Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, December 7, 2022 (part 6 of 8)

BN 73239887v1
IS/MND and Addendum. For the reasons discussed further below, we respectfully request that the City Council find that the LIUNA appeal is without merit and should be rejected, based on the finding that the Project approval and adoption of the Addendum are supported by substantial evidence and comply with CEQA.

The Appeal Does Not Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project May Result in Significant Impact(s) on the Environment
Legal Standards for Addendum and Substantial Evidence
When an IS/MND has been prepared and adopted, no further environmental analysis is required unless there are substantial changes to the project and/or the circumstances in which it is being undertaken which require major revisions to the earlier analysis, or new information becomes available at the time of the next discretionary action which was not or could not have been known at the time of the earlier analysis. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21166.) The CEQA Guidelines further define substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances as changes that result in “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) To trigger an MND, CEQA requires that new information be of substantial importance, and show: A) one or more significant effects not previously examined in the IS/MND, B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe, C) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would be feasible, or D) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and those mitigation measures were declined by the project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) The City shall prepare an addendum to the IS/MND if none of the conditions described above have occurred. (14 CCR § 15164(b).)
To demonstrate that the City erred in preparing the Addendum and should have instead prepared a subsequent MND, the Appellant must provide substantial evidence demonstrating substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances or new information, as defined above by 14 CCR § 15162. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (14 CCR § 15384(a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion” is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (14 CCR § 15384(b).) LIUNA’s Appeal contends that the City should require a subsequent MND for the Project because: 1) new unspecified air quality mitigation measures for distribution centers and warehouses exist which are more robust than those identified in the IS/MND, and 2) because the Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

Page 3 ends

BN 73239887v1
project is larger, it results in greater emissions and energy usage that would require further environmental review. LIUNA does not provide any substantial evidence to support either of these arguments, while the analysis provided in the Addendum and the entirety of the record provide substantial evidence that a subsequent MND is not required.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
As noted above, new information of substantial importance includes mitigation measures which are considerably different from those previously analyzed which would substantially reduce significant effect(s) on the environment but are declined by the project proponents. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(D).) The Appellant asserts that new air quality mitigation measures exist specific to distribution centers and warehouses, but does not identify these measures. Without providing any applicable mitigation measures that purportedly exist (let alone any technical documentation demonstrating that such measures would actually reduce the Project’s potential air quality impacts beyond the Project’s existing mitigation measures and regulatory compliance), LIUNA is merely speculating that other mitigation measures exist. Under CEQA, such speculation does not constitute substantial evidence.

Even if there were other measures, that alone does not trigger the requirement for subsequent environmental review. If a commenter requests that other mitigation measures be adopted, the CEQA Guidelines require the Project to “decline to adopt the [new] mitigation measure” in order to trigger the preparation of a revised and recirculated IS/MND. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) Even if the Appellant could demonstrate that a new, more effective mitigation measure has been identified, which it has not done, there is no evidence in the Addendum or elsewhere in the record that the Project has declined any new mitigation measures. The Project has accepted and agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. Thus, there is no basis to require recirculation of the IS/MND.

By contrast, the Addendum, the IS/MND and the Project technical studies prepared as part of the IS/MND provide extensive analysis demonstrating 1) potential air quality impacts were previously analyzed in the IS/MND which identified mitigation measures to address those potential impacts and mitigate them to a less than significant level; and 2) those mitigation measures are still applicable and were incorporated into the Project. (Addendum, pages 13-16.) The Addendum further incorporates information from the City’s 2035 General Plan Update (“GPU”) the GPU Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that the City certified in August 2020.1 1 Though the EIR found that impacts would be reduced through compliance with PCAPCD and GPU policies, implementation of the GPU would result in a significant unavoidable environmental impact by generating emissions in excess of PCAPCD significance thresholds. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when it adopted the GPU. (Addendum, page 13.)
Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

Page 4 ends

BN 73239887v1
The Addendum states that the Project would be consistent with the GPU, and would comply with Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and GPU policies, regulations, and permitting requirements. The analysis included in the Addendum concludes that 1) the Project “remains consistent with development scenarios outlined in the MND,” 2) any changes to the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts, and 3) implementation of the air quality mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND would result in less than significant impacts. (Addendum, page 14.) Accordingly, the Addendum is based on substantial evidence and found that the Project does not constitute a substantial change from that analyzed in the IS/MND.

Moreover, the City concluded that the adopted IS/MND air quality mitigation measures continue to ensure that the Project would not result in a significant impact. There is no new significant air quality impact, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of prior identified air quality impacts warranting further environmental review. For this reason, the City Council should reject the LIUNA Appeal.

The Project Does Not Result in Changes that would result in New Significant Impacts or in a Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Prior Impact Warranting Major Revisions to the IS/MND.

The Appellant’s second argument is that because the Project is larger and may result in greater emissions and energy usage, that this alone means that the Project warrants major revisions in the prior IS/MND triggering a subsequent MND. This claim misstates CEQA’s requirements.

CEQA defines substantial changes to the Project warranting major revisions to a prior MND as changes causing the involvement of “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) In other words, just because there is a change to the Project, that change may not trigger the need for a major revision to the prior IS/MND.

The Project Addendum extensively analyzes air quality and traffic impacts in support of the conclusion that changes to the Project (even if the size of the buildings have increased) would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The Addendum also properly addresses energy usage, noting that the IS/MND was not required to analyze energy effects of the Project because the industrial use was consistent with the existing General Plan’s land use designation, and therefore development with industrial uses, and their associated energy usage, was already anticipated as future development under the existing General Plan for that location. The Addendum further explains that the Project is consistent with subsequent General Plan Update, including citywide assessments of energy demand associated with those changes. As the Project would not result in substantial unplanned demands or in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, energy impacts would be less than significant, and thus would not constitute a substantial change to the Project warranting a major revision to the adopted IS/MND. LIUNA did not provide any evidence to the contrary. For that reason, the City Council Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

Page 5 ends

BN 73239887v1
should reject the LIUNA Appeal on the basis that there is no evidence that the IS/MND required further revision and recirculation. The City fully evaluated all significant impacts in the IS/MND and concluded that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe air quality, traffic (including truck traffic) and energy impacts.

