i¥~~10N 2/9/2022 SHEET#
1 DRAV\IN BY EOR A-2 PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
DATE: 2 /8/2022
11169B DRAV\IN BY EOR - -
A_T_~!!i.l!..._ __
Vl'-4"
1-----L-~ .... ,/
1-----L-~ .... ,"-
/ / I >--,-----L---< IF-===t1--a;;;;a;;al
/
/
'-
'-
'-
PROJECT REF#: 11169B-2/912022-1
A_~INISlj FLOQ_l:L V o·-o"
'- 11-~L...-----'--~---'----.J..._r---'-_,_~----'----L..----,-----'--_j_-_j_.,.......JL....1 ___di._JQ_C_M_!L __ _
YT-4"
AflNISt:I FLO_QB.__ Y 0'-0'
I
I
I
I
I
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED,
COM~NY USED , OR DIS CLOSED T O
OTHERS EXCE P T AS AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN Builclil'IIJ B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go,$1 PERMISSION OF PUBLIC REST R OOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
BUILDING TYPE:
PROJECT
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I T T T T T T I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I T T T T T I I I
CONCESSION/ STORAGE BUILDING (TOURNAMENT)
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX
ROSEVILLE, CA
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I 7
I I I
I I
-----
REVISION# ~i¥~~10N 2/9/2022 SHEET#
1 DRAV\IN BY EOR A-3
PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
DATE: 2 /8/2022
11169B DRAV\IN BY EOR - -
PROJECT REF#: l l 169A-2/9/2022-l
'OFFICIALS LOUNGE' FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
CONCESSION/
LOCKER BUILDING
ROSEVILLE, CAIFORNIA
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX Al!RSflMPU590N;;{} UMO£t./M(j cmYFOI.Uf:l:{SEMT/IT(ON. CDI.Ol.5AMOM/U"U./IUH.l 51,(JJ{UTO CJIIW(j{ COP'll./6HT XJ]l,Plt8UCU57l.OOM CD.'W'IW'fTHiS Mlml/li (S"ffll lXalfll.lf Pl.CRlT( Df PUJUCU57l.OOM CDMPA'IY AMO 5Hlil Mar lJE l.lPl.001.JCZO, u!lO OI. Di5d0!,EO TD aTHllSlXCEPr ASAUTHOI./ZlO BT7Hl Wt.fTTEM f::£l.MiS&OM Df PiAUCUSTl.OOM CD,WPAr-lT. www.PublicRestroomCompany.com
2587 BUSINESS PARKWAY
MINDEN NEVADA 89423
P: 888-888-2000 F: 888-888-1448
PROJECT REF#: 11169A-2/9/2022-1
34'-4" (MOD-'1&2')
t. 3'-O" 31 '-4" T l 19'-4" j 12'-0" (MOD-'3') ~ , I ~ .i. 11'-4" ~"~ .,.__~ __ _l ___ l ________________ y ____ J_ ______________ rr ____ _ 01 0
0 s sq-
;...-
S' ~
----1 ~--- 1✓~/
/f
/ I
/ I
: I
\ I
\ I
\ I \
'
:TI
iii
IJ I "' s s ~~--+---+---t--<- I I
COUNTER
::::;-
_J
«,:
$ O'.:
w
>
0 LL
0 0
~
C>
~
"' ' 0
0 ;;,;:
"'r
;...-
6 ""
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED,
COM~NY USED, OR DIS CLOSED TO
OTHERS EXCEPT AS
Builclil'IIJ B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go,.$1 AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
r---------7
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I FLOOR SINK I I I I
-,---+-~APPtl:AN€ES
ARE BY
OTHERS,
OUTLETS T.B.D.
--1 : I I
--+
OFFICIALS
LOUNGE
I
LOCKERS BY I
OTHERS :
I
--,-----.--1 -,--,- 1 I I I I I I I
L
I
I
I
1------, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _j__ ____ _ ~ 1--8--+--~-A~-E~-6'?-,.~-PL_A_N_
BUILDING TYPE: REVISION# CONCESSION/ LOCKER BUILDING ~i¥~~10N 2/9/2022 (OFFICIALS LOUNGE) 1 DRAV\IN BY EOR PROJECT ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX PROJECT#: START DATE: 2/8/2022
ROSEVILLE, CA 11169A DRAV\IN BY EOR
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE SHEET#
A-1 MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
- -
A__FJNISH_FLOQ.B.._
----.,:,o·-o"
A_T_~!!i.l!.._ __
Vl'-4"
A_~INISlj FLOQ_l:L V o·-o"
- I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
~ I
I I
I
I I --- I
I
I
I
I
I
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS BUILDING TYPE: 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO PROJECT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COM~NY USED, OR DISCLOSED TO
OTHERS EXCEPT AS
Builclil'IIJ B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go,$1 AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
I I I I I I I I
" I I I I I I I I I I
" I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I " ~ > I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I
CONCESSION/ LOCKER BUILDING (OFFICIALS LOUNGE)
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX
ROSEVILLE, CA
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE PROJECT REF#: 11169A-2/9/2022-1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
REVISION# ~i¥~~10N 2/9/2022 SHEET#
1 DRAV\IN BY EOR A-2 PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
DATE: 2 /8/2022
11169A DRAV\IN BY EOR - -
A_T_~!!i.l!.._ __
Vl'-4"
,-..-~~ .... ,/
,-..-~~ .... ,\.
/ / I t----;,-----'----1 IF-===n-----ii
/
/
\.
\.
\.
PROJECT REF#: 11169A-2/9/2022-1
A_~INISlj FLOQ_l:L V o·-o"
\. ,,__c......,.~-~-~.--------'-~-~-._____,~-~-~-.-----''--I ___di.__JQ_C_M_!L __ _
YT-4"
AflNISt:I FLO_QB.__ Y 0'-0'
I
I
I
I
I
COPYRIGHT 2022, PUBLIC
RESTRO OM COMPANY THIS 1i1il PUBLIC MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
RESTROOM RESTROOM COMPANY ANO SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED,
COM~NY USED , OR DIS CLOSED T O
OTHERS EXCE P T AS
Builclil'IIJ B8tt8r Pl ilC8S lb Go,$1 AUTHOR IZEO BY THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PUBLIC REST R OOM COMPANY. ..... o I nu<
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
BUILDING TYPE:
PROJECT
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
CONCESSION/ LOCKER BUILDING (OFFICIALS LOUNGE)
ROSEVILLE SOCCER COMPLEX
ROSEVILLE, CA
~NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING ONLY~ DO NOT SCALE, DIMENSIONS PRESIDE I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I 7
I I I
I I I
-----
REVISION# ~i¥~~10N 2/9/2022 SHEET#
1 DRAV\IN BY EOR A-3
PROJECT#: START MAX. PERSON I HOUR:
DATE: 2 /8/2022
11169A DRAV\IN BY EOR - -
•
PORTERCORP HAS EARNED A PCl-4000 CERTIFICATION FROM THE GLOBALLY RECOGNIZED POWDER COATING INSTITUTE (PCI). QUALITY
FINISHING IS CRUCIAL TO THE LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF SHELTER STRUCTURES. THIS CERTIFICATION UNDERSCORES THE COMMITMENT PORTERCORP HAS MADE TO MANUFACTURING QUALITY PRODUCTS.
THIS IS A CONCEPT DRAWING, DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE
REPRESENTATIVE. TO ADAPT THIS CONCEPT TO MEET PROJECT
SPECIFIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, FORWARD YOUR REQUEST
TO POLIGON CUSTOMER SERVICE.
GENERAL FRAME NOTES:
l.
2. ALL STEEL COMPONENTS (STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS, ORNAMENTATION, RAILING, ETC.)
ARE POWDER COATED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER (UNLESS REQU ESTED OTHERWISE):
• SHOT BLASTED TO NEAR WHITE
CONDITION (SSPC SP-10)
• WASHED AND SEALED IN A PHOSPHATE
SPRAY
• PRIME-COATED WITH POLl-5000 HIGH
PERFORMANCE POWDER A PPLIED
EPOXY
• TOP-COATED WITH SUPER-DURABLE TGIC
POLYESTER POWDER AND OVEN CU RED
SEE POLIGON.COM FOR COLOR O PTIONS
-------------------37'-7" - REF.--------------------,
20'-4''
- REF.
B'-10"
- REF.
B'-0"
- REF.
24 GA. GAL VALUME COATED,
KYNAR PAINTED MULTI-RIB
METAL ROOFING
CURVED ROOF TRIM - TYP.
14'-l"
- REF.
14'-1 0"
- REF.
L _ _____J_j_L_____--------L..lJ.._______.__..___~_.__
BOTH TWO AND FOUR
COLUMN LEAF STRUCTU RES
ARE AVAILABLE IN A RANGE
OF SIZES. CONT ACT
POLIGON CUSTOMER
SERVICE FOR DETAILS.
SHELTER MODEL:
. 20 X 38 MR LEAF
DB-SO. STEEL SHELTER COLLECTION
www.poligon.com ■ p O RT E R n .. 6 l 6-399-l 963 ■ U PORTERCORP, 4240 N. 136l h AVE, ■ l J HOLLAND, Ml 49424 A P LAYCORE C"ompon:,
Cop yright laws protect the style and v isual appe arance of the structure while patent s may protect other parts of the design.