Conclusion
We appreciate the City’s thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts in the Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND and Addendum. As we have demonstrated, the Project and its circumstances do not constitute substantial changes, since they do not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Accordingly, the Addendum is appropriate and there is no basis for the City to require a subsequent MND. We respectfully request that the City reject the LIUNA Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Addendum and Project approval.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our responses to LIUNA’s letter.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By Alicia Guerra
Shareholder
AG:eg
cc: Greg Bitter
Derek Ogden
Escarlet Mar
Ryan Schera
Wes Raborn
Vicinity Map
Copyright nearmap 2015, City of Roseville, Maxar
Roseville Parcel
Roseville Street Label
10/26/2022, 8:26:43 AM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
1:9,028
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
CC ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 22-440
DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 APPROVAL BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION; ADOPTING THE TWO (2) FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING THE MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO TEN (10) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND ADOPTING THE TWO (2) FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING THE MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 2 SUBJECT TO NINETY-THREE (93) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Blue Oaks Commerce Center (Project) located at 2200 Freedom Way; and WHEREAS, the Project consists of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000-sqaure-feet; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 to allow the construction of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square-feet in size; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 6 aye, 0 no, and 1 absent to approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification after finding that with the conditions of approval, the Project was consistent with the following two (2) Findings of Fact:

1. The Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines.

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 6 aye, 0 no, and 1 absent to approve the Major Project Permit Stage 2 after finding that with the conditions of approval, the Project was consistent with the following two (2) Findings of Fact:

1. The architecture and landscaping is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines; and Phase 1 approval.

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission’s approval, an appeal was submitted by the Lozeau Drury law firm on September 30, 2022, based on concerns that the project had an inadequate environmental review; and
WHEREAS, a review of the record shows that the Project’s Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document; and
WHEREAS, after holding a hearing on December 7, 2022 and considering the entire record, staff recommends that the City Council consider the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2, because the necessary findings of facts can be made; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification subject to ten (10) conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Major Project Permit Stage 2 and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 2 subject to ninetythree (93) conditions of approval; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby considers the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Addendum and denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 22, 2022 approval of the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and approves the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification subject to ten (10) conditions of approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the two (2) Findings of Fact for the Major Project Permit Stage 2 and approves the Major Project Permit Stage 2 subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City ofRoseville this , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

ADDENDUM TO BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ADOPTED ON MAY 27, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center; File #PL22-0101 Project Location: 2200 Freedom Way, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95678 (APN 017- 123-090-000)
Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 to allow construction of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping, which will be located on two (2) parcels totaling 23.94-acres in size.

Project Applicant: Jennifer Kimura, VLMK Engineering + Design Property Owner: Harsch Investment Properties II, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 774-5247 An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted negative declaration adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the adopted negative declaration for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 2 of 42 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 5 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 10
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 12
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 13
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 16
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 20
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 21
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 21
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 23
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 24
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 26
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 28
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 29
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 30
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 31
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 32
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 33
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 34
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 36
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 38
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 39
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 40
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 42 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 3 of 42 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project site is located at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way, at the southeast corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Industrial Avenue (see Figure 1). On June 1, 2022, planning staff approved a Voluntary Merger (File# PL22-0059) to merge Parcel 4 (017-123-083) and Parcel 5 (017-123-084) of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Subdivision Parcel Map into one (1) parcel. As of this writing, the Lot Merger has been recorded. The project is located on Parcel 56 of the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA), which has adopted design guidelines (North Roseville Area Design Guidelines) that influence the general character of development within the planning area. The project site is surrounded by developed industrial parcels to the north, south, west, and an undeveloped parcel and office building to the east.

Background
On May 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 and a Tentative Subdivision Map for development of the project site with the 575,505 square feet Blue Oaks Commerce Center office, industrial and retail complex (File# 2007PL-039). An Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared as part of the MPP Stage 1 and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center office, industrial and retail complex project to evaluate the environmental impacts of developing NIPA PCL 56, which was adopted by the Planning Commission. On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the MPP Stage 1 site plan to allow the elimination of the retail portion of the project and replace 80,724 square feet of industrial uses with an approximately 122,385 square foot three story office building for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A MPP Stage 2 was also approved for the FBI Office building, which approved the building architecture, site grading, and on-site landscaping. The MPP Stage 1 entitlement approved in 2010 included conceptual landscape plans for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center. The landscape plans were deemed to be consistent with the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines (NRADG). The Figure 1: Project Location
Project Site
Industrial Avenue
Blue Oaks Boulevard
Washington Boulevard

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 4 of 42 ends

NRADG was adopted in 1992 and does not address current water efficient landscape requirements. On May 24, 2016, the Planning Manager approved an Administrative Permit to modify the master landscape plan for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center to include more drought tolerant species and meet current water efficiency standards.

Environmental Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped and has been graded in preparation of the development of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center and the office building for the FBI. The previously identified 1.95 acres of potential jurisdictional waters including 1.695 acres of wetlands and 0.258 acres of other waters has been filled and a Section 404 Individual Permit Application was submitted and approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and no wetlands exist on the site. Streetlights are located along the roadway frontages and utility poles exist along Blue Oaks Boulevard. Curb and gutter improvements exist along the perimeter of the project site.

Sidewalks are fully constructed along Blue Oaks Boulevard, Industrial Avenue, Freedom Way, and Fidelity Way.

As shown in Table 1 below, the site is surrounded by several industrial users to the north, south, and west. To the east of the project site is a vacant parcel and an office building, the vacant parcel has been disturbed by an approximately 220-foot wide series of power lines that bisect the northeast portion of the property at a 45-degree angle from Washington Boulevard to Blue Oaks Boulevard.

Table 1: Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site General Industrial (M2) General Industrial (IND) Vacant North M2 IND Industrial users
South M2 IND Industrial users
East M2 IND Vacant; Office building for the FBI
West Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI) Albertsons warehouse Proposed Project
The proposed project will allow development of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping (see Figure 2: Site Plan below). The project entitlements consist of a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 to evaluate the site design and building architecture.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 5 of 42 ends

Figure 2: Site Plan

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
As discussed in the Background section, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center (File# 2007PL-039) project was adopted on May 27, 2010. The MND covered development of the project site. The MND, supporting Initial Study, and related attachments are included as Attachment 1 of this Addendum. These are also accessible upon request at the Planning counter during normal business hours. The adopted MND analyzed impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project will be constructing four (4) industrial buildings, which is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site.

The analyses below rely on the MND analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate.

Most of the project impacts remain identical to the impacts of the MND because the proposed project is consistent with the industrial use type envisioned and analyzed for the subject property. No changes are proposed to the land use or zoning designation of the site. Impacts to physical resources (such as agricultural land, biological resources, etc.) are based on the grading and development of an area, not on the proposed use types of the buildings (i.e. restaurant vs. retail) on the property. For other types of impacts which are affected by use type and square footage, the project uses reduce or maintain the same level of potential impacts, as discussed in this Addendum.

Previously Approved
Not part of this Project

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 6 of 42 ends

Environmental Documents Relied Upon
• 2035 General Plan Update EIR, certified August 5, 2020 (SCH# 2019080418) The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (GP EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. When applicable, the topical sections within the checklist summarize the findings within the GP EIR. The GP EIR is available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines.
• West Roseville Specific Plan
The West Roseville Specific Plan is referenced and utilized in the evaluation of this project. The project added approximately 3,100 acres to the City’s corporate limits, and included a mixed-use land use plan of commercial, business professional, industrial, park, open space, and school land uses, and included 8,430 new residential dwelling units.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it was determined that the West Roseville Specific Plan had the potential to have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and the WRSP EIR (SCH #2002082057) was prepared for the project. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State of California Office of Planning and Research. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified by the City Council on February 4, 2004. A copy of the WRSP EIR is available for review within the Planning Department at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA.

The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when they certified the WRSP EIR. The EIR identified the following impacts associated with development of the WRSP area as significant and unavoidable:
• Potential incompatibility of internal land uses
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways
• Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches dbh (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources • Increased demand for solid waste services at the landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the MRF
• Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
For buildout of the WRSP project area, the WRSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways with Kaiser Medical Center • Air quality emissions from construction

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 7 of 42 ends

• Air quality emissions from operation
• On-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Off-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Loss of historic resources
• Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Increased stormwater runoff in the Curry Creek Watershed • Change in visual character
• Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update (2020 CIP EIR) was adopted by the Roseville City Council on June 20, 2007 by Resolution #07-311. The 2020 CIP EIR updated the City’s Roadway Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) and General Plan to reflect changing conditions and ensure an adequate transportation system, consistent with the City’s General Plan. The 2020 CIP EIR reflects the most current level of development in the City, including the 3,100-acre West Roseville Specific Plan annexation that was approved in 2004.

The EIR identified the following impacts associated with the General Plan land use allocation as significant and unavoidable:

Existing Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased traffic on Sacramento County roadways
• Growth-inducing impacts
2020 Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Growth-inducing impacts
2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased air emissions
• Loss of biological resources
• Growth-inducing impacts

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 8 of 42 ends

environmental result. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals, or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified or adopted is available requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Mitigation Measures Implemented or Addressing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time. If “none” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or has already been implemented.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 9 of 42 ends

Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.

Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis contained in each section.

CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? Page 7 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Same No No No None
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Same No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The proposed Project is located on a property already anticipated for development. The project site does not abut and is not visible from any scenic vista or scenic highway. The MND analyzed the impacts of grading of the project site and considered them to be less than significant. The proposed use (i.e., warehouse) is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The Findings of Fact for the CEQA Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable Specific Plan Policies and/or Specific Plan Design Guidelines will prevent significant impacts related to construction of buildings in urban settings.

The project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and the design guidelines established in the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines. As it relates to aesthetics, these standards ensure the high quality design and architectural character of any buildings developed as well as minimum landscaping standards. As it relates to light and glare, the Community Design Guidelines standards require all parking lot light fixtures to have glare shields. The project has been designed and will be conditioned to comply with the applicable Community Design Guidelines and the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 11 of 42 ends

Based on the reasons listed in this section, the changes introduced by the Project and/or new circumstances relevant to the project would not, as compared to the MND result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than significant impacts previously disclosed. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” relative to aesthetic resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 12 of 42 ends

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

Page 8 ends

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? Same No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
Same No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND concluded there were no resources to be affected by conversion of the site to urban uses. This conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. The project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. Given the foregoing, the Project will have no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 13 of 42 ends

finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” relative to agricultural and forestry resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.

III. Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? Pages 8-11 No No No Mitigation Measure AQ#1 & AQ#2
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Same No No No Same
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update found it will generate emissions that exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) significance thresholds. Existing laws and regulations, including PCAPCD rules and regulations, combined with existing General Plan and proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce these impacts. Projects would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 228 to minimize fugitive dust emissions of PM through implementation of dust control measures, such as PCAPCD’s standard Dust Control Requirements. PCAPCD Rules 202 and 205 would also reduce exhaust-related emissions from the use of construction equipment. PCAPCD Rules 217 and 218 would reduce VOC emissions associated with paving and architectural coating activities.

While all future development with the potential to generate substantial emissions would be required to reduce those emissions, the effectiveness of these measures would depend on the number and extent of strategies feasible to incorporate as a part of any given project. Since the timing and level of construction activities for future development projects is speculative, and cannot be known, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which the reduction strategies would result in emission reductions. Consequently, even with adherence to PCAPCD rules, proposed General Plan Update Policy AQ1.3, and Specific Plan mitigation measures, it is conservatively assumed that emissions from buildout of the General Plan could

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 14 of 42 ends

exceed PCAPCD-recommended thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could generate substantial constructed-related pollutant emissions, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which the project region is designated a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This project alone does not have a potential to significantly degrade air quality. However, the incremental impacts associated with this project considered cumulatively with the incremental impacts of other projects will degrade air quality. The General Plan Update found that the significant adverse air quality impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the mitigation measures proposed. Addressing the unmitigatable cumulative impacts to air quality, the General Plan Update adopted findings of overriding consideration.

However, CEQA requires that reductions in adverse project impacts be made, where it is feasible to do so.

Short term impacts to air quality can be expected in association with construction activities. These impacts are primarily associated with grading activities and the increased potential for dust and wind driven erosion of soils. Particulate matter resulting from construction dust will be reduced by implementing standard dust control measures on the job site as part of an erosion control plan. The grading permit and on-site inspection by the Public Works Department will ensure appropriate dust control measures, such as watering are done to reduce short-term air quality impacts.

Vehicle exhaust, produced during project construction, could temporarily contribute to the deterioration of ambient air quality. Diesel fuel fumes from construction equipment may be noticeable in the vicinity of the site; however, this is a short-term effect. All equipment must comply with the mitigation measures and with California emissions standards The air quality impacts associated with the increase in square footage of the project will not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. For example, the construction phase project-level ROG (lbs/day) percent difference between the original project and the propped project will have approximately a 17% difference. Based on this the project remains consistent with the development scenarios outlined in the MND. Future industrial uses that locate onsite will be required to comply with the PCAPCD requirements and may need to obtain permits prior to occupancy.

Industrial users may need to install air quality devices such as exhaust systems. Permitting with the PCAPCD will ensure that operation emissions are regulated. Therefore, with the air quality mitigation measures incorporated into the project the air quality impacts of this project would be less than significant.

There are no sensitive receptors located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The multi-family residential development southeast of the FBI site on Washington Boulevard comprises of the nearest sensitive receptor. Construction and operation of the project will increase emissions on the site, but not substantially; implementation of mitigation measures AQ#1 and AQ#2 will reduce project emissions to less than significant levels.

Potential impacts to sensitive receptors would therefore be less than significant.

The project does not include components with the potential to create significant objectionable odors. No impact associated with odor would result from the project.

Mitigation Measures: Applicable mitigation measures from the MND are below; no new measures are warranted for this Project.

Mitigation Measure AQ#1

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 15 of 42 ends

1a. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans (whichever occurs first) on project sites greater than five (5) acres, the applicant shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan to the Placer County APCD. The applicant shall provide written evidence, provided by APCD, to the local jurisdiction (city or county) that the plan has been submitted to APCD. If APCD does not respond within twenty (20) days the plan shall be considered approved. It is the responsibility of the applicant to deliver the approved plan to the local jurisdiction. The applicant shall not break ground prior to receiving APCD approval, of the Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan, and delivering that approval to the local jurisdiction issuing the permit. 1b. Include the following standard note on the Grading Plan or Improvement Plans: The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower of greater) that will be used in aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, name, and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman. 1c. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a written calculation to the Placer County APCD for approval by the District demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction as required by CARB. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The following link shall be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the Placer County APCD as described above: http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/ (click on the current “Roadway Construction Emissions Model”).