ATTACHMENT E
AIR QUALITY AND GHG MODEL RUNS
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 1 / 62
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2023) - Mitigated
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 2 / 62
3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.4. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2023) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2023) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2024) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 3 / 62
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.3.1. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.4.1. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.5.1. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 4 / 62
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 5 / 62
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 6 / 62
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 7 / 62
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 8 / 62
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
8. User Changes to Default Data
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 9 / 62
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.50
Precipitation (days) 7.80
Location 38.78909063723171, -121.3860119040587
County Placer-Sacramento
City Roseville
Air District Placer County APCD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 432
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Roseville Electric
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 14.0 Acre 14.0 0.00 630,726 630,726 — —
Parking Lot 574 Space 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 10 / 62
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Transportation T-14* Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.81 40.0 36.6 0.06 1.81 19.9 21.7 1.66 10.2 11.8 — 6,830 6,830 0.27 0.08 1.21 6,856 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.81 27.4 24.1 0.03 1.20 0.15 1.35 1.10 0.04 1.14 — 3,579 3,579 0.14 0.03 0.02 3,592 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.11 10.3 10.1 0.02 0.46 1.33 1.79 0.43 0.58 1.01 — 1,849 1,849 0.07 0.02 0.07 1,856 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.20 1.88 1.85 < 0.005 0.08 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.11 0.18 — 306 306 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 307 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 82.0 82.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 11 / 62
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 82.0 82.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,000
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 4.02 40.0 36.6 0.06 1.81 19.9 21.7 1.66 10.2 11.8 — 6,830 6,830 0.27 0.08 1.21 6,856 2024 8.81 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 0.14 0.53 0.46 0.04 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 2.90 27.4 24.1 0.03 1.20 0.15 1.35 1.10 0.04 1.14 — 3,579 3,579 0.14 0.03 0.02 3,592 2024 8.81 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.46 0.00 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.07 10.3 10.1 0.02 0.46 1.33 1.79 0.43 0.58 1.01 — 1,849 1,849 0.07 0.02 0.07 1,856 2024 1.11 5.33 6.28 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.25 0.22 < 0.005 0.22 — 1,127 1,127 0.05 0.01 — 1,131 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.20 1.88 1.85 < 0.005 0.08 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.11 0.18 — 306 306 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 307 2024 0.20 0.97 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 187 187 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 12 / 62
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 28.5 15.6 141 0.26 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 0.65 26,731 26,732 1.56 1.34 101 27,271 Mit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 24.1 18.2 133 0.24 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 0.65 24,516 24,517 1.91 1.47 2.62 25,005 Mit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 13 / 62
Average—————————————————
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 8.56 6.65 48.3 0.10 0.10 3.41 3.51 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.65 10,624 10,625 0.66 0.55 18.7 10,823 Mit.—————————————————
%
Reduced
—————————————————
Annual
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 1.56 1.21 8.81 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.64 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.11 1,759 1,759 0.11 0.09 3.09 1,792 Mit.—————————————————
%
Reduced
—————————————————
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
—————————————————
Threshold 55.0 55.0———— 82.0——————————
Unmit. No No———— No——————————
Mit.—————————————————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
—————————————————
Threshold 55.0 55.0———— 82.0——————————
Unmit. No No———— No——————————
Mit.—————————————————
Exceeds
(Annual)
—————————————————
Threshold———————————————— 1,100
Unmit.———————————————— Yes
Mit.—————————————————
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 14 / 62
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 27.8 15.6 141 0.26 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 — 26,625 26,625 1.49 1.34 101 27,163 Area 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 28.5 15.6 141 0.26 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 0.65 26,731 26,732 1.56 1.34 101 27,271 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.4 18.2 133 0.24 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 — 24,411 24,411 1.84 1.47 2.62 24,897 Area 0.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 24.1 18.2 133 0.24 0.24 7.95 8.19 0.23 1.43 1.66 0.65 24,516 24,517 1.91 1.47 2.62 25,005 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.87 6.65 48.3 0.10 0.10 3.41 3.51 0.10 0.61 0.71 — 10,519 10,519 0.59 0.55 18.7 10,715 Area 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 15 / 62
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 8.56 6.65 48.3 0.10 0.10 3.41 3.51 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.65 10,624 10,625 0.66 0.55 18.7 10,823 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.44 1.21 8.81 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.64 0.02 0.11 0.13 — 1,741 1,741 0.10 0.09 3.09 1,774 Area 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 4.82 4.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.84 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.38 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 1.56 1.21 8.81 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.64 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.11 1,759 1,759 0.11 0.09 3.09 1,792
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 16 / 62
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
2.84 27.3 23.5 0.03 1.20 — 1.20 1.10 — 1.10 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
2.84 27.3 23.5 0.03 1.20 — 1.20 1.10 — 1.10 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.16 1.50 1.29 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 17 / 62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 174 174 < 0.005 0.01 0.73 177 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 154 154 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 155 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 8.64 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1.43 1.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 18 / 62
3.2. Demolition (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 19 / 62
Off-Road
Equipment
3.95 39.7 35.5 0.05 1.81— 1.81 1.66— 1.66— 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04— 5,314 Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 19.7 19.7— 10.1 10.1———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 1.09 0.97 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05— 145 145 0.01 < 0.005— 146 Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.54 0.54— 0.28 0.28———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.20 0.18 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005— 24.1 Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.10 0.10— 0.05 0.05———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.05 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00— 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.85 206 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 20 / 62
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.25 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 177 177 < 0.005 0.03 0.36 186 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.04 5.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.08 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84
3.4. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 21 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.72 37.3 31.4 0.06 1.59 — 1.59 1.47 — 1.47 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 3.07 2.58 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 542 542 0.02 < 0.005 — 544 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 22 / 62
Dust — — — — — 0.76 0.76 — 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.56 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.06 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.97 235 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2.86 2.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 23 / 62
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Grading (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 24 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55— 0.55 0.51— 0.51— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55— 0.55 0.51— 0.51— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.49 4.62 5.16 0.01 0.22— 0.22 0.20— 0.20— 938 938 0.04 0.01— 942 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.84 0.94 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 155 155 0.01 < 0.005— 156 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 25 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 26 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.52 4.85 5.67 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,037 1,037 0.04 0.01 — 1,040 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.89 1.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 172 172 0.01 < 0.005 — 172 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 27 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 28 / 62
3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 1.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.43 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 29 / 62
3.12. Paving (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 30 / 62
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 134 134 0.01 < 0.005— 134 Architectu ral
Coatings
8.67————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 134 134 0.01 < 0.005— 134 Architectu ral
Coatings
8.67————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005— 7.34 Architectu ral
Coatings
0.48————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.22 Architectu ral
Coatings
0.09————————————————
Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 31 / 62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.14. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 32 / 62
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 29.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 4.82 4.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.84 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.82 4.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.84
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 33 / 62
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 34 / 62
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
8.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 35 / 62
Consume 0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
r
Products
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 9.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
8.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 9.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 36 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 37 / 62
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7
4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 38 / 62
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.06 0.00 — 2.27 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.38 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.38
4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 39 / 62
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 40 / 62
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 41 / 62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 42 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 43 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 44 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 45 / 62
Sequeste — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
red
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 46 / 62
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 47 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/20/2023 4/17/2023 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/18/2023 5/2/2023 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 5/3/2023 6/14/2023 5.00 30.0 —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 48 / 62
Building Construction Building Construction 6/15/2023 8/8/2024 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 8/9/2024 9/6/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/7/2024 10/5/2024 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 49 / 62
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 2.30 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 50 / 62
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 28,687 9,562 13,502
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 51 / 62
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Site Preparation 0.00 178 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.17
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 3.00 100%
Parking Lot 5.17 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 471 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 446 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 3,840 6,400 3,840 734,171 28,251 28,251 28,251 4,419,264 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 52 / 62
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses — — — — — — — —
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 28,687 9,562 13,502
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 53 / 62
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 23,808 446 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 446 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 38,688,366
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 54 / 62
City Park 1.20 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 55 / 62
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 56 / 62
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 57 / 62
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 58 / 62
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 63.7
AQ-PM 15.1
AQ-DPM 14.1
Drinking Water 39.7
Lead Risk Housing 5.49
Pesticides 84.3
Toxic Releases 16.8
Traffic 5.90
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 40.8
Groundwater 76.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 97.9
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 59 / 62
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 26.1
Cardio-vascular 64.3
Low Birth Weights 9.64
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 10.8
Linguistic 27.3
Poverty 30.9
Unemployment 22.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.68150905
Employed 52.68831002
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 68.40754523
High school enrollment 5.671756705
Preschool enrollment 30.89952521
Transportation —
Auto Access 54.54895419
Active commuting 15.8475555
Social —
2-parent households 79.26344155
Voting 94.30257924
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 60 / 62
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 92.66007956
Park access 11.4718337
Retail density 3.06685487
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 10.02181445
Housing —
Homeownership 81.9196715
Housing habitability 62.8127807
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.02643398 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 14.53868857
Uncrowded housing 58.74502759
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 93.45566534
Arthritis 71.8
Asthma ER Admissions 71.5
High Blood Pressure 85.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 40.8
Asthma 65.7
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 81.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 91.2
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.3
Cognitively Disabled 96.3
Physically Disabled 86.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 61.3
Mental Health Not Good 73.6
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 61 / 62
Chronic Kidney Disease 90.3
Obesity 70.2
Pedestrian Injuries 44.4
Physical Health Not Good 87.1
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 11.9
Current Smoker 64.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 81.2
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 0.5
Elderly 55.1
English Speaking 69.8
Foreign-born 37.6
Outdoor Workers 58.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.6
Traffic Density 4.8
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 39.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 91.6
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 62 / 62
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 29.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 63.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Paving Non-parking lot paved areas (internal roads/walkways) Operations: Energy Use Based on energy study.
Operations: Water and Waste Water Based on project description.
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 1 / 43
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 2 / 43
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 3 / 43
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 4 / 43
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 5 / 43
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 6 / 43
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
8. User Changes to Default Data
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 7 / 43
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.50
Precipitation (days) 7.80
Location 38.78909063723171, -121.3860119040587
County Placer-Sacramento
City Roseville
Air District Placer County APCD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 432
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Roseville Electric
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 4.00 Acre 4.00 0.00 174,240 174,240 — —
Parking Lot 389 Space 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 8 / 43
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.57 31.6 30.2 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,748 6,748 0.27 0.05 — 6,771 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 0.14 1.06 0.84 0.04 0.88 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.87 8.10 8.98 0.02 0.34 1.07 1.40 0.31 0.48 0.79 — 1,707 1,707 0.07 0.01 — 1,712 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.16 1.48 1.64 < 0.005 0.06 0.19 0.26 0.06 0.09 0.14 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 82.0 82.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 82.0 82.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 9 / 43
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,000
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,748 6,748 0.27 0.05 — 6,771 2026 3.57 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.14 0.46 0.35 0.04 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 0.14 1.06 0.84 0.04 0.88 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 2026 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.87 8.10 8.98 0.02 0.34 1.07 1.40 0.31 0.48 0.79 — 1,707 1,707 0.07 0.01 — 1,712 2026 0.49 2.54 3.37 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 — 601 601 0.02 < 0.005 — 604 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.16 1.48 1.64 < 0.005 0.06 0.19 0.26 0.06 0.09 0.14 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 2026 0.09 0.46 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 99.6 99.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 99.9
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 10 / 43
Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.48 3.41 31.8 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 0.19 6,403 6,403 0.36 0.32 20.7 6,527 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.55 3.97 30.1 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 0.19 5,874 5,874 0.43 0.35 0.54 5,988 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.95 1.45 10.9 0.02 0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.19 2,543 2,544 0.15 0.13 3.83 2,590 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.36 0.26 2.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.03 421 421 0.03 0.02 0.63 429 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 — — — — 82.0 — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No — — — — No — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,100
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 11 / 43
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.35 3.41 31.8 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 — 6,381 6,381 0.34 0.32 20.7 6,504 Area 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 6.48 3.41 31.8 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 0.19 6,403 6,403 0.36 0.32 20.7 6,527 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.42 3.97 30.1 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 — 5,852 5,852 0.41 0.35 0.54 5,965 Area 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 5.55 3.97 30.1 0.06 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.36 0.41 0.19 5,874 5,874 0.43 0.35 0.54 5,988 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.82 1.45 10.9 0.02 0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,521 2,521 0.13 0.13 3.83 2,567 Area 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 12 / 43
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 1.95 1.45 10.9 0.02 0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.19 2,543 2,544 0.15 0.13 3.83 2,590 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.33 0.26 2.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 417 417 0.02 0.02 0.63 425 Area 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1.01 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.65 2.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.11 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.36 0.26 2.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.03 421 421 0.03 0.02 0.63 429
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 13 / 43
Demolitio — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 14 / 43
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 15 / 43
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.21 29.9 29.2 0.06 1.25 — 1.25 1.15 — 1.15 — 6,748 6,748 0.27 0.05 — 6,771 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 1.64 1.60 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 370 370 0.01 < 0.005 — 371 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.50 0.50 — 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.30 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 61.2 61.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 16 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.47 4.37 5.46 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,004 1,004 0.04 0.01 — 1,008 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.80 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 167 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 17 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 2.10 2.77 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 511 511 0.02 < 0.005 — 513 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.38 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 85.0 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 18 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 19 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
3.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 20 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 21 / 43
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6.12 6.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.15 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 22 / 43
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Lot
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
3.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 23 / 43
Consume 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
r
Products
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 ------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 24 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.65 2.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.65 2.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 25 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.65 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.11 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.11
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 26 / 43
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 27 / 43
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 28 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
------------------
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 29 / 43
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/20/2025 4/17/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 30 / 43
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/18/2025 5/2/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 5/3/2025 5/31/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 6/1/2025 4/19/2026 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 4/20/2026 5/18/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/19/2026 6/16/2026 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 31 / 43
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 32 / 43
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 6,863 2,288 9,150
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 33 / 43
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 100%
Parking Lot 3.50 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 391 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 375 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 960 1,600 960 183,543 7,063 7,063 7,063 1,104,855
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 34 / 43
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 6,863 2,288 9,150
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 5,952 375 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 375 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 9,672,091
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 35 / 43
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 0.34 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 36 / 43
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 37 / 43
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 38 / 43
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 63.7
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 39 / 43
AQ-PM 15.1
AQ-DPM 14.1
Drinking Water 39.7
Lead Risk Housing 5.49
Pesticides 84.3
Toxic Releases 16.8
Traffic 5.90
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 40.8
Groundwater 76.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 97.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 26.1
Cardio-vascular 64.3
Low Birth Weights 9.64
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 10.8
Linguistic 27.3
Poverty 30.9
Unemployment 22.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 40 / 43
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.68150905
Employed 52.68831002
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 68.40754523
High school enrollment 5.671756705
Preschool enrollment 30.89952521
Transportation —
Auto Access 54.54895419
Active commuting 15.8475555
Social —
2-parent households 79.26344155
Voting 94.30257924
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 92.66007956
Park access 11.4718337
Retail density 3.06685487
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 10.02181445
Housing —
Homeownership 81.9196715
Housing habitability 62.8127807
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.02643398 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 14.53868857
Uncrowded housing 58.74502759
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 93.45566534
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 41 / 43
Arthritis 71.8
Asthma ER Admissions 71.5
High Blood Pressure 85.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 40.8
Asthma 65.7
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 81.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 91.2
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.3
Cognitively Disabled 96.3
Physically Disabled 86.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 61.3
Mental Health Not Good 73.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 90.3
Obesity 70.2
Pedestrian Injuries 44.4
Physical Health Not Good 87.1
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 11.9
Current Smoker 64.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 81.2
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 0.5
Elderly 55.1
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 42 / 43
English Speaking 69.8
Foreign-born 37.6
Outdoor Workers 58.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.6
Traffic Density 4.8
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 39.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 91.6
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 29.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 63.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
Roseville Soccer Complex - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 6/27/2022 43 / 43
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Paving All non-parking lot paved areas included in Phase 1 Operations: Energy Use Based on energy study.
Operations: Water and Waste Water Based on project description.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement All grading included in Phase 1
ATTACHMENT F
BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 1 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
1801 7TH STREET, SUITE 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 447-3479 | FAX (916) 447-1665
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
To:
City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street, Suite 400
Roseville, CA 95678
From:
Jedidiah Dowell, Biologist
Montrose Environmental Solutions
1801 7th Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95811
Project: Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project
Date: 6/23/2022
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared for the Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project (Proposed Project) located in Roseville, CA on an approximately 51-acre property (Project Site). The Proposed Project consists of the construction of ten soccer fields, a universally accessible playground, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas. The Project Site is not located within a regulatory floodway and is found on the USGS 7.5-minute Pleasant Grove quadrangle (Figures 1, 2, and 3). A site plan is shown in Figure 4.
Project Site elevations range from approximately 90 feet to 100 feet above mean sea level. The purpose of this assessment is to identify sensitive biological resources that could occur within the area of impact and be affected by the Proposed Project.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The following information was obtained and reviewed:
Aerial photographs of the Project Site and surrounding area; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) list, updated April, 2022 (Attachment A);
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) list, updated January, 2022 (Attachment A); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list, updated January, 2022 (Attachment A); USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of wetland features, updated April, 2022 (Figure 6); and
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) custom soils report, updated April, 2022 (Attachment B).
A biological resources survey was conducted on the Project Site on April 4, 2022. The survey was conducted by walking transects throughout the entirety of the Project Site. The majority of time spent conducting the survey was focused on primarily identifying sensitive habitat areas such as any possible riparian areas or wetlands. Binoculars were used to assist in surveying efforts. Data was collected using a Trimble TDC150 GPS receiver. Survey goals consisted of identifying habitat types, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the U.S, and special-status species. Sensitive habitats include those that are ^_
Project Site
§¨¦99
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
§¨¦113
§¨¦50
§¨¦65
§¨¦113
§¨¦50
§¨¦80
£¤70
£¤20
£¤88
£¤20
£¤99
£¤49
UV113
UV45
UV16
UV160
UV124
UV174
UV193
UV104
UV113
Figure 1
Regional Location
SOURCE: ESRI, 2022; Montrose Environmental, 6/9/2022
0 4 8
Miles
!¢
N OÐR T H
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 LegenSCdALE
^_
^_ Project Site
Placer County
Phill pi Rd
Curnan Way
Figure 2
Site&V icinity
SOURCE:"PleasantGro ve,CA” USGS7.5MinuteT o p o grap hicQuadrangle, T 11NR5E,Sectio n23,MtDiablo Baseline&Meridian;ESRI,2022; Mo ntro seEnviro nm ental,6/9/2022
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
LEGEND
Project Site
W
e
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
496-020-034-000
496-020-033-000
017-101-017-000
496-020-032-000
Figure 3
Aerial Photography
SOURCE: Placer County Parcels, 2018; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
City Parcels
We
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Figure 4
Site Plan
SOURCE: Verde Design, 6/6/2022; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/9/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 6 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), considered by local experts to be communities of limited distribution, or likely to be waters of the U.S. or State by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Habitat requirements of special-status species were compared to habitats observed, which were determined based on aerial photographs, ground-truthing, and background data review.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 SOIL TYPES
The Project Site is comprised of the Cometa-Fiddyment complex and Cometa-Ramona sandy loams.
Cometa-Fiddyment complex is a well-drained soil with a high runoff class and does not flood. CometaRamona sandy loams is a well-drained soil with a very high runoff class and does not flood. An extremely minor soil component of the Project Site consists of San Joaquin-Cometa sandy loams covering less than one percent of the Project Site. A custom soils report for the Project Site can be found in Attachment B.
3.2 HABITAT TYPES
Habitat types identified on the Project Site are shown in Figure 5. Tree screen habitat occurs along the eastern boundary of the Project Site. NWI classifies linear areas of the northern, eastern, and southern portion of the Project Site as freshwater emergent wetland and also identifies a freshwater pond outside the northern extent of the Project Site (Figure 6). NWI identifies aquatic habitat based on features visible from available aerial photography, and boundaries may not be accurate if older imagery is used, or if the interpretation of aerial imagery is inaccurate. Therefore, the actual boundaries should be ground-truthed to identify the current and accurate location of aquatic features. During the April 4, 2022 biological survey, the emergent wetlands were not observed, but the pond was present, and seasonal wetlands and a seasonal wetland swale were identified in its vicinity. These features are located to the north of the northern Project Site boundary (Figure 5). The Project Site is not located in a FEMA-designated flood hazard zone (FEMA, 2022). A “Regulatory Floodway” is defined by FEMA as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height (FEMA, 2021). Habitat types on the Project Site are further discussed below.
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland habitat is the dominant habitat type present throughout the Project Site.
Trees are largely absent within this community type and it is generally dominated by non-native annual grasses and forbs. Sparsely distributed clusters of living and dead interior live oaks (Quercus wislizeni) are found within this habitat type. Weedy forbs and non-native grasses were the dominant ground cover of this habitat type. These species included bromes (Bromus sp.), filaree (Erodium sp.), prickly sowthistle (Sonchus asper), and lesser hop trefoil (Trifolium dubium). Evidence of game trails and small mammal burrows were observed within this habitat type.
Tree Screen
Tree screen habitat covers almost the entirety of the Project Site’s eastern border. Coast redwood (Sequioa sempirvirens) and true firs (Abies sp.) comprise the majority of the canopy in this habitat type.
Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and interior live oak are variably and infrequently present within this habitat type. These trees are even-aged and planted for viewshed screening purposes to block views of the transmission powerlines and the wastewater treatment plant. The herbaceous forbs and grasses described in the annual grassland habitat type are present as ground cover.
W
e
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Figure 5
Habitat Types
SOURCE: Placer County Parcels, 2018; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 0 180 360
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
City Parcels
Habitat Types
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Tree Screen
Stockpond
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal Wetland Swale
W
e
stbro
o
k
Blv
d
Brookstone Dr
Phillip Rd
Figure 6
National Wetland Inventory
SOURCE: USFWS National Wetland Inventory for '"Sacramento, CA" USGS 100k Topographic Quadrangle, 1975, 1976, 1977; Placer County Parcels, 2018; City of Roseville aerial photograph, 4/22/2019; Montrose Environmental, 6/20/2022 LEGEND
Roseville Regional Sports Complex Project Biological Memorandum / 221578 0 190 380
Feet
!¢
N OÐR T H
Project Site
City Parcels
National Wetland Inventory
PABFx - PALUSTRINE, AQUATIC
BED, Semipermanently Flooded,
Excavated
PEM1A - PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT,
Persistent, Temporary Flooded
R5UBF - RIVERINE, UNKNOWN
PERENNIAL, UNCONSOLIDATED
BOTTOM, Semipermanently Flooded
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 9 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
3.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Data review and special-status species searches list 8 special-status plant species and 15 special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the region of the Project Site (Attachment A). The name, regulatory status, distribution, habitat requirements, period of identification, and potential to occur for each species are listed in Table 1.
Based on the site-specific habitats and special-status species habitat requirements for each species that may occur within the vicinity of the Project Site, as shown in Table 1, the Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plants, but does provide marginal foraging habitat for two specialstatus animal species, white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk. Species with no potential to occur on the Project Site were ruled out based on lack of suitable habitat, soils, elevation, necessary substrate, and negative results during the survey if it coincided with the identifiable bloom period for plant species.
Special-status species were not observed during the survey.
3.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
Wildlife movement is currently restricted to the west by Westbrook Boulevard and residential developments. Barring roads, areas of non-native annual grassland are contiguous between the riparian corridor within Pleasant Grove Creek to the north and the channelized unnamed tributary of Curry Creek to the south. Pleasant Grove Creek and Curry Creek occur approximately 0.33 miles northeast and 2.1 miles southwest of the Project Site respectively, both of which may foster wildlife movement along their riparian and channel fringes. Both of these off-site watercourse features may facilitate wildlife movement through or around the Project Site via the continuous non-native annual grassland habitat.
Tree screen habitat may facilitate arboreal wildlife movement longitudinally within the Project Site.
3.5 CRITICAL HABITAT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
No designated critical habitat or essential fish habitat occurs on the Project Site (Attachment A).
4.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SENSITIVE HABITAT
Habitat types within the Project Site include non-native annual grassland and tree screen habitats. The area of impact consists of non-native annual grassland and removal of individual trees within the tree screen. A freshwater pond and its associated seasonal wetland and seasonal wetland swale occur north of the northern boundary of the Project Site and flow to the north when drained. These aquatic resources are avoided as part of Project design. A buffer which excludes Project development within the high water mark of the pond and wetland has been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will not impact any aquatic features nor trigger permitting, as Project component footprints do not extend into the jurisdictional boundaries of these features. Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be necessary for the construction of the Project and would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and contamination that could indirectly impact the wetland habitats and other aquatic resources during construction.
Standard precautions would be employed by the construction contractor to prevent the accidental release of fuel, oil, lubricant, or other hazardous materials associated with construction activities into potentially jurisdictional features.
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 10 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
TABLE 1 - REGIONALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL/
STATE/CNPS
STATUS
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION
PERIOD
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON PROJECT SITE
Plants
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis var
macrolepis
Big-scale balsamroot
--/--/1B.2
Known to occur in Alameda, Amador, Butte,
Colusa, El Dorado, Lake, Mariposa, Napa, Placer,
Santa Clara, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama,
and Tuolumne counties.
Perennial herb that sometimes occurs in
serpentine soils found in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and valley and foothill grassland
habitats. Elevations range from 145-5100 feet.
March-July No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Brodiaea rosea
(Synonym: Brodiaea
coronaria ssp. rosea)
Indian Valley brodiaea
--/CE/1B.1 Known to occur in Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Shasta, Tehama, and Trinity counties.
A perennial bulbiferous herb that occurs in
serpentinite, closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley, and
foothill grasslands. Elevation range: 1100-1450
meters.
May-June No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidus
Hispid bird’s-beak
FE/CR/1B.2 Known to occur in Alameda, Fresno, Kern,
Merced, Place and Solano counties.
A hemiparasitic annual herb found in alkaline
conditions within meadows, seeps, playas, valley
and foothill grasslands. Elevations: 1-155 meters.
June-September No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Downingia pusilla
Dwarf downingia --/--/2B.2
Known to occur in Amador, Fresno, Merced,
Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano,
Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, and Yuba counties.
Also occurs in South America.
Valley and foothill grassland (mesic) and vernal
pools and roadside ditches. Elevations: 1-445
meters.
March-May
No. Suitable habitat is
not present within
the Project Site.
Fritillaria agrestis
Stinkbells --/--/4.2
Known range of this species includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Mendocino, Merced,
Monterey, Mariposa, Placer, Sacramento, Santa
Barbara, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz*,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo*, Stanislaus,
Tuolumne, Ventura and Yuba Counties (CNPS,
2013).
A bulbiferous herb in the lily family (Liliaceae). It
occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland,
pinyon and juniper woodland, and on clay,
sometimes serpentine substrates of valley and
foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations
from 10 to 1,555 meters above mean sea level.
March -June No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Gratiola heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedgehyssop--/CE/1B.2
Known to occur in Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera,
Merced, Mendocino, Modoc, Placer,
Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, San Joaquin,
Solano, Sonoma, and Tehama counties in CA and
in Oregon.
Annual herb found on clay soils along the lake
margins of marshes and swamps, shallow water,
and margins of vernal pools. Elevations range
from 10 to 2,375 meters.
April-September
No. Suitable habitat is
not present within
the Project Site.
Juncus leiospermus
var. leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush
--/--/1B.1 Occurs in Butte, Placer, Shasta and Tehama
counties, California.
Annual herb found in vernally mesic soils in
chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal
pools. Elevation: 35 – 1250 meters.
March – June No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Legenere limosa --/--/1B.1 Known to occur in Alameda, Lake, Monterey, Annual herb occurs in wet areas, ponds, and April-June No. The Project Site
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 11 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL/
STATE/CNPS
STATUS
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION
PERIOD
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON PROJECT SITE
Legenere Napa, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Shasta, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma,
Stanislaus, Tehama, and Yuba counties.
vernal pools. Elevations range from 1-950
meters.
lacks suitable habitat.
Animals
Fish
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Delta smelt
FT/CE/--
Occurs almost exclusively in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin estuary, from the Suisun Bay upstream
through the Delta in Contra Costa, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties. May
also occur in the San Francisco Bay.
Estuarine waters. Majority of life span is spent
within the freshwater outskirts of the mixing
zone (saltwater-freshwater interface) within the
Delta.
Consult Agency No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 11
[Steelhead-Central
Valley DPS]
FT/--/--
Spawn in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers
and tributaries before migrating to the Delta
and Bay Area.
Found in cool, clear, fast-flowing permanent
streams and rivers with riffles and ample cover
from riparian vegetation or overhanging banks.
Spawning: streams with pool and riffle
complexes. For successful breeding, require cold
water and gravelly streambed.
Consult Agency No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Amphibians
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
toad
--/CSC/--
Known to occur from the north end of
California's great central valley near Redding,
south, east of the Sierras and the deserts, into
northwest Baja California.
Mostly below 3,000 feet in elevation. Their
aquatic habitat is vernal pools, temporary
wetlands, rivers creeks, or temporary rain pools.
Their terrestrial habitat is typically lowland
habitats such as washes, river floodplains, alluvial
fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, or mountains.
They prefer sandy or gravelly soil with open
vegetation and short grasses (often in valley and
foothill grasslands, open chaparral, and pine-oak
woodland).
NovemberMarch
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Aquatic habitats are
not wetted during the
dry season. Vernal
pools not present.