Mitigation Measure AQ#2: The following APCD rules shall be noted on the Improvement Plans:
• The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulation, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction. • The contractor shall use CARB ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel–powered equipment. In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article 4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations).
• Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)
• Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction. In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501)

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 16 of 42 ends

• All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452).
• The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible.
• During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment. • During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
IV. Biological Resources
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 11-14 No No No Mitigation Measure BIO#1,
BIO#2, & BIO#3
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Same No No No Same
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same No No No Same

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 17 of 42 ends

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Same No No No Same
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Same No No No None
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 18 of 42 ends

Discussion: The previously evaluated project in the MND included a request for a Section 404 Individual Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit certified by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to allow the fill of various wetlands and waters on the site. The wetland features onsite consisted of several scattered ephemerally wet features and an unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek, flowing from south to north through the far western portion of the site. The wetlands delineation identified a total of 1.95 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters including 1.695 acres of wetlands and 0.258 acres of other waters. The wetlands consist of 0.554 acres of vernal pools, 0.859 acres of seasonal wetlands, 0.143 acres of seasonal wetland swale, and 0.139 acres of seasonal marsh. Other waters include 0.248 acres of intermittent drainage and 0.010 acres of a drainage ditch. The MND required mitigation measure BIO#1 to ensure appropriate permits were obtained from the US Army Corps and a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit. Compliance with the mitigation measure would ensure the proposed discharge complies with all State water quality requirements. Further, the MND required mitigation measure BIO#2 to ensure the project complied with the City’s best management practices for water quality control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP). Both of these mitigation measures were satisfied prior to the start of any grading activities for the site. At this time, the entire sites have been mass graded. All required permits for site development related to biological resources have been obtained and effectuated.

The previous MND surveyed the project site for the presence of eight special-status plant species (i.e., these include Sanford’s arrowhead, bigscale balsamroot, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Ahart’s dwarf rush, Greene’s legenere, dwarf downingia, slender Orcutt grass). The survey results found that no occurrences of the aforementioned species where found on the property.

The previous MND found the site contained potential habitat for several special-status invertebrates, amphibians, and bird species listed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Although none of the special status wildlife species were observed onsite, the loss of vegetation could destroy unobserved nesting habitat for birds. Mitigation Measure BIO#3 requested that pre-construction surveys be completed to confirm the absence of special status wildlife. As previously mentioned, the project site has been previously mass graded and disturbance of the site has occurred. The Project will not result in any new or modified impacts to biological resources. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: Applicable mitigation measures from the MND are below; no new measures are warranted for this Project.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of improvement plans and prior to the filling of any potential wetlands or waters of the US as identified in the wetland delineation, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the US Army Corps (anticipated to be an Individual Permit). Additionally, a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit shall be obtained from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) to ensure the proposed discharge complies with all State water quality requirements. Additionally, a Fish and Game Section 1601 permit shall be obtained for streambed alterations that are regulated by Fish & Game. The project shall implement the mitigation requirements of these permits to ensure no net loss of wetlands/waters of the US.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 19 of 42 ends

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#2: Prior to grading and excavation activities on-site, the developer shall obtain a grading permit to ensure that the project is in compliance with City’s best management practices for water quality control and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#3: A qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction if construction is planned during January to July. If the survey does not identify any special-status birds or raptors species, no further mitigation is required. If nesting is found to be occurring, avoid disturbance of the nest site with a suitable buffer zone. The on-site biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game to determine the size of the nodisturbance buffer (typically between 150 to 200 feet). Additionally, if Swainson’s hawk are found to be using the site in any capacity, off-site mitigation would be required at a ratio deemed suitable by the CDFG.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 20 of 42 ends

V. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 14 ends

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Same No No No None
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Same No No No None Discussion: The MND required a cultural resources survey report be prepared for the project. A cultural resources survey report prepared by ECORP, dated August 2009 was completed with the MND. The report concluded that no cultural resources are known to exist on the project site.

Standard mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR will be applied to reduce impacts to cultural resources, should any be found on-site. The mitigation measure requires that in the event of a discovery of buried archeological or historic deposits, project acitivity in the vicinity to be halted until a qualified archeologist can asses the resources and provide management. This mitigation need not be applied herein, as it is already applicable and required of the Project pursuant to the General Plan EIR. The Project will not result in any new impacts beyond those already discussed and disclosed in the WRSP EIR and MND; therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 21 of 42 ends

VI. Energy – Energy is a new issue area.

Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
Not applicable No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy inefficiency? Same No No No Same Discussion: The MND did not previously analyzed the energy effects of the project. However, based on the existing Industrial land use designation the project was therefore assumed for development with industrial uses in the citywide environmental analyses, such as in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, which updated the City’s General Plan. The project is therefore consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and it is determined it would not result in substantial unplanned demands, nor would it result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy; therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 22 of 42 ends

VII. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Pages 14-16 No No No None
i) Ruptures of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
Same No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Same No No No None
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? Same No No No None
iv) Landslides? Same No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Same No No No None c) Be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Same No No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 23 of 42 ends

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Same No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Same No No No None Discussion: The MND indicated that compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements would be sufficient to avoid impacts related to these issues. This conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Pages 24-26 No No No None
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND did not address climate change or greenhouse gas emissions because the MND determined there were no thresholds of significance against which to measure the impacts of the project and as a result the project was evaluated qualitatively relative to its incremental contribution to the overall issue of global warming. While the MND did not evaluate impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the potential environmental impact of GHG emissions was known or could have been known with reasonable diligence at the time of the adoption of the MND, but no one raised the issue to the City. According to case law, a supplemental or subsequent EIR therefore may not be required here simply because the City is considering changes to a project that was approved based on an MND before CEQA expressly required GHG analysis.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 24 of 42 ends

(See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806-808 [upholds addendum for changes to an approved airport master plan even though the underlying 1997 EIR and 2003 Supplemental EIR did not address GHG impacts]; see also Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 530-532; and Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1318-1320.). It is acknowledged that the project would include sources of greenhouse gas emissions; however, the project also includes mitigating features that are beneficial in terms of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these reasons, this Project would not make a significantly greater contribution to GHG emissions than what was previously evaluated. Thus, based on a body of case law, the MND’s lack of GHG analysis does by itself not preclude adoption of an addendum for the proposed project and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to GHGs.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 25 of 42 ends

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Same No No No
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Same No No No
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Same No No No
g) Expose people or structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Same No No No
Discussion: The MND found that the previously evaluated project has a Light Industrial zoning and the potential for future users to have hazardous materials on-site could occur. However, it is unknown at this time if any hazardous materials will be used or stored on-site. The California Health and Safety Code and local City Ordinances regulate the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials.

The California Health and Safety Codes require a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for those uses that handle specified quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials. Also, businesses that handle toxic or hazardous materials are required to complete a Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP). Furthermore, all business owners must file a site-specific business plan with the City Fire Department before a new building is occupied. All plans would need to specify what materials would be used or stored on-site and what to do in the event of an accident and which transportation routes would be used. With the implementation of the HMMP and business plan requirements, the use of storage of hazardous materials on-site would be reduced to less than significant levels with the appropriate aforementioned implementation HMMP and business plan requirements.

The MND found that during construction activities there is the possibility that potentially hazardous materials might be stored or used at the project site. The developer (during construction) is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City Ordinances regulating the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. The California Health and Safety Codes require a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for those uses that handle specified quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 26 of 42 ends

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area, no airports are located within two miles of the project site, and the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is within an area of the City currently receiving emergency services and the project would not increase the demand for emergency services beyond that identified in the General Plan EIR.

The proposed project use does not significantly change the project’s potential impacts related to hazardous materials, and it will also be subject to the City’s existing regulations and permits that would prevent significant impacts. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 27 of 42 ends

i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site; Same No No No None
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
Same No No No None
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
Same No No No None
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Same No No No None
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Same No No No None
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Same No No No None
f) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
innundation?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND indicated that development of the site would not result in any significant water-related impacts and that existing regulations and permits would ensure that water quality and stormwater impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project has been evaluated by the City to ensure the design continues to meet current adopted stormwater quality design standards. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” as it relates to hydrology and water quality impacts Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 28 of 42 ends

XI. Land Use and Planning
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The MND found that the previously evaluated project was consistent with the policies of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, which are adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects. These conclusions remain applicable to the proposed project. The proposed industrial buildings are consistent with the zoning and land use designations of the site. City staff has determined that the project is consistent with the standards and guidelines outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines, and the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines, including setbacks, landscaping, lighting, and building architecture to fit in with the surrounding community. The project will not divide an existing community and no conflicts with policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect have been identified.

The Project is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts; therefore, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the MND relative to land use. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” relative to land use and planning Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 29 of 42 ends

XII. Mineral Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
Pages 19-20 No No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND indicated that the project site was not known to include any mineral resources that would be of local, regional, or statewide importance. This conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 30 of 42 ends

XIII. Noise
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 20 ends

b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration
of ground borne noise levels? Same No No No None
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 31 of 42 ends

Discussion: The MND addressed construction noise, and found that surrounding uses may experience short-term increases in noise levels.

However, these increases would only occur for a short period of time. When conducted during daytime hours, construction activities are exempt from Noise Ordinance standards, but the standards do apply to construction occurring during nighttime hours. While the noise generated may be a minor nuisance, the City Noise Regulation standards are designed to ensure that impacts are not unduly intrusive. Based on this, the MND found that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains appropriate and applicable to the Project.

The MND found the buildout in the area would result in an increase in the ambient (background) noise level in the project area. In particular, point source noise form vehicular traffic is anticipated to raise the ambient noise level in the area. However, the MND found that the anticipated level of traffic is within the limits anticipated by the General Plan EIR and CIP EIR for build out of the project site. The future users on-site will be required to maintain noise levels in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Based on this, the MND found that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains appropriate and applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

XIV. Population and Housing
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 21 ends

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND concluded that the site development was not housing-related, was consistent with the land use designation and thus would not induce unplanned growth, and would not displace housing. This conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. Therefore, pursuant

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 32 of 42 ends

to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

XV. Public Services
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any the public services:
a) Fire protection? Page 21 No No No None
b) Police protection? Same No No No None
c) Schools? Same No No No None
d) Parks? Same No No No None
e) Other public facilities? Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND indicates that the City’s General Plan examined Citywide service needs based on land use designations, so any project consistent with existing land use designations would not negatively impact services. The proposed project remains consistent with the land use designation of the site, and therefore this conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 33 of 42 ends

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

XVI. Recreation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 22 ends

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND indicates that the City’s General Plan examined the level of park services that would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community. This was based on land use designations, so any project consistent with existing land use designations would not cause any unforeseen or new impacts related to the use of existing or proposed parks and recreational facilities, or related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project remains consistent with the land use designation of the site, and therefore this conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 34 of 42 ends

XVII. Transportation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 22 ends

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Same No No No None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature(s) (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Same No No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 35 of 42 ends

Discussion: The MND determined the previously evaluated project would result in less than significant impact on traffic and transportation.

The project site was anticipated for development and transportation/traffic impacts were analyzed in General Plan EIR and 2020 CIP EIR. The 2020 CIP EIR was prepared for the Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update that reflected changing conditions and ensured an adequate transportation system was in place.

A long-term traffic analysis has been prepared for the project by DKS Associates (dated July 27, 2007) and analyzed the project’s potential level of service impacts at the City’s existing intersections. The results of the study did not identify any significant impacts to the City’s CIP intersections. The traffic analysis was reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and found to be adequate to support the findings.

Further, a short-term traffic analysis was prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Associates (dated August 5, 2008). The short-term analysis looked at transportation impacts as a result of the trip generation created by the project and evaluated turning movements and site and circulation improvements. The analysis also evaluated the improvements to the City’s existing roadways and circulation system that are proposed as part of the project as well as the City proposed improvements adjacent to the project site. The analysis was reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, Engineering Division, taking into account the City of Roseville level of service policies and improvement standards. The analysis determined, and the Engineering Division concurred, that the existing traffic levels of service do not meet City level of service standards and, the proposed project plus development of the adjacent Parcel 49 project, would exasperate traffic conditions.

However, with the proposed improvements, the project would restore traffic operations to better than “no project” levels. The project drive aisle depths and internal circulation were also found to be adequate for the project and do not present a known traffic hazard.

The MND also analyzed the left-hand turn lane at the intersection of the HWY 65 fly-over and the jughandle and found that it presented a vehicular safety issue. The previously approved roadway improvements proposed with the project would improve vehicular safety and circulation in the area would improve with the project and emergency access will not be negatively impacted. However, a Focused Access Evaluation of the project was prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Associates (dated July 27, 2022) (Attachment 2) found that the second driveway along Industrial Avenue would permit all turning movements. The same study also found that the driveway closest to the HWY 64 fly-over would only permit inbound and outbound movements to right-turns only.

Given the foregoing changes introduced by the Project, these changes would not as compared to the MND result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than significant impacts previously disclosed. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” as it relates to transportation impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 36 of 42 ends

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 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) 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)?
No No No
b) 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 Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

No No No

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 37 of 42 ends

Discussion: In addition to archeological resources, tribal cultural resources are also given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographically-defined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. The MND had a cultural resources survey report completed by ECORP, dated August 2009. The report concluded that no cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. While it is anticipated that there will be no impacts to cultural resources, the project will be conditioned to adhere to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures that require, in the event of a discovery of buried archeological or historic deposits, project activity in the vicinity to be halted until a qualified archeologist can asses the resources and provide management. Consistent with the MND, impacts to potential cultural resources are therefore considered to be less than significant and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 38 of 42 ends

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Page 24 ends

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
Same No No No None
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition of the
provider’s existing commitments?
Same No No No None
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?
Same No No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 39 of 42 ends

Discussion: The MND found that the previous project would have a less than significant impact on utilities and services. The proposed project has been analyzed by City and external service and utility providers, and has been found to be consistent with standards, and utilities and service demands are within the scope of the previously analyzed project. Furthermore, Citywide planning of water supply and sewer infrastructure is based on land use, and the Project is consistent with the existing land use designation. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

XX. Wildfire – Wildfire is a new issue area.

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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?
Not applicable No No No None
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?
Same No No No Same
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?
Same No No No Same

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 40 of 42 ends

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?
Same No No No Same
Discussion: The MND did not previously analyzed the wildfire effects of the project. However, the checklist questions a—d above do not apply, because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area. The project receives fire protection from the Roseville Fire Department. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Page 41 of 42 ends

b) Does the project have impacts which 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.)
Same No No No None
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND concluded that long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project and the cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated by the 2020 General Plan EIR. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or negative declaration and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted May 27, 2010), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
[ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

Addendum Prepared by:
____________________________________________
Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services–Planning Division Attachments:

1. NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Fehr and Peers Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center

INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title/File Number: Blue Oaks Commerce Center/2007PL-039 Project Location: 8950 Industrial Ave, Roseville, Placer County Project Description: The applicant requests approval of the following: 1) a Major Project Permit - Stage I for development of 49.4 acres with 17 buildings totaling 575,505 square feet, providing a mix of office, industrial and commercial uses, and grading, parking, landscaping and lighting improvements. The project also includes the removal of the Blue Oaks Bl to Industrial Ave jughandle and the installation of two new roadways that would connect Blue Oaks Bl to Industrial Ave and Washington Bl; and 2) a Tentative Map to subdivide 49.4 acres into eight parcels.