CNDDB observations
are from 2004 or
prior.
Reptiles
Thamnophis gigas
giant garter snake FT/CT/--
Endemic to the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Valley floors. Counties include Butte, Colusa,
Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera,
Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano,
Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.
Inhabits agricultural wetlands and other
waterways such as irrigation and drainage canals,
sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams,
and adjacent uplands. Requires adequate water
during its active season (early spring through
mid-fall) to provide food and cover, emergent,
herbaceous wetland vegetation for foraging and
March-October
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Aquatic habitats are
not wetted during the
dry season.
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 12 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL/
STATE/CNPS
STATUS
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION
PERIOD
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON PROJECT SITE
cover, grassy banks and openings in waterside
vegetation for basking, and higher elevation
uplands for cover and refuge from floodwaters
during its dormant season (winter). Inhabits
small mammal burrows and other soil crevices
with sunny exposure along south and west-facing
slopes, above prevailing flood elevations when
dormant.
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird --/CT/-- California and Baja California, Mexico.
Nests in dense thickets of cattails, tules, willow,
blackberry, wild rose, and other tall herbs near
freshwater.
All Year No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl --/CSC/--
Formerly common within the described habitats
throughout the state except the northwest
coastal forests and high mountains.
Yearlong resident of open, dry grassland and
desert habitats, as well as in grass, forb and open
shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa
pine habitats.
All Year
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
CNDDB notes a 2003
observation within 1
mile.
Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper sparrow
--/CSC/--
Breeding range occurs in portions of western
California, including most coastal counties south
to extreme northwest Baja California (where
resident). Also, the western Sacramento Valley
and along the western edge of the Sierra
Nevada. Wintering range is extreme Southern
California and Baja.
Consists of moderately open grasslands and
prairies with patchy bare ground. Selects
different components of vegetation depending
on grassland ecosystem. In the southwest and
west, occupies more lush areas with shrub cover
in arid grasslands.
MarchSeptember
Year Round
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk --/CT/--
In California, breeds in the Central Valley,
Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen
County, and Mojave Desert. Very limited
breeding reported from Lanfair Valley, Owens
Valley, Fish Lake Valley, Antelope Valley, and in
eastern San Luis Obispo County.
Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage
flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah.
Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands, alfalfa, or grain fields supporting
rodent populations.
March –
October
Yes. Suitable foraging
habitat is present
within the Project
Site. Nesting habitat
is not present on site
as trees present are
of insufficient size.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite --/FP/-- Permanent resident of coastal and Valley lowlands.
Habitats include savannah, open woodland,
marshes and swamps, partially cleared lands and
cultivated fields, mostly in lowland habitats.
Open groves, river valleys, marshes, grasslands.
All Year
Yes. Suitable foraging
habitat is present
within the Project
Site. Suitable nesting
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 13 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL/
STATE/CNPS
STATUS
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION
PERIOD
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON PROJECT SITE
Nesting occurs in trees. Found in a wide variety of
open habitats in North America, including open
oak grassland, desert grassland, farm country,
marshes. Main requirements seem to be trees for
perching and nesting, and open ground with high
populations of rodents.
habitat located north
of the Project Site
near Pleasant Grove
Creek.
Progne subis
purple martin --/CSC/--
Local summer resident in wooded low-elevation
habitats throughout California; rare migrant in
spring and fall, absent in winter. In the south,
now only a rare and local breeder on the coast
and in interior mountain ranges.
Inhabits open forests, woodlands, and riparian
areas in breeding season. Found in a variety of
open habitats during migration, including
grassland, wet meadow, and fresh emergent
wetland, usually near water. Nests in conifer
stands, often in woodpecker holes. Uses valley
foothill and montane hardwood and conifer, and
riparian habitats.
March-August
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
No cavity-bearing
trees.
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
FT/--/--
Vernal pool fairy shrimp are known from a total
of 32 populations located in an area extending
from Shasta County through most of the length
of the Central Valley to Tulare County, and along
the central coast range from northern Solano
County to Pinnacles in San Benito County. Five
additional, disjunctive populations exist near
Soda Lake in San Luis Obispo County, in the
mountain grasslands of northern Santa Barbara
County, on the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside
County, near Rancho California in Riverside
County.
Vernal pools in the Central Valley, coast ranges,
and a limited number of sites in the Transverse
Ranges and Riverside County, California.
December-May
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
No vernal pools.
Branchinecta
conservatio
Conservancy fairy
shrimp
FE/--/--
The species is currently known from several
disjunct populations: the Vina Plains in Tehama
County, south of Chico in Butte County, the
Jepson Prairie Preserve and surrounding area in
Solano County, Sacramento National Wildlife
Refuge in Glenn County, Mapes Ranch west of
Modesto, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and
the Haystack Mountain/Yosemite Lake area in
Merced County, and two locations on the Los
Endemic to the northern two-thirds of the
Central Valley. Found in vernal pools, seasonally
ponded areas within vernal swales, rock outcrop
ephemeral pools, playas, and alkali flats. Require
ephemeral habitats that pool in the winter or
spring.
December-May
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
No vernal pools.
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 14 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL/
STATE/CNPS
STATUS
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION
PERIOD
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON PROJECT SITE
Padres National Forest in Ventura County.
Danus plexippus
Monarch butterfly --/FC/--
Known to occur in Mexico and north America.
Populations that occur where winter conditions
are not suitable travel along well-established
migratory routes to overwintering areas.
Overwintering sites are known to occur in
Mexico and coastal California.
Migratory populations begin migration in the fall
and can be found along established migratory
routes where nectar sources are available. During
breeding (typically February to March), monarch
butterflies require milkweed to lay their eggs on.
Overwintering monarchs require sites with
sufficient roosts for the population (such as
eucalyptus trees) that provide appropriate
sunlight and shelter from the wind. Where
climate is suitable for year-round habitation,
monarchs are found in areas with nectar sources
and milkweed as breeding can occur year-round.
Year-round
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Host plant absent
during surveys and
not within host plant
range.
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle (VELB)
FT/--/--
Restricted to the Central Valley from Redding to
Bakersfield. Counties include Amador, Butte,
Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn,
Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Placer,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and
Yuba counties; 0-762 meters elevation.
Riparian forest communities. Exclusive host plant
is elderberry (Sambucus species), which must
have stems ≥ 1-inch diameter for the beetle. Year-round No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
Host plant not
observed during
surveys.
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
FE/--/--
Known from 18 populations in the Central
Valley, ranging from east of Redding in Shasta
County south to the San Luis National Wildlife
Refuge in Merced County, also from a single
vernal pool complex on the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge in the City of Fremont.
Life cycle within vernal pools and valley foothill
grassland swales. December-May
No. The Project Site
lacks suitable habitat.
No vernal pools.
SOURCE: Attachment A
STATUS CODES
Federal: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CNPS: California Native Plant Society FE Federally Endangered 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California FT Federally Threatened 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere FC Candidate for Federal Listing 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere State: California Department of Fish and Game CNPS Threat Ranks:
CE California Listed Endangered 0.1 – Seriously Threatened in California CT California Listed Threatened 0.2 – Fairly Threatened in California CSC California Species of Special Concern
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 15 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
The Proposed Project would remove 24 trees. This includes a stand of living interior live oaks composed of nine small-diameter oaks estimated as not exceeding a 10-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) for an individual stem. These nine trees would be removed to accommodate the northern parking lot component of the Proposed Project and are located northeast of the intersection of Westbrook Boulevard and Phillip Drive (Figure 4). Additionally, the Proposed Project would remove six redwood and fir trees on the eastern border of the Subject Property to accommodate the north-south foot path component of the Proposed Project. These trees were installed in the past for landscaping and sightline screen purposes to block views of the wastewater treatment plant and transmission powerlines located to the east of the Subject Property. Lastly, nine cottonwoods located mid-field of the Project Site southeast of the northern terminus of Brookstone Drive would be removed. Removal of trees on the Subject Property as part of the Proposed Project would require the submittal and approval of a Tree Permit pursuant to City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 19.66.030 and any oak trees over 6-iches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be required to be mitigated for in accordance with the City’s tree preservation Ordinance (City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 19.66).
CDFW requires notification prior to commencement of work and acquisition of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) if a project were to result in the alteration or degradation of a stream, river, or lake in California. Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) afford protection to wetlands and waters of the U.S. from direct disturbance and indirect impacts to water quality. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may require a CWA Section 401 permit. Project design avoids impacts to the stockpond, seasonal wetland, and seasonal wetland swale habitats.
Projects that involve working in wetlands and navigable waters of the U.S., including the discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA. As discussed above, the Proposed Project has been designed with a buffer between the Project Site and the seasonal wetland, stockpond, and seasonal wetland swale.
Indirect impacts would be managed through implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs.
4.2 NESTING MIGRATORY BIRDS
Migratory birds and their nests are protected from “take” by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.SC. 703-711), which makes it unlawful to “…pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird…” (50 CFR 10). Potentially occurring nesting migratory birds (including special-status birds included in Table 1 and Attachment A) within 500 feet of the project site could be affected if vegetation removal or loud noise-producing activities associated with construction occur during the general nesting season (February 15 through August 30). Measure 1 is recommended to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds.
Measure 1
If construction activities (e.g., building, grading, ground disturbance, removal of vegetation) are scheduled to occur during the general nesting season (February 15 – August 30), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist throughout areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of proposed construction activity. The survey shall occur no more than 5 days prior to the scheduled onset of construction. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 5 days, another preconstruction survey for nesting bird species shall be conducted. If no nesting birds are detected during the preconstruction survey, no additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.
If nesting bird species are observed within 500 feet of construction areas during the survey,
BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 16 ROSEVILLE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT JUNE 2022
appropriate “no construction” buffers shall be established. The size and scale of nesting bird buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be dependent upon the species observed and the location of the nest. Buffers shall be established around active nest locations.
The nesting bird buffers shall be completely avoided during construction activities. The buffers may be removed when the qualified wildlife biologist confirms that the nest(s) is no longer occupied and all birds have fledged.
4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Based on survey observations and site characteristics, the Project Site contains foraging habitat for white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk (Table 1 and Attachment A). White-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk were not observed during the survey, and although suitable nesting habitat does not occur on the Project Site, these species may nest in the off-site vicinity. However, potential impacts to nesting migratory birds, including white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk, are discussed in Section 4.2 and mitigated via implementation of Measure 1.
4.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
Open spaces and retention of tree screen habitat are incorporated into Project design, and non-native annual grassland on and off-site are contiguous between named creeks and tributaries which may foster wildlife movement. Thus, the Proposed Project would not significantly impede potential wildlife movement.
5.0 CONCLUSION
There are no sensitive habitats on the Project Site. The Project Site generally does not contain habitat for special-status species with the exception of limited foraging habitat for white-tailed kite.
Additionally, birds have the potential to nest on and in the vicinity of the Project Site. Should construction occur during the nesting season (February 15 – August 30), a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be required by CDFW and the USFWS.
6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. Accessed April 2022.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS, 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/wetlands/ USFWS, 2021c. Critical Habitat Mapper. Available online at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbf b77
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Available online at
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Roseville%20ca#searchresultsanchor.
Accessed April 2022.
FEMA, 2021. Definition of Floodway. Available online at https://www.fema.gov/floodway. Accessed January 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
USFW, CNDDB, AND CNPS DATABASE QUERIES
April 20, 2022
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0034183
Project Name: Roseville Soccer Complex
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 04/20/2022 2
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-tobirds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
04/20/2022
3 ▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
04/20/2022 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
04/20/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0034183
Event Code: None
Project Name: Roseville Soccer Complex
Project Type: Recreation - New Construction
Project Description: Sports field complex development.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.7895203,-121.38564530660031,14z Counties: Placer County, California
04/20/2022 3
1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
Reptiles
NAME STATUS
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Threatened
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
1 04/20/2022 4
Crustaceans
NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
04/20/2022
5 IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Roseville city
Name: Jedidiah Dowell
Address: 1801 7th St
City: Sacramento
State: CA
Zip: 95811
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9164473479
2500 Westbrook
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
January 25, 2022
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.175 0.35 0.7 km
1:14,435
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
!"# $% &
!'!() !(
!())')
()
*+,-./01234.53.67, 89.:;<.=>?6@ /79.5ABC871 ?6D123E121F7G72=AH/8.AIH@HAJ18G.2AKL<@HEHLMNA*,J,AEHMKOLP, ALJPAHNPA*,QP RSTUVWXYWZTUW[\S]^_WU` abc`aW d_Saef_VTghiejkel
P/m7:.6F7? 81m0.:187 n/o=01 :?2=1./671=C87/ 2=.156?8=07:?2/7891=.?261=0871=2 3?87231 F783/m7:./123=01 G1>87pC.87/m :.15G121F7G72=1 3m8?=7:.?2+ qrstuvrswtxqwtyzxw{qrstu|}~ sqwtyzxw{|x} {wvrswtxqwtyzxw{|x} {w|}u~ sqwtyzxw{ r
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
Alkali Meadow
Alkali Meadow
CTT45310CA None None G3 S2.1
Alkali Seep
Alkali Seep
CTT45320CA None None G3 S2.1
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
ABPBXA0020 None None G5 S3 SSC
Andrena subapasta
An andrenid bee
IIHYM35210 None None G1G2 S1S2
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot
PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum
hispid salty bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0D1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0 None None GU S2 2B.2
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
Gratiola heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
PDSCR0R060 None Endangered G2 S2 1B.2
Hydrochara rickseckeri
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle
IICOL5V010 None None G2? S2?
Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush
PMJUN011L2 None None G2T2 S2 1B.1
Legenere limosa
legenere
PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3S4
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
CTT44132CA None None G1 S1.1
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Pleasant Grove (3812174)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Roseville (3812173)) Report Printed on Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 2 Information Expires 7/1/2022
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2
Progne subis
purple martin
ABPAU01010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3 SSC
Record Count: 23
Report Printed on Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 2 Information Expires 7/1/2022
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
!" #$%&'( )*+ , $& " +!&
+#+ &
! #$- '!
+*"
.!
- )-+
!-+
/ 0%
' +" $&! $# 123435672343528
9 .):;<=:>:) <?@; )A@@A< <?@; >?@:BC
DBAA@:<E F;G:AH >;H
B:.=
.=?=;
B:.=
)? G?G;
FB?<= G?<I E;<;G?B J?D:=?=.
KLMNLOPQRSTL
OLUQPMVWSN
X+YZ"
*!
X
*"
-$$
?"
!-
!
! @
-Z[%&<$&!<$&!\D(])
^
--
*_ )+"
$&
&! `$$'*
&'_ a
**!b
&' #$$
+** Y-
""*
&'
KQPcSLVL QPNVL ""^(
dLMMSUPML
e
**!b X-$'+
!
= !
+'
!
!?^-Z
@
bf[%&g
<$&!<$&!h(]a
**!b
&' #$$
+** Y-
""*
&'_ a!-&
*
^$$*"
iRMPQPWjQPk OPMMV
""^( RSNWSclO
+"^+' "
*
b
X+-'m"ZX!
,
A-$X
&
!
![%&Z.!^<$&!<$&!\D(\ @!
'$`"
&' "!!^"_ F*
b
"_ a
**!b
&'
#$$
+** Y-
""*
&'
nPokSkpSL WlNSMML '`
-#
$`&+&Y+
)
^
&%*
!
!@
-Z@
b<$&!<$&!]D(]a
**!b
&' #$$
+** Y-
""*
&'_ a!-&
*
^$$*"
qQSrSMMLQSL LpQVNrSN "
+&,X!**"B+*+
!
! @
-Z[%&<$&!<$&!h(])
^
--
*_ )+"
$&
&! `$$'*
&'_ F+&b$&
&' s%&+^!- `$$'*
&'_ a
**!b
&' #$$
+**
Y-
""*
&'
tQLrSPML
RVrVQPNVWLML
D$YY" B
,!
!'Y!Z b""$^
F*
&
Y+&
!
!?^-Z?%Y<$&!);\D(] @
-" !"
&' "`
^"_ a!-&
* ^$$*"
ulkUlN MVSPNWVQOlN
e
-( MVSPNWVQOlN
G!' D*%## '`
-#
-%"
[%&
!
! @
-Z[%&<$&!<$&!\D(\)
^
--
*_ )+"
$&
&! `$$'*
&'_
@!
'$`"
&' "!!^"_ a
**!b
&' #$$
+**
Y-
""*
&'_ a!-&
* ^$$*"
vVpVkVQV MSOPNL *!Y!&!-!)
^
&%*
!
!?^-Z[%&<$&!<$&!\D(\a!-&
* ^$$*"
. $`+&Y \
$ w $# w !&
-+!"
7
)
*+#$-&+
<
+e! F*
&
.$ +!
b_ G
-! F*
&
F-$Y-
( ]x]]( :&e!&
$-b $# G
-!
&' ;&'
&Y!-!' F*
&
" $# )
*+#$-&+
f$&*+&! !'+
+$&_ eyZx\ \(xg(
z!X"+
!
^"/{{```(-
-!^*
&
"( &^"($-Y 1
!""!' ]| [
&%
-b ]x]]8(
}~
.!&' %!"
+$&"
&' $
!&
"
$ -
-!^*
&
" &^"($-Y(
}
?X$%
! :&e!&
$-b
G!*!
"! <$
!"
?'e
& !' .!
-
E*$""
-b
} ~
?X$%
! G
-! F*
&
F-$Y-
)<F. J$
! F
Y!
?X$%
)<F.
[$+& )<F.
}~
}
= ! )
*#*$-
H
X
"!
= ! )
*+#$-&+
B+ !& .$ +!
b
)
*+#$-&+
<
%-
* H+e!-"+
b
H
X
"!
= ! [!^"$& >*$-
F-$s!
= ! )$&"$-
+%
$# )
*+#$-&+
J!-X
-+
)
*F $
$"
)$^b-+Y
]x\xZ]x]] )
*+#$-&+
<
+e! F*
&
.$ +!
b( ?** -+Y
" -!"!-e!'(
ATTACHMENT B
NRCS SOILS REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Placer County,
California, Western
Part
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
April 19, 2022
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Placer County, California, Western Part..........................................................13 141—Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes.......................... 13 142—Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes.......................15 182—San Joaquin-Cometa sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes................ 17 References............................................................................................................20 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4294000 4294100 4294200 4294300 4294400 4294500 4294600 4294700 4294800 4294900 4295000 4295100 4294000 4294100 4294200 4294300 4294400 4294500 4294600 4294700 4294800 4294900 4295000 4295100 4295200 639800 639900 640000 640100 640200 640300 640400 640500 640600 639800 639900 640000 640100 640200 640300 640400 640500 640600 38° 47' 39'' N
121° 23' 28'' W
38° 47' 39'' N
121° 22' 48'' W
38° 46' 59'' N
121° 23' 28'' W
38° 46' 59'' N
121° 22' 48'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 250 500 1000 1500
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,130 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Placer County, California, Western Part Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 3, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 11, 2019—May 12, 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 141 Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1
to 5 percent slopes
39.3 76.5%
142 Cometa-Ramona sandy loams,
1 to 5 percent slopes
12.0 23.4%
182 San Joaquin-Cometa sandy
loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes
0.0 0.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 51.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report
11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Placer County, California, Western Part
141—Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfzk
Elevation: 20 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 23 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cometa and similar soils: 40 percent
Fiddyment and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cometa
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 18 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 18 to 29 inches: clay
H3 - 29 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R017XD093CA - CLAYPAN
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Fiddyment
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from siltstone
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam
H2 - 12 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 35 inches: indurated
H4 - 35 to 39 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 35 inches to duripan; 35 to 39 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R017XD093CA - CLAYPAN
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Kaseberg, loam
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
San joaquin, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Ramona, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Alamo, clay
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 142—Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfzl
Elevation: 20 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 23 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Cometa and similar soils: 50 percent
Ramona and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cometa
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 18 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 18 to 29 inches: clay
H3 - 29 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Description of Ramona
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 6 to 14 inches: loam
H3 - 14 to 55 inches: sandy clay loam
H4 - 55 to 73 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
San joaquin
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Fiddyment
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Xerofluvent
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Drainageways
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Alamo
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 182—San Joaquin-Cometa sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hg0w
Elevation: 20 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 23 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
San joaquin and similar soils: 40 percent
Cometa and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of San Joaquin
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 15 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 15 to 35 inches: clay loam
H3 - 35 to 50 inches: indurated
H4 - 50 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; 35 to 50 inches to duripan Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R017XD093CA - CLAYPAN
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Cometa
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 18 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 18 to 29 inches: clay
H3 - 29 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R017XD093CA - CLAYPAN
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Ramona
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Fiddyment
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Kaseberg
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Alamo
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Custom Soil Resource Report
19 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 20 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
21 ATTACHMENT G
CULTURAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT
APPENDIX G
Cultural Resources Survey for the
City of Roseville Soccer Complex Project
Placer County, California
Confidential
Sensitive archaeological material may have been removed from this Initial Study. The legal authority to restrict cultural resource information can be found in California Government Code sections 6254.10 and 6254®; California Code of Regulations Section 15120(d); and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
ATTACHMENT H
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
Prepared for:
The City of Roseville
June 2022
RS22-4167
fEHR,1 PEERS
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 7 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Project Description...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................. 9 Roadway System .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................................................................................................12 Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................12 Transit Service and Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................13
3. Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................................. 15 State ................................................................................................................................................................................................15 California Department of Transportation.................................................................................................................15 Senate Bill 743.....................................................................................................................................................................16 Local ................................................................................................................................................................................................17 City of Roseville 2035 General Plan............................................................................................................................17 West Roseville Specific Plan ..........................................................................................................................................18 Traffic Impact Fee Programs .........................................................................................................................................19 City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan..........................................................................................................................19 City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan..................................................................................................................19 City of Roseville Final Short-Range Transit Plan 2018–2025 ............................................................................20 City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards.........................................................................................20
4. Project Travel Characteristics................................................................................................. 22 Project Description....................................................................................................................................................................22 Trip Generation...........................................................................................................................................................................23 Need for Locally Derived Trip Generation Data ....................................................................................................23 Data Collection at Saturday Tournaments...............................................................................................................24 Weekday Practice Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................29 Estimated Project Trip Generation..............................................................................................................................30 Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................................................................................30
5. Significance Criteria................................................................................................................ 34
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................................... 35
7. Traffic Operations Analysis .................................................................................................... 42 Analysis Scenarios......................................................................................................................................................................42 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................43 Analysis Locations .............................................................................................................................................................43 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................................................43 Travel Demand Forecasting...........................................................................................................................................44 Roadway System Operations ........................................................................................................................................46 Roadway Operations Performance Criteria.............................................................................................................48 Near-Term No Project Conditions.......................................................................................................................................48 Near-Term Plus Project Conditions ....................................................................................................................................49 Cumulative No Project Conditions......................................................................................................................................53 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions....................................................................................................................................54
8. Project Site Parking, Access, and Circulation....................................................................... 58 Parking Demand and Supply.................................................................................................................................................58 Driveway Throat Depths..........................................................................................................................................................59 Phillip Road Access....................................................................................................................................................................59 Westbrook Boulevard/Durango Way Intersection........................................................................................................61 Passenger Loading Activity ....................................................................................................................................................61
9. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 63 List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location.................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. Existing Roadway System............................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3. Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4. Project Trip Distribution - Local/Semi-Regional Soccer Tournaments...................................................... 32 Figure 5. Project Trip Distribution - Weekday Local Soccer Practice............................................................................ 33 List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Observed Soccer Tournaments in Sacramento Region.......................................................... 25 Table 2: Overview of Traffic Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3: Results of Traffic Data Collection.............................................................................................................................. 28 Table 4: Roseville Soccer Complex Project – Vehicle Trip Generation........................................................................ 30 Table 5: Roseville Soccer Complex Project – Weekday Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison ............................ 38 Table 6: Near-Term Land Use Absorption.............................................................................................................................. 44 Table 7: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 47 Table 8: Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................................................................................ 47 Table 9: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Near-Term No Project Conditions.................................................. 48 Table 10: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Near-Term Plus Project Conditions ............................................. 51 Table 11: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Near-Term Plus Project Conditions With Improvements ... 51 Table 12: Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Estimates – Near-Term Plus Project Conditions ............................ 52 Table 13: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Cumulative No Project Conditions .............................................. 54 Table 14: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ............................................ 55 Table 15: Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Estimates – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions............................ 57 Table 16: Saturday Parking Rates at Soccer Tournaments................................................................................................ 58 This page intentionally left blank.
7 1. Introduction
Purpose
This study describes existing transportation conditions (environmental and regulatory) and analyzes the potential of the proposed City of Roseville Soccer Complex project (the project) to affect the surrounding transportation environment in accordance with current State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis evaluates potential impacts to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of the transportation system that may result from the proposed project. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
Additionally, this study presents an evaluation of the project’s effects on peak hour traffic operations at nearby study intersections (see Chapter 7). This analysis is presented separately from the transportation impact analysis in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, which no longer permit the use of project effects on automobile delay for the purposes of identifying environmental impacts for land use projects.
This analysis has been prepared for two primary reasons. First, it directly addresses the proposed project’s consistency with City of Roseville General Plan policies related to peak hour traffic operations, including automobile delay and level of service (LOS). Second, it informs an evaluation of project site access and circulation.
Project Description
Figure 1 shows the project location. The project would be located within the West Roseville Specific Plan area along the east side of Westbrook Boulevard, south of Blue Oaks Boulevard and north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant borders the project site to the east. The project site is currently vacant.
Buildout of the project would consist of ten multi-sport fields, two restroom buildings, one concession building, picnic shelters, a 1-acre accessible playground, and a maintenance yard. A total of 610 off-street parking spaces would be provided on the project site, with 360 parking spaces provided in the north parking lot and 250 parking spaces provided in the south parking lot.
Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the project’s expected operations during weekdays and on weekends.
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
G
r
o
v
e
B
l
v
d
Westbrook
B
lue
O
a
k
s
B
l
v
d
Payson Ave Pleasant G r
o
ve Blvd Westpark Dr
Sierra Crossing
Park
Sullivan, John L.
Park
Village
G reen Dr
Market St
Hayden
Pkw y
K
Bob D oy le Dr
L
n Fiddyment Rd
C
Denio Family
Park
Pistachio
Regional Park Project
Site
Blvd
Phillip Rd
Brookstone
D
r
Project Location
Figure 1
f
..
/
I I
I
I
',
I
I
I
I
' '
- ',--✓ ---....
' \
' \
9 2. Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing environmental setting, which is the baseline scenario upon which project-specific impacts are evaluated. The environmental setting for transportation includes baseline descriptions for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities as of April 2022.
Roadway System
Figure 2 illustrates the existing roadway network in the study area including the roadway classifications, number of travel lanes, and posted speed limits. The project site is located within the West Roseville Specific Plan area, which is actively being developed. As a result, the current roadway network is partially built but not fully connected. The following key roadways would serve the project site:
• Westbrook Boulevard is a north-south arterial that currently begins a short distance north of Blue Oaks Boulevard and extends for a distance of 2.2 miles to its existing southern terminus south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The constructed portion of the roadway has two lanes in each direction, separated by a landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph).
Westbrook Boulevard is planned for widening to six lanes and will ultimately extend from Baseline Road on the south to Sunset Boulevard West on the north (within unincorporated Placer County). • Blue Oaks Boulevard is an east-west major arterial that connects the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin. It begins a short distance west of Westbrook Boulevard in west Roseville and extends 6.5 miles, terminating at Sunset Boulevard in Rocklin. West of Fiddyment Road, it has one lane in each direction separated by a striped median. Posted speed limits on this segment range from 45 to 50 mph. East of Fiddyment Road, it is a six-lane median-divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The State Route (SR) 65/Blue Oaks Boulevard interchange is situated about five miles east of the project site. From this interchange, SR 65 extends north towards the City of Lincoln and south towards Interstate 80. Near the project site, Blue Oaks Boulevard is planned for widening to six lanes.
• Pleasant Grove Boulevard is an east-west minor arterial that connects the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin. It begins a short distance west of Westbrook Boulevard in west Roseville and extends east into Rocklin, where it transitions into Park Avenue at the city limits east of Highland Park Drive.
Near the project site, it is a four-lane median-divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. • Phillip Road is a two-lane roadway that begins at Westpark Drive and extends west into unincorporated Placer County. Phillip Road extends east-west between the project site and Westpark Drive and north-south between the project site and Westbrook Boulevard. The northsouth segment of Phillip Road parallels Westbrook Boulevard and measures approximately 14 City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
10 feet wide. The east-west segment of Phillip Road measures approximately 20 feet wide and primarily serves the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Roseville Energy Park.
Near the project site, Phillip Road has unpaved shoulders and lacks sidewalks. Phillip Road is discontinuous where it approaches the Blue Oaks Boulevard/Westbrook Boulevard intersection.
Refer to Chapter 7 (Traffic Operations Analysis) for an analysis of the existing peak hour operations of these roadway facilities.
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Westbrook
Blue O aks Blvd
Pa
yson Ave
Pleasant G rove Blvd Westpark Dr
Sierra Crossing
Park
Sullivan, John L.
Park
Village G reen Dr
Market St
Hayden Pkw y
K
Bob
D oy le Dr
L
n Fiddyment Rd
C
Denio Family
Park
Pistachio
Regional Park Project
Site
Blvd
Phillip Rd
Brookstone DrBrookstone Dr
Existing Roadway System
Figure 2
Roadway Classification (Number of Lanes)
Arterial (6 lanes)
Arterial (4 lanes)
Arterial (2 lanes)
Collector (2 lanes)
123;
123; 123;
123;
123;
123<
1239
123:
•
--
-
I • •.: J • •
'--
..
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
' ' ,~ ' \
\
\
\
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
12 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are typically categorized in the following classifications:
• Class I Multi-Use Off-Street Paths (also known as shared-use paths) are paved trails that are separated from roadways and allow for shared use by both cyclists and pedestrians. • Class II On-Street Bike Lanes are designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs.
• Class III On-Street Bike Routes are designated by signage for shared bicycle use with vehicles but do not necessarily include any additional pavement width for bicyclists. • Class IV Separated Bikeways (also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks) are separated bikeways improve upon buffered bike lanes by providing vertical separation between bike lanes and the adjacent travel lanes. Vertical separation can be provided with concrete curb and gutter, bollards or on-street parking.
Figure 3 displays existing bicycle facilities within the project vicinity. Class II bike lanes are present on Westbrook Boulevard (including along the Westbrook Boulevard project site frontage), Blue Oaks Boulevard, and Pleasant Grove Boulevard. A Class I shared-use path connects the Brookstone neighborhood west of the project site with neighborhoods to the south, Nichols Park, and Chilton Middle School.
Pedestrian Facilities
At present, given that the study area is partially built out, the existing pedestrian network is intermittent.
Generally, sidewalks are present along roadway frontages on which development has occurred, including the westerly Westbrook Boulevard frontage from Octave Drive north to approximately 1,000 feet south of Blue Oaks Boulevard as well as on internal roadways within the Brookstone neighborhood.
Currently, sidewalks are not present along the project site Westbrook Boulevard frontage, with the exception of the easterly side of both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive intersections. Additionally, sidewalks are not present on either side of Phillip Road between Westbrook Boulevard and Westpark Drive or on the southerly side of Blue Oaks Boulevard between Westbrook Boulevard and Hayden Parkway.
Blue Oaks Boulevard between Westbrook Boulevard and Fiddyment Road is a planned six-lane arterial. As of April 2022, the southerly half section has been constructed from Fiddyment Road westerly to beyond Hayden Parkway. From there, only the northerly half section has been constructed. This explains the lack of continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street (i.e., as they would be “throw-away” if built on the south side of the street west of Westpark Drive, for instance). 13 Marked crosswalks are present on the north, south, and west legs of both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive all-way stop-controlled intersections.
Transit Service and Facilities
Roseville Transit, operated by the City of Roseville, provides fixed route bus, dial-a-ride, and paratransit services throughout the City. Fixed-route bus service is not currently provided within the project site vicinity. The nearest bus stop is located on Pleasant Grove Boulevard at Market Street (Route M), which is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site. Roadways within the study area have been designed with bus turnouts to accommodate future fixed-route bus service. Farside bus turnouts are currently present on both northbound and southbound Westbrook Boulevard at Brookstone Drive South.
Roseville Transit dial-a-ride service provides point-to-point service to locations within Roseville city limits, including the project site. The service is available to the general public. A single-ride fare for the general public is $3.75. Passengers may also purchase 10-ride passes or discount fares for eligible passengers.
Rides can be reserved between one and fourteen days in advance of the ride.
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Westbrook
Blue O aks Blvd
Pa
yson Ave
Pleasant G rove Blvd Westpark Dr
Sierra Crossing
Park
Sullivan, John L.
Park
Village G reen Dr
Market St
Hayden Pkw y
K
Bob
D oy le Dr
L
n Fiddyment Rd
C
Denio Family
Park
Pistachio
Regional Park Project
Site
Blvd
Phillip Rd
Brookstone Dr
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 3
Class I Shared Use Path
Class II Bike Lane
f
•
-
' \
\
.... \
\
\
\
15 3. Regulatory Setting
Existing transportation policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion related to the project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions and development of significance criteria (presented in Chapter 5) for evaluating project impacts.
State
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Highway System (SHS). Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the SHS would need to be approved by Caltrans. The following Caltrans planning documents emphasize the State of California’s focus on transportation infrastructure that supports mobility choice through multimodal options, smart growth, and efficient development.
• Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade (Caltrans, 2010a). • Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan (Caltrans, 2010b). • California Transportation Plan 2040 (Caltrans, 2016a). • Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020—2019 Update (Caltrans, 2019a).
Caltrans’ Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program (LD-IGR) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (Caltrans, May 20, 2020) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. This study guide provides guidance to Caltrans Districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants based on changes to the agency’s review process for transportation analysis of land use projects and plans under the updated State CEQA Guidelines. The guide outlines how Caltrans will review land use projects with a focus on supporting state land use goals, state planning priorities, and GHG emission reduction goals. It also identifies the possible transportation impacts on the SHS and potential non-capacity increasing mitigation measures for land use projects. The guide also emphasizes that VMT analysis is the primary review focus of Caltrans and references OPR’s Technical Advisory as a basis for its guidance, referencing screening thresholds that would identify projects presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Notably, it recommends use of the thresholds in the Technical Advisory for land use projects. Caltrans supports streamlining for projects that meet these screening thresholds because they help achieve VMT reduction and mode shift goals.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
16 The Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans, December 18, 2020) provides updated guidance to Caltrans Districts, lead agencies, developers, and consultants conducting safety review for proposed land use projects and plans that would affect the State Highway System. The interim guidance recommends that safety analyses include a review of three primary elements related to transportation safety—design standard compliance, collision history, and collision risk (consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s Systemic Approach to Safety). The interim guidance does not establish specific analysis methods or significance thresholds for determining safety impacts under CEQA. Additionally, Caltrans notes that local agencies may use the interim guidance at their own discretion as a guide for review of local facilities. Finally, the interim guidance states that Caltrans District traffic safety staff will use available data to determine if the proposed project may influence or contribute to significant impacts to the State Highway System.
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new guidelines that address transportation metrics under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the OPR to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas.
Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.”
Subdivision (b)(2) of PRC section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.”
OPR published its proposal for the comprehensive updates to the CEQA Guidelines in November 2017 which included proposed updates related to analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743. The updated CEQA Guidelines were adopted on December 28, 2018; and according to the new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT replaced congestion as the metric for determining transportation impacts. The guidelines state that “lead agencies may elect to be governed by these provisions of this section immediately. Beginning July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” 17 To provide guidance to agencies implementing the new CEQA requirements, OPR published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory describes considerations agencies may use in selecting VMT metrics, calculation methodologies, and significance thresholds. The Technical Advisory does not mandate the use of specific metrics, methodologies or significance thresholds, because agencies have discretion to select those that are appropriate for the local land use and transportation context.
Local
City of Roseville 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan (2020) are applicable to the project. • Policy CIRC1.4: Maintain a system of truck routes to provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods and to avoid impacting residential neighborhoods. • Policy CIRC3.1: Promote transit service that is convenient, cost-effective, and responsive to the challenges and opportunities of serving Roseville and surrounding communities, and explore opportunities for transit innovation and service improvements. • Policy CIRC3.5: Consider access to health care, community services and employment, and the needs of persons who may be transit-dependent when making decisions regarding transit service. • Policy CIRC3.7: Pursue transit routes that optimize ridership. • Policy CIRC4.1: The City will review and condition projects as appropriate, to reduce travel demand per capita and per employee by promoting increased density near transit, improving the quality of non-vehicular transportation options, providing incentives for non-vehicular travel, encouraging the mixing of complementary land uses in proximity to one another, and using other feasible methods.
• Policy CIRC4.3: Specific Plan Amendments and land use development projects not included in a Specific Plan shall be evaluated for consistency with the City’s VMT Impact Standards. • Policy CIRC4.4: If the evaluation required by CIRC4.3 finds a Specific Plan Amendment or land use development project not included in an adopted Specific Plan is inconsistent with thresholds established within the City’s VMT Impact Standards, on-site land use, transportation, and urban design-related VMT-reducing features should be prioritized to demonstrate consistency. If feasible on-site features cannot achieve the VMT threshold, Specific Plan Amendments and land use development projects outside Specific Plan Areas may demonstrate equivalent consistency through off-site actions or fair-share fee contributions, or if consistency cannot be achieved, shall implement all feasible measures.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
18 • Policy CIRC5.1: Develop a comprehensive and safe system of recreational and commuter bicycle routes and trails that provides connections between the City's major destinations (including employment) and housing areas and between its existing and planned bikeways. • Policy CIRC6.1: Establish and maintain a safe and continuous pedestrian network that provides connections between residential areas and commercial retail and services, employment, public services, parks, and public transit.
• Policy CIRC6.3: Enhance pedestrian-friendly street environments and design public spaces and destinations in a way that encourages walking.
• Policy CIRC6.4: Sidewalks shall be required in all new Specific Plan Areas, with new roadway construction, and with roadway expansion.
• Policy CIRC6.5: In reviewing proposed development projects and implementing public projects, the City will incorporate standards designed to protect the security of pedestrians and minimize the potential for collisions involving pedestrians.
West Roseville Specific Plan
The City of Roseville West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) (Amended March 17, 2021) guides the development of approximately 3,162 acres located to the west of Fiddyment Road.