Project Applicant: VLMK Consulting Engineers, 3933 SW Kelly Ave, Portland, OR Property Owner: Harsch Investment Properties, LLC, 1121 SW Salmon St, Portland, OR Lead Agency Contact Person: Gina LaTorra, Associate Planner Phone (916) 774-5276 This initial study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the above described project application. The document relies on previous environmental documents (see Attachments) and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project.

This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

The initial study is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to prepare an EIR, use a previously prepared EIR and supplement that EIR, or prepare a subsequent EIR to analyze the project at hand. If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration shall be prepared. If in the course of analysis, the agency recognizes that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, but that by incorporating specific mitigation measures the impact will be reduced to a less than significant effect, a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.

In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project, the City of Roseville Planning Department has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that with mitigation the impacts are considered to be less than significant. As demonstrated in the initial study checklist, there are no “project specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or site” that cannot be reduced to less than significant effects through mitigation (CEQA Section 15183) and therefore an additional EIR is not required.

Therefore, on the basis of the following initial evaluation, we find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.

Prepared by: Date:

Gina LaTorra, Associate Planner

PLANNING & REDEVELOPMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
ATTACHMENT 1
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 2 of 27 Figure 1 – Site Aerial
SITE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes several entitlements that would allow for future development of an undeveloped 49.4 acre site. The applicant requests approval of the following: 1) a Major Project Permit - Stage I for development of the 49.4 acres with 17 buildings totaling 575,505 square feet, providing a mix of office, industrial and commercial uses, and grading, roadway, parking, landscaping and lighting improvements; and 2) a Tentative Map to subdivide 49.4 acres into eight parcels. The project would include the grading and fill of 1.695 acres of seasonal wetlands regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project also includes the removal of the Blue Oaks Boulevard to Industrial Avenue jughandle and the construction of two new public roadways to connect Blue Oaks Boulevard to Industrial Avenue and Washington Boulevard. Future construction on the site would require additional permits including, but not limited to; a Major Project Permit – Stage II and Stage III, 404 Permit, permits from Caltrans, and Building Permits.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 49.4 acre project site is located at 8950 Industrial Avenue within the North Industrial planning area. The project site extends from Industrial Avenue along the west perimeter to Washington Boulevard along the east perimeter, and is encumbered by the Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to Blue Oaks Boulevard along the north perimeter (see Figure 1).

The project site is in close proximity to HWY 65 to the east. The project site is surrounded by developed commercial, industrial, and residential parcels, with the exception of Parcel 49 to the east. Parcel 49 is anticipated for development with office and commercial uses.

The North Industrial planning area consists of 2,045
gross acres west of Washington Boulevard and
north of the Northwest Roseville Specific Plan area.

The North Industrial planning area is not subject to a
specific plan but is subject to adopted design
guidelines (1992) that influence the general
character of development within the planning area.

The Roseville General Plan identifies the project site
with a General Industrial (IND) land use. The
intended primary uses within the IND land use
include a wide range of manufacturing, wholesale
distribution, large storage areas and other industrial
uses. Identified secondary uses include incidental
retail and service commercial uses associated with
large employment areas. Consistent with the
General Plan, the Roseville Zoning Ordinance
designates the site with a Light Industrial (M1)
zoning. The M1 zoning designation permits a mix of
light industrial uses compatible with commercial and
office uses. The project site was also identified by the Blue Ribbon Corporate Center Committee in 2007 as an ideal location to support a large corporate center development.

The 49.4 acre project site is undeveloped and is comprised of primarily non-native grasslands. A total of 1.95 acres of potential jurisdictional waters are present on-site, including 1.695 acres of wetlands (seasonal wetlands and vernal pools) and 0.258 acres of “other waters”. An approximately 220-foot wide series of power lines bisect a northeast portion of the property at a 45-degree angle from Washington Boulevard to Blue Oaks Boulevard. The northwest portion of the property is bisected by the Blue Oaks Boulevard to Industrial Avenue jughandle. The remainder of the site is undisturbed.

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The City has determined that an Initial Study shall be prepared in order to determine whether the potential exists for significant or potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed project. Relevant analysis from the General Plan EIR, West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) EIR, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) EIR and other project- NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 3 of 27 specific studies and reports that have been generated to date were used as the database for the Initial Study. The decision to prepare the Initial Study utilizing the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, WRSP EIR, CIP EIR and project-specific analysis summarized herein, is sustained by Sections 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15183 states that “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as may be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or site.” Thus, if an impact is not peculiar to the project or site, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

Section 15168 relating to program EIRs indicates that where subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity, to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the earlier program EIR. A program EIR is intended to provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects. It can also be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole.

Regarding the subject project, the General Plan EIR serves as the program-level EIR from which incorporation by reference can occur.

1. GENERAL PLAN EIR
The City’s 2020 General Plan was adopted on February 4, 2004 by Resolution #04-39. The current General Plan contains in large part the same goals, policies, and implementation measures as the previous 2010 General Plan (adopted on November 18, 1992, by Resolution #92-321), for which a formal General Plan EIR was prepared.

However, the current General Plan has been updated to reflect the current level of development in the City and to reflect the 3,100-acre West Roseville Specific Plan annexation that was approved in 2004. Changes between the 2010 General Plan and the current 2020 General Plan were analyzed as part of the West Roseville Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (WRSP EIR) (SCH #2002082057).

Each element of the General Plan (GP) references and provides policies relating to specific plans. The specific plans are viewed as the primary mechanism for implementing the goals and policies of the GP. The plans are consistent with, and incorporated by reference into, the Land Use Element of the GP (page II-59 of the GP). Specific plan land uses are reflected on the GP land use map. The specific plans establish detailed policies and implementation programs for portions of the City, consistent with the goals and policies established in the GP.

The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when they certified the GP EIR, identifying the following impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• flood hazard
• vehicular air emissions (ozone)
• construction air emissions (ozone)
• vehicle noise
• railroad noise
• noise from fixed sources
• conversion of open space outside of infill area
• jobs/housing imbalance
• affordable housing
• increased traffic/degraded LOS
• loss of annual grasslands
• loss of oak trees and oak woodlands
• loss of riparian woodlands
• loss of vernal pools
• loss of intermittent drainages and other seasonal wetland habitat • habitat fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat
• risk of hazardous materials-related emergencies due to rail operations NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 4 of 27 • cumulative air quality, land use, jobs/housing, traffic, biological, cultural, risk of upset, open space, public services and utilities, and water impacts
• growth inducement

2. WEST ROSEVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN
The West Roseville Specific Plan is referenced and utilized in the evaluation of this project as it represents the most recent significant change in land use and allocation of new land use to the City following the adoption of the 1992 General Plan. The project added approximately 3,100 acres to the City’s corporate limits, and included a mixed-use land use plan of commercial, business professional, industrial, park, open space, and school land uses, and included 8,430 new residential dwelling units. As mentioned above, processing of this plan also resulted in an update to the City’s 2010 General Plan.

3. SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ROSEVILLE 2020 TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM UPDATE
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update (2020 CIP EIR) was adopted by the Roseville City Council on June 20, 2007 by Resolution #07- 311. The 2020 CIP EIR updated the City’s Roadway Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) and General Plan to reflect changing conditions and ensure an adequate transportation system, consistent with the City’s General Plan. The 2020 CIP EIR reflects the most current level of development in the City, including the 3,100-acre West Roseville Specific Plan annexation that was approved in 2004.

The EIR identified the following impacts associated with the General Plan land use allocation as significant and unavoidable:

Existing Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased traffic on Sacramento County roadways
• Growth-inducing impacts
2020 Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville’s roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Growth-inducing impacts
2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on state highways
• Increased air emissions
• Loss of biological resources
• Growth-inducing impacts

CITY OF ROSEVILLE MITGATING POLICIES AND STANDARDS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines1 allow the use of previously adopted development policies or standards as mitigation for the environmental effects of future projects, when the standards have been adopted by the City with findings, based on substantial evidence, that the policies or standards will substantially mitigate environmental effects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the effects (§15183[f]). In March 2003, the City of Roseville adopted findings applicable to the following regulations and ordinances, which include standards and policies that are uniformly applied throughout the City, and will substantially mitigate specified environmental effects of future projects. • City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance (RMC Title 19)
• Noise Regulation (RMC Ch.9.24)
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80)
• Traffic Mitigation Fee (RMC Ch.4.44)
• Drainage Fees (Dry Creek [RMC Ch.4.49] and Pleasant Grove Creek [RMC Ch.4.48]) • City of Roseville Improvement Standards (Resolution 02-37)

1 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, §15000-15387.

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 6 of 27 • City of Roseville Construction Standards (Resolution 01-208) • City of Roseville Grading Ordinance (RMC Ch.16.20)
• Tree Preservation Ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66)
• Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Title 18)
• Community Design Guidelines (Resolution 95-347)
• Specific Plan Design Guidelines:
o Development Guidelines Del Webb Specific Plan (Resolution 96-330) o Landscape Design Guidelines for North Central Roseville Specific Plan (Resolution 90-170) o North Roseville Specific Plan and Design Guidelines (Resolution 00-432) o Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (Olympus Pointe) Signage Guidelines (Resolution 89-42) o North Roseville Area Design Guidelines (Resolution 92-226) o Northeast Roseville Specific Plan Landscape Design Guidelines (Resolution 87-31) o Southeast Roseville Specific Plan Landscape Design Guidelines (Resolution 88-51) o Stoneridge Specific Plan and Design Guidelines (Resolution 98-53) o West Roseville Specific Plan (Resolution #04-38)
As demonstrated in the checklist discussions below and the discussion that follows, no project changes resulting in important revisions to the previous EIRs, substantial changes in circumstances or substantially important new information (CEQA Guidelines thresholds per Sections 15162 and 15163) have occurred or become available in any environmental issue area since the time the CIP EIR, GP EIR, and WRSP EIR were certified.

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The initial study checklist recommended by the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is used to determine potential impacts of the proposed project on the physical environment. The checklist provides a list of questions concerning a comprehensive array of environmental issue areas potentially affected by the project. Explanations to answers are provided in a discussion for each section of questions, as follows:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Less Than Significant With Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a lessthan-significant level.

5. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the impact does not require mitigation or result in a substantial or potentially substantial change of any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project.

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 7 of 27

7. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Initial Study Checklist

1. Aesthetics
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

No scenic vistas are identified in the area of the project. The General Plan EIR identified that the conversion of open space to urban development as an unavoidable significant impact for which the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The City of Roseville has adopted Community Design Guidelines (CDG) with the purpose of minimizing the aesthetic impacts of new development projects. The CDG includes guidelines for building design, site design and landscape design, which have the purpose of improving the built environment.

The North Roseville Design Guidelines also contain design guidelines that promote high standards of architectural design and continuity within the North Industrial planning area. The City’s approving authority (Planning Commission) will review the Major Project Permit (MPP) - Stage I & II and Tentative Subdivision Map for conformance with City standards and requirements. The project will not result in any new aesthetic impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Light and glare will increase above the existing condition. Light and glare associated with the proposed project will result from parking lot lighting and exterior building lighting. Additional daytime glare could be caused by reflections from windows on buildings and additional automobile windshields. As part of the MPP – Stage II process, site lighting is reviewed for consistency with the CDG that address aesthetic concerns as well as off-site affects. Existing sources of light and glare exist along the major roadways and HWY 65 and in the project vicinity.

The Blue Oaks Commerce Center development would not differ substantially from that of nearby development and the amount of additional lighting and glare would contribute to the already affected viewshed.

Based on the information presented above, impacts associated with the project upon aesthetics are considered less than significant.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 8 of 27 determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

No agricultural resources are present on the site and the property does not have an agricultural zoning designation. The site is not considered forest land and the project will not result in the loss of forest land.

Therefore, the proposed development would have no impact on agricultural resources.

3. Air Quality

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 9 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria for which
the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

California Clean Air Act Requirements
The City of Roseville, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Air Quality Maintenance Area (SAQMA). Under the California Clean Air Act, Placer County has been designated a “serious non-attainment” area for ozone and a "non-attainment" area for PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for administration of state and federal air quality standards. In 1991, the PCAPCD adopted its first Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The AQAP is required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), and is designed to bring Placer County into compliance with state ozone standards, which are generally more stringent than current federal ambient standards.

Federal Clean Air Act Requirements
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, Placer County is designated as a severe non-attainment area for ozone, and is an attainment area for the federal PM10 standards, and other criteria pollutants. The City of Roseville, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Air Quality Maintenance Area (SAQMA). The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), in conjunction with SAQMA air quality management districts, and the California Air Resources Board, developed the SAQMA portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is required to demonstrate compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The U.S. EPA approved the SIP in 1996, and the SAQMA has since been operating under the SIP control measures.

This project alone does not have a potential to significantly degrade air quality. However, the incremental impacts associated with this project considered cumulatively with the incremental impacts of other projects will degrade air quality. The City has assessed the impacts to air quality of continued development in the City in the General Plan EIR and its cumulative impact analyses. The General Plan EIR found that the significant adverse air quality impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the mitigation measures proposed.

Addressing the unmitigatable cumulative impacts to air quality, the General Plan EIR adopted findings of overriding consideration. However, CEQA requires that reductions in adverse project impacts be made, where it is feasible to do so.

AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES
The PCAPCD and the City of Roseville have coordinated on a list of feasible mitigation measures that may be applied to projects to address air quality impacts. The project applicant has agreed to the following mitigation measures:

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ#1:
1a. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans (whichever occurs first) on project sites greater than five (5) acres, the applicant shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 10 of 27 to the Placer County APCD. The applicant shall provide written evidence, provided by APCD, to the local jurisdiction (city or county) that the plan has been submitted to APCD. If APCD does not respond within twenty (20) days the plan shall be considered approved. It is the responsibility of the applicant to deliver the approved plan to the local jurisdiction. The applicant shall not break ground prior to receiving APCD approval, of the Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan, and delivering that approval to the local jurisdiction issuing the permit. 1b. Include the following standard note on the Grading Plan or Improvement Plans: The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower of greater) that will be used in aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty offroad equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, name, and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman.
1c. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a written calculation to the Placer County APCD for approval by the District demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction as required by CARB. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The following link shall be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the Placer County APCD as described above: http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/ (click on the current “Roadway Construction Emissions Model”).

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ#2: The following APCD rules shall be noted on the Improvement Plans:
• The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulation, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction.
• The contractor shall use CARB ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel–powered equipment.

In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article 4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations). • Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)
• Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction.

In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501) • All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452). • The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
• During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 11 of 27 Short term impacts to air quality can be expected in association with construction activities. These impacts are primarily associated with grading activities and the increased potential for dust and wind driven erosion of soils.

Particulate matter resulting from construction dust will be reduced by implementing standard dust control measures on the job site as part of an erosion control plan. The grading permit and on-site inspection by the Public Works Department will ensure appropriate dust control measures, such as watering are done to reduce short-term air quality impacts. Vehicle exhaust, produced during project construction, could temporarily contribute to the deterioration of ambient air quality. Diesel fuel fumes from construction equipment may be noticeable in the vicinity of the site; however, this is a short-term effect. All equipment must comply with the mitigation measures and with California emissions standards.

This project remains consistent with the development scenarios modeled for the General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (IND) and the findings and statement of overriding considerations adopted by the City for the General Plan. Future industrial uses that locate onsite will be required to comply with the PCAPCD requirements and may need to obtain permits prior to occupancy. Industrial users may need to install air quality devices such as exhaust systems. Permitting with the PCAPCD will ensure that operation emissions are regulated. Therefore, with the air quality mitigation measures incorporated into the project the air quality impacts of this project would be less than significant.

There are no sensitive receptors located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The multi-family residential development southeast of the project on Washington Boulevard comprises of the nearest sensitive receptor.

Construction and operation of the project will increase emissions on the site, but not substantially; implementation of mitigation measures AQ#1 and AQ#2 will reduce project emissions to less than significant levels. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors would therefore be less than significant.

The project does not include components with the potential to create significant objectionable odors. No impact associated with odor would result from the project.

4. Biological Resources

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 12 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The project site is undeveloped and several potential biological resources have been identified on-site including potential wetlands, drainage channels, and grasslands. The applicant proposes to disturb 1.95 acres of wetlands, as such; a Section 404 Individual Permit Application was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

Pursuant to Section 7 of Federal Endangered Species Act, surveys were conducted to confirm the absence of special status species, specifically vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. The 404 permit application included a wetland delineation and biological resources assessment. Based on the information contained within the application and within the City’s General Plan EIR, the potential impacts and mitigation measures are as follows;
Special Status Species:

The project site is not located within an area designated as Critical Habitat for the special status species vernal pool fairy shrimp, however, the wetland types found onsite could potentially represent habitat for the endangered species. The USFWS confirmed that the service guideline-level wet season surveys completed during the 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007 seasons were preformed adequately and the conditions on the site were appropriate to demonstrate the absence of special status species on the project site. Potential impacts to special status species is therefore considered less than significant.

Wetlands:

The Roseville General Plan includes policies related to wetlands preservation. They are: 1) avoid the wetlands if feasible; 2) reconstruct wetlands on-site; or 3) provide mitigation for the wetlands off-site at a replacement ratio of 1 to

1. Even with these policies, the General Plan EIR determined that development within the City would result in the loss of wetlands, and that the loss of wetlands was a significant and unavoidable impact. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted.

Wetland features onsite consist of several scattered ephemerally wet features and an unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek, flowing from south to north through the far western portion of the site. The wetlands delineation identified a total of 1.95 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters including 1.695 acres of wetlands and 0.258 acres of other waters. The wetlands consist of 0.554 acres of vernal pools, 0.859 acres of seasonal wetlands, 0.143 acres of seasonal wetland swale, and 0.139 acres of seasonal marsh. Other waters include 0.248 acres of intermittent drainage and 0.010 acres of a drainage ditch. The project would permanently fill the above listed onsite wetlands and waters. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, construction activities are subject to approval of the Corps. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps permit will need to be certified by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 13 of 27 (CVRWQCB). Proper permitting as required by Mitigation Measure BIO#1 and BIO#2 will ensure that the potential impacts to wetlands are less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will reduce the wetlands impacts to a less than significant level:

Special Status Plants:

The majority of the site consists of both native and non-native grassland habitat. The General Plan EIR identifies the loss of annual grassland and habitat fragmentation as significant unavoidable impacts. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City Council for these impacts.

Based on the conditions found onsite, the property was surveyed for the presence of eight special-status plant species. These include Sanford’s arrowhead, big-scale balsamroot, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Ahart’s dwarf rush, Greene’s legenere, dwarf downingia, slender Orcutt grass and Sacramento Orcutt grass. No occurrences of these species where observed on the property. The USFWS determined that the survey was done adequately to demonstrate absence of these species. Therefore potential impacts to special status plants are considered less than significant.

Special Status Wildlife:

Several special-status wildlife species are known to occur or potentially occur within the jurisdictional area of the General Plan EIR, which includes the project site. The site contains potential habitat for several special-status invertebrates, amphibians, and bird species listed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Although none of the special status wildlife species were observed onsite, the loss of vegetation could destroy unobserved nesting habitat for birds. Therefore, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to confirm the absence of special status wildlife. With mitigation measure BIO#3 the impact to these species is considered less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will reduce the special-status wildlife impacts to a less than significant level:

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#3: A qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction if construction is planned during January to July. If the survey does not identify any special-status birds or raptors species, no further mitigation is required. If nesting is found to be occurring, avoid disturbance of the nest site with a suitable buffer zone. The on-site biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game to determine the size of the no-disturbance buffer (typically between 150 to 200 feet).

Additionally, if Swainson’s hawk are found to be using the site in any capacity, off-site mitigation would be required at a ratio deemed suitable by the CDFG.

There are no native oak trees onsite and the project will not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, therefore impacts to native oaks are considered less than significant.

5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historic resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

A cultural resources survey report was prepared for the project by ECORP, dated August 2009. The report concluded that no cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. While it is anticipated that there will be no impacts to cultural resources, the project will be conditioned to adhere to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures that require, in the event of a discovery of buried archeological or historic deposits, project activity in the vicinity to be halted until a qualified archeologist can asses the resources and provide management. Impacts to potential cultural resources are therefore considered to be less than significant.

6. Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 15 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located in a geological unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

a. The project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides.
i-iii) The project site is located in Roseville which is in Placer County. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies the South Placer area as a low severity earthquake zone. No active faults are known to exist within the County. The project site is considered to have low seismic risk with respect to faulting, ground shaking, seismically related ground failure and liquefaction. The risk associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault or seismic related ground failure to new structures is low and therefore the impact is less than significant.
iv) Landslides typically occur where soils on steep slopes become saturated or where natural or manmade conditions have taken away supporting structures and vegetation. The existing