Figure 4-1 of the WRSP illustrates the planned land uses within the WRSP area. The project site encompasses the following three parcels:
• W-50E – 3.1 acres of Park uses
• W-60A – 25.2 acres of Park (Sports Complex) uses
• W-60B – 30 acres of Light Industrial uses
Figure 7-1 of the WRSP illustrates the planned roadway system within the WRSP area. At buildout, the WRSP identifies the following major roadway facilities within the project site vicinity:
• Blue Oaks Boulevard is planned for a six-lane arterial. • Westbrook Boulevard (previously referred to as West Side Drive) is planned for a six-lane arterial. • Pleasant Grove Boulevard is planned for a four-lane arterial. • New traffic signals are planned for the intersections of Blue Oaks Boulevard/Westbrook Boulevard, Blue Oaks Boulevard/Westpark Drive, Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive North, and Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive South.
The WRSP requires the provision of sidewalks on all WRSP area roadways. Planned bikeways include Class II bike lanes on all arterial and collector roadways (including Westbrook Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and Blue Oaks Boulevard) and a network of off-street Class I shared-use paths. 19 Traffic Impact Fee Programs
The City currently participates in four traffic mitigation fee programs to fund capital projects in Roseville and south Placer County. Within the City, traffic impact fees are used to fund improvements contained in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The funding for those improvements is nexus-based and is designed to fund improvements. The fee structure considers both the number and length of trips generated by new land developments. As such, it is considered a type of VMT-based fee program. The traffic mitigation fees are collected by the participating agencies at building permit issuance. The payment of Roseville impact fees in lieu of improvements has typically been determined to be acceptable mitigation for transportation impacts caused by a project.
City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan (2008) includes the following policies that are relevant to the project:
• Support facilities that encourage bicycling should, to the extent feasible, be made a standard component of all new public and private projects.
• Provide short-term bike parking (bike racks) conveniently located at businesses entrances and safe, secure long-term covered bike parking (lockers, cages, rooms) at employment sites. • Where construction operations occur near Class II or III bikeways, the developer/contractor will be responsible for maintaining clear and clean paths of travel. • Street maintenance overlay projects and other construction projects within the public right-ofway and along designated bikeways shall be reviewed for conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan. Where existing facilities are not in conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan and current City standards, the facilities may be brought up to standards where determined feasible by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Figure 5 of the Bicycle Master Plan illustrates future proposed bicycle facilities throughout the City. Within the project site vicinity, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies new Class II bike lanes and a new Class I shareduse path on Westpark Drive. Additionally, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies a new Class I shared-use path along Kaseberg Creek (generally traversing east-west along the northerly side of Blue Oaks Boulevard).
City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan (2011) was adopted by the City Council to establish policies, projects, and programs that improve the pedestrian system in Roseville and increase walking for transportation, recreation, and health. The Pedestrian Master Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation measures for pedestrian improvements and programs; a recommended pedestrian network; and a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that establishes a 20-year framework for City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
20 improvements to the pedestrian environment. The Pedestrian Master Plan includes the following policies that are relevant to the project:
• Provide continuous and direct pedestrian connections between residential areas, schools, shopping areas, public services, employment centers, parks, and public transit stops. • Include sidewalks in the planning and design of all new, reconstructed or widened streets.
Sidewalks should be installed on both sides of the street, unless circumstances call for an exception.
• Sidewalks and street crossings should provide access for all people, regardless of physical abilities, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADA Transition Plan.
Figure 8 of the Pedestrian Master Plan illustrates ranked sidewalk gap closure projects throughout the City. The Pedestrian Master Plan does not identify ranked sidewalk gap closure projects within the project site vicinity.
City of Roseville Final Short-Range Transit Plan 2018–2025 The City of Roseville Final Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) 2018-2025 (LSC 2018) provides a detailed business plan to guide transit improvements in the City. The plan reviews demographics and transit needs, evaluates effectiveness and efficiency of existing services, analyzes a wide range of system options, and provides operational, capital and institutional plans, including an implementation plan. The City’s plan was prepared jointly with the development of parallel SRTPs for Placer County Transit, Auburn Transit, and the Western Placer Consolidated Transit Service Agency. The plan acknowledges there are many large development projects in West Roseville that could increase transit demand in the area by 2025. To this end, Figure 25 of the SRTP shows three concept bus routes that would operate on Blue Oaks Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, or Vista Grande Boulevard west of Fiddyment Road.
The SRTP recommends a detailed transit master planning process for West Roseville. As noted on page 170 of the SRTP, “While general land uses and policies have been defined for these areas (including the need for transit services and the provision of funding strategies for transit), specific routes, stops and schedules will depend on more detailed planning to be developed over the next several years. Once this detail is available, transit master planning for these areas should be conducted. An additional route into the area along the Blue Oaks Boulevard corridor will ultimately be warranted.” City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards
Section 4 of the 2021 Amendments to City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards provides guidance for how to analyze VMT impacts of proposed land developments within the City. The following 21 guidance and recommendations are contained in that document (City of Roseville 2021a: TS16 through TS22):
• A project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it meets any of nine distinct screening criteria.
• A quantitative study of VMT analysis is generally required if the project does not meet any of the conditions for screening. For non-residential projects, analysis should be based on VMT per service population, where service population consists of the total number of residents and employees. The service population methodology includes home-based production VMT and VMT from all other sources, including trips attracted from homes outside of the area into the area for work, shopping, or other purposes and trips with neither end at the home (such as from work to shopping). VMT is based on the full length of each trip, including distance outside of the City.
VMT estimates are to be produced using the City of Roseville travel demand model. • An alternative metric (e.g., VMT/employee) may be applied if it relies on the data and analysis of the current citywide VMT analysis and is reviewed and approved by the City. • Factors to convert Roseville travel forecasting model inputs (i.e., square footage) to employment (as used in development of the General Plan) are presented in Table VMT-1 of the General Plan. • The analysis conducted for VMT studies shall be documented in a report for review by the City, with supporting tables and figures. It shall be the intent of the VMT study to evaluate the reasonable worst-case impacts for the proposed development allowed by zoning unless a specific use/user is identified by the applicant.
• A project would have a significant impact if it exceeded a threshold of which is 15 percent below existing Citywide development VMT (baseline VMT per service population for non-residential projects).
• If a proposed project can be shown to result in a net overall decrease in total City VMT when compared to baseline VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.
• If screening is not used, explanation should be provided on how VMT was calculated. This should include a description of metrics, models and tools, inputs for the analysis, and thresholds used. • If it is concluded that the project would exceed the significance threshold, a list of feasible mitigation measures which would either reduce impacts to below the threshold, or reduce impacts to the extent feasible shall be provided, beginning with on-site measures. The VMTreducing effects of each measure shall be quantified to the extent feasible.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
22 4. Project Travel Characteristics
This section describes the expected travel characteristics of the proposed project, including its trip generation and trip distribution.
Project Description
Buildout of the project would consist of ten multi-sport fields, two restroom buildings, one concession building, picnic shelters, a 1-acre accessible playground, and a maintenance yard. Over 950 off-street parking spaces would be provided on the project site, with 543 parking spaces provided in the northerly parking lot and 419 parking spaces provided in the southerly parking lot.
Project programming and operations would be as follows:
• During weekdays, the complex would be used for practices that run from 3 PM to 10 PM.
According to the City, it is anticipated that the complex would operate with up to five 1.5-hour practice timeslots beginning at 3 PM, 4:30 PM, 6 PM, 7:30 PM, and 9 PM. Additionally, the City anticipates that each practice timeslot would accommodate up to two teams per field, which would result in up to 20 teams utilizing the complex during each practice timeslot. A total of 100 teams could practice at the facility in a single weekday. • During weekends, the complex would be used for tournaments and league play. The tournaments would include both regional/national draws and local draws. Games would run from 8 AM to 8 PM. The City anticipates that parking fees would be collected from teams as part of the tournament registration process and not on-site during tournaments. This is important for two reasons. First, the lack of on-site parking payment would reduce the likelihood that people would park off-site to avoid parking costs. Second, the lack of on-site parking payment transactions would eliminate delays incurred to entering vehicles typically associated with cash, credit card, etc. payment transactions.
Vehicular access to and from the project site would be provided via Westbrook Boulevard and Phillip Road. For the northerly parking lot, the Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive North intersection would provide ingress and egress and Phillip Road would provide egress only. For the southerly parking lot, the Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive South intersection would provide ingress and egress. The northerly and southerly parking lots would not be connected via an internal roadway or drive aisle. 23 The project would include the following modifications to both the northerly and southerly Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive intersections:
• Construction of a new east leg. The westbound approach would include two lanes – a shared through-left lane and a right-turn lane.
• Construction of a northbound right-turn pocket with a storage length of approximately 220 feet.
The project does not propose to modify the existing all-way stop-control or marked crosswalks at either the northerly or southerly Westbrook Boulevard/Brookstone Drive intersection.
The project would construct new sidewalks along the Westbrook Boulevard project site frontage, as well as a new north-south pedestrian path through the center of the project site. The project would include bus parking within the on-site parking lots.
The project site would occupy a portion of the existing Phillip Road alignment. With the implementation of the project, the east-west segment of Phillip Road would have a new westerly terminus at the project’s northerly parking lot (i.e., this segment of Phillip Road would extend between Westpark Drive and the project site). The north-south segment of Phillip Road would not provide access to the project site.
Trip Generation
This study utilizes locally derived trip generation data to estimate project trip generation, consistent with the approach utilized in the Final Transportation Impact Study for Placer Valley Sports Complex in Roseville, CA (March 2016).
Need for Locally Derived Trip Generation Data
The Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021) is a nationally recognized source of trip generation information for a wide variety of land use types. This resource includes the Soccer Complex (488) Land Use Category. However, the data points used to derive the trip rates associated with this land use category are limited, and critical information regarding the trip rates is not provided (e.g., the 60-minute period corresponding to the peak hour, the degree of peaking within the peak hour, etc.).
The Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017) recommends that local data be used when data points are limited. The analysis methodology presented in this study follows this guidance.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
24 Data Collection at Saturday Tournaments
Fehr & Peers conducted Saturday traffic counts and field observations at the following soccer tournaments:
• Rick Hitch Roseville Tournament at Maidu Regional Park on Saturday, August 15, 2015 • Placer United Girls Cup at Cherry Island Soccer Complex on Saturday, October 24, 2015 This section describes each tournament in detail, data collection methods, resulting data, and conclusions.
Overview of Soccer Tournaments
Table 1 provides details for the two tournaments, including the date, number of soccer fields in use, game times, parking conditions, etc.
Although the soccer tournaments held at Cherry Island Soccer Complex and Maidu Regional Park were similar in some respects, they were also different in many key respects including:
• Number of fields – Cherry Island had 10 fields in use, whereas Maidu had 5 fields in use. • Parking price – Cherry Island charged $8 to park on-site and also had free on-street parking, whereas parking at Maidu was free.
• Field Location/Accessibility – Cherry Island may be considered by many to have fewer quality restaurants and stores within a 15-minute drive than Maidu Regional Park. Additionally, it is likely that Cherry Island provided a more robust snack bar than Maidu given the larger size of the event.
Finally, the primary entry to Maidu (signalized access from a four-lane arterial) provides greater ease of access than the two unsignalized accesses onto the two-lane streets serving Cherry Island. • Soccer Team Change of Venue – Whereas the majority of teams playing at Maidu for the Rick Hitch Tournament played both games at that location, nearly 50 percent of teams who played a game at Cherry Island also played a game at a different location on that same Saturday. • Origin of Soccer Teams – Whereas 83 percent of teams in the Rick Hitch Tournament (played at Maidu Regional Park and other venues) were from the SACOG region, only 37 percent of teams in the Placer United Girls Cup (played at Cherry Island and other venues) were from the SACOG region. The out of area teams traveled from the San Francisco Bay Area, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Central San Joaquin Valley, and Nevada.
25 Table 1: Overview of Observed Soccer Tournaments in Sacramento Region Characteristics Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu
Regional Park
Placer United Girls Cup
at Cherry Island Soccer Complex
Date of Count Saturday, August 15, 2015 Saturday, October 24, 2015 Number of Fields in Use 5 10
Location Roseville Sacramento County
Game Times 8:00, 9:15, 10:30, 11:45, 1:00, 2:15, and
3:30
8:00, 9:20, 10:40, 12:00, 1:20, 2:40, and
4:00
Use of fields throughout day
Games played continuously on all
fields for first 6 time slots. Slightly
reduced use for 7th slot.
Games played continuously on all fields
tor all 7 time slots.
Tournament Games Also Held at
Other Venues Yes Yes
Soccer Team Change of Venue Vast majority of teams played all Saturday games at Maidu
44 teams played two Saturday games at
Cherry Island. 40 teams played one
Saturday game at Cherry Island and
one game at a different venue. 10
teams played a single Saturday game at
Cherry Island.
Parking Fee Free $8 for vehicles parking on-site. No fee for vehicles parked on-street.
Adequacy of Parking Supply Abundant parking was available Parking demand nearly reached
capacity. Some attendees had to park
far from complex and walk.
Weather Conditions Dry Dry
Site proximity to nearby
restaurants and amenities
5 minute drive to various restaurants
and stores along Douglas Blvd.
5 minute drive to restaurants along
Watt Avenue
Percentage of Local (within SACOG
region) vs. Non-Local Teams 83% 37%
Note: Observed a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the existing University Mall were 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., respectively. University Mall was approximately 93 percent occupied at the time of the trip counts, equivalent to 96.436 occupied KSF.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
26 Overview of Data Collection Process
Table 2 describes the data collection process undertaken to perform traffic counts at each tournament.
Fehr & Peers retained the count firm National Data Services (NDS) to assist with these efforts.
Field observations indicated that the parking areas for both facilities were well utilized during the counts.
At Maidu Regional Park, although the main lots (closest to the fields) were often full, parking was always available along the gravel parking aisle on the south portion of the park. Fehr & Peers did not notice any recurring patterns of motorists entering the area, not finding parking, and then exiting to find a more remote space. However, some soccer-related groups were observed (and recorded) who chose to park in a parking area just beyond the traffic count location and walk to the fields.
Cherry Island Soccer Complex provides both paved parking as well as several unpaved areas within the complex. On-street parking is permitted along the site frontage on U Street and 28th Street, but not on the opposite side of the street (“No Parking” signs are posted).
In summary, the physical characteristics of each site, coupled with the use of experienced traffic count personnel, allowed for a high-quality empirical observations of the travel demand associated with each soccer tournament.
Traffic Count Results
Table 3 displays the estimated daily and peak hour trip generation of each soccer tournament on each count day. Key findings from this table include:
• The Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park was estimated to generate about 4,000 daily vehicles trips (2,000 inbound and 2,000 outbound). The peak hour of travel occurred from 10:15 to 11:15 AM with 537 trips (48 percent inbound and 52 percent outbound). • The Placer United Girls Cup at Cherry Island Soccer Complex was estimated to generate about 4,300 daily vehicle trips (2,135 inbound and 2,174 outbound). The peak hour of traveled occurred from 9:00 to 10:00 AM with 540 trips (59 percent inbound and 41 percent outbound).
Additionally, 15-minute arrival and departure traffic flows were recorded during each tournament. Key findings from this data include:
• The Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park showed fairly modest peaks in 15-minute arrivals, but much more pronounced spikes in 15-minute departure flows beginning at 9:15 AM, 10:30 AM, 11:45 AM, and 1 PM. These periods correspond with the completion of the first four games of the day being played simultaneously on all fields. 27 • Similar to the Maidu observations, the Placer United Girls Cup at Cherry Island Soccer Complex showed spikes in departure flows at 9:15 AM, 10:45 AM, 12:00 PM, 1:15 PM, 2:30 PM, and 4:00 PM. These peaks occurred slightly later (by 15 minutes) due to the longer duration between successive games at Cherry Island versus Maidu.
• The Cherry Island counts indicated that 48 percent of all inbound traffic arrived before 10 AM. In contrast, 37 percent of all inbound traffic at Maidu arrived before 10 AM. The Cherry Island counts also showed a spike in departing traffic from 5:15 to 5:45 PM, in which 352 vehicles (16 percent of total) departed. The Maidu counts did not show a similar end of day spike in outbound travel. • Between 10 AM and 2:30 PM, Maidu Regional Park generated 367 more trips than Cherry Island despite having half the number of fields.
Table 2: Overview of Traffic Data Collection
Characteristics Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu
Regional Park
Placer United Girls Cup
at Cherry Island Soccer Complex
Date of Count Saturday, August 15, 2015 Saturday, October 24, 2015 Count Duration 1
7 AM to 5 PM. In addition, parked
vehicles were counted prior to 7 AM
and after 5 PM.
7 AM to 6 PM. In addition, parked
vehicles were counted prior to 7 AM
and after 6 PM.
Other Activities On-Site
Adult softball on two nearby fields.
Traffic counters separately classified
vehicles associated with adult soccer
and softball.
None
Description of Parking Facilities
Large surface lot near fields with two
entry/exits. Secondary parking at
nearby Maidu School.
On-site parking with entry/exit off U
Street and exit-only off 28th Street. Onstreet parking permitted on U Street and 28th Street.
Data Collection Techniques
Traffic count personnel were stationed
at each entry/exit lot. A camera was
situated at the driveway entry to
Maidu School.
Cameras were situated at the U Street
and 28th Street driveways. Traffic count
personnel were situated on U Street
and 28th Street to record parking
maneuvers.
On-Site Data Collection Oversight John Gard, P.E. David Stanek, P.E.
Note: 1 Vehicles present at each facility prior to the beginning of the count or after the end of the count period were considered tournament-related and included as part of the daily traffic estimate.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
28 Table 3 displays the trip generation rates per field for each soccer tournament. This table shows that the Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park had a measured trip rate that was nearly twice the rate observed for the Placer United Girls Cup at Cherry Island Soccer Complex.
This data has yielded the following key conclusions:
• The Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park had a ‘per field’ trip rate of nearly twice the rate observed at the Placer United Girls Cup at Cherry Island Soccer Complex. The difference in trip rates between these tournaments is a function of local versus regional team participation.
This will be a critical distinction when analyzing the travel characteristics of the proposed project. • The Rick Hitch Tournament showed substantially greater levels of mid-day departure and return activity than the Placer United Girls Cup. The Placer United Girls Cup had a greater proportion of early arrivals and late departures associated with a longer duration of stay.
Table 3: Results of Traffic Data Collection
Characteristics Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu
Regional Park
Placer United Girls Cup
at Cherry Island Soccer Complex
Date of Count Saturday, August 15, 2015 Saturday, October 24, 2015 Daily Conditions
Total Trips 4,000 vehicles
(50% in / 50% out)1
4,300 vehicles
(50% in / 50% out)2
Peak Hour of Generator
Busiest Hour of Travel 10:15 – 11:15 AM 9:00 – 10:00 AM Inbound Trips 263 vehicles (49%) 317 vehicles (59%)
Outbound Trips 274 vehicles 51%) 223 vehicles (41%)
Total Trips 537 vehicles 540 vehicles
Note: 1 Actual count consists of 1,941 inbound trips and 1,877 outbound trips recorded between 6:45 AM and 5:00 PM. Daily estimate of 2,000 inbound trips based on some vehicles that had already been parked prior to 6:45 AM, and infrequent parking along Johnson Ranch Drive (which was not counted). Field observations revealed that a number of vehicles were still parked on-site after 5 PM. 2 Actual count consists of 2,135 inbound trips and 2,174 outbound trips recorded between 7 AM and 6:00 PM (including parked vehicles prior to 7 AM and after 6 PM). Minor discrepancy in inbound versus outbound travel likely due to inherent challenges of counting parking maneuvers.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
1 1
[ [
29 Weekday Practice Trip Generation
As described previously, the complex would accommodate practices during the evenings on weekdays.
The complex would operate with up to five 1.5-hour practice timeslots beginning at 3 PM, 4:30 PM, 6 PM, 7:30 PM, and 9 PM, and each field would accommodate up to two teams during each practice timeslot.
Altogether, the complex would accommodate up to 20 teams during each practice timeslot, and up to 100 teams during a weekday.
For the purposes of this study, the City indicated that the weekday practice trip generation estimates should assume full use of the complex to avoid understating the trip generation potential of the project.
Additionally, the weekday practice trip generation estimates incorporate the following key characteristics:
• Each team would have an average of 16 players and 2 coaches present at practice, for a total of 18 personnel per team. This would result in a total of 360 personnel on-site during a single practice timeslot, and a total of 1,800 personnel during a typical weekday. • Two-thirds of the players would be picked-up/dropped-off while one-third of the players would be driven by parents, family, etc. who would remain on site for the entire practice. • Carpooling would result in an average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.2 players per vehicle for player-generated vehicle trips and an AVO of 1.1 coaches per vehicle for coach-generated vehicle trips.
Existing weekday PM peak period traffic volume data (discussed in Chapter 7), indicates that the peak hour of adjacent street traffic is 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM. For the purposes of this study, the weekday PM peak hour project trip generation represents departure activity for the first practice timeslot at 3 PM and arrival activity for the practice timeslot at 4:30 PM.
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
30 Estimated Project Trip Generation
Table 4 displays the Saturday daily and AM peak hour trip generation of each type of soccer tournament, as well as the weekday daily and PM peak hour trip generation during a typical weekday with practices held at the complex.
Table 4: Roseville Soccer Complex Project – Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis Scenario Occupied Fields Daily
Peak Hour1
In Out Total
Weekday2 10 4,800 480 480 960
Saturday (Tournament)3 10 8,000 537 537 1,074
Note: 1 Peak hours defined as 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM for weekdays and 10:15 AM to 11:15 AM for Saturday tournaments. 2 Weekday estimates derived based on the following parameters:
Weekday practices would utilize all 10 fields during each of three practice timeslots at 3 PM, 4:30 PM, 6 PM, 7:30 PM, and 9 PM.
Each field would accommodate two teams per field during each practice timeslot.
Each team would have an average of 16 players and 2 coaches present at practice, for a total of 18 personnel per team.
Two-thirds of the players would be picked-up/dropped-off and one-third of the players would be drive/park.
Average vehicle occupancy (AVO) would be 1.2 for players and 1.1 for coaches. 3 Estimates derived from observations recorded at the Rick Hitch Tournament at Maidu Regional Park on Saturday, August 15, 2015.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.
Trip Distribution
Figure 4 displays the expected distribution of trips for a local/semi-regional soccer tournament. The percentages on Figure 8 are based on the following:
• Proportion of teams that are ‘local’ (83 percent within SACOG region) versus ‘non-local’ (17 percent) (i.e., stay overnight in a hotel is as customary for two-day soccer tournaments) based on an assessment of the residence of teams that participated in the Rick Hitch Tournament. o For ‘non-local’ teams, the anticipated hotels (based on advertised hotels on the Roseville Youth Soccer website) used for overstay nights (and routing from those hotels) was considered. For the majority of hotels, Pleasant Grove Boulevard would be the preferred east-west route to access the Westbrook Boulevard to arrive at the site. o For ‘local’ teams, the distribution first considered the proportion of teams that were from the north (i.e., Lincoln, Yuba-Sutter), east (i.e., Auburn, Loomis, Truckee, etc.), which would use SR 65. Local teams from the west and south were also considered. Of particular focus was the proportion of local teams that would travel through the I-5/I-80 interchange, which Google maps and other GIS applications would recommend travel be via State Route 99 to Riego Road.
+ + +
31 • Once the overall spatial distribution of trips is determined, their final route choice was determined based on travel time surveys of available route choices.
Figure 5 shows the expected distribution of weekday soccer practices. Based on the project description, it is anticipated that the majority of attendees would come from local residential areas (i.e., from within the South Placer area or portions of unincorporated Sacramento County).
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Westbrook
Blue O aks Blvd
Pa
yson Ave
Pleasant G rove Blvd
Sierra Crossing
Park
Sullivan, John L.
Park
Village G reen Dr
Market St
Hayden Pkw y
K
Bob
D oy le Dr
L
n Fiddyment Rd
Denio Family
Park
Pistachio
Regional Park Project
Site
Blvd
Phillip Rd
Brookstone DrBrookstone Dr
Project Trip Distribution - Local/Semi-Regional Soccer Tournaments Figure 4
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
32%
32%
16% Outbound via
Phillip Rd
16%
32%
16%
32%
100%
100%
68%
68%
33%
33%
35%
35%
35%
35%
f
•
-
' \
\
I
I
'
.. I / I
i _ -_________ _
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Westbrook
Blue O aks Blvd
Pa
yson Ave
Pleasant G rove Blvd
Sierra Crossing
Park
Sullivan, John L.
Park
Village G reen Dr
Market St
Hayden Pkw y
K
Bob
D oy le Dr
L
n Fiddyment Rd
Denio Family
Park
Pistachio
Regional Park Project
Site
Blvd
Phillip Rd
Brookstone DrBrookstone Dr
Project Trip Distribution - Weekday Local Soccer Practice Figure 5
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
34%
34%
18% Outbound via
Phillip Rd
18%
37%
18%
37%
100%
100%
63%
63%
10%
10%
53%
53%
50%
50%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3% 3%
f
•
-
' \
\
I
I
'
.. I / I
i _ -_________ _
City of Roseville Soccer Complex
Transportation Impact Study
June 2022
34 5. Significance Criteria
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts to the roadway system (via its VMT contribution) as well as to the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. These thresholds are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and various City of Roseville published plans described in Chapter 3 “Regulatory Setting”.
Impacts to the transportation system would be significant if the project would:
• Roadway System
o Exceed the applicable VMT threshold.
• Bicycle Facilities
o Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle facilities. • Pedestrian Facilities
o Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pedestrian facilities. • Transit Service and Facilities
o Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit facilities or service. • Hazards
o Substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. 35 6. Impacts and Mitigation
Measures
This chapter describes the evaluation of potential transportation impacts associated with the operation of the project and, in instances where the project would cause a significant impact, identifies potential mitigation measures that would lessen the severity of the impact.
Impact 1: Impacts to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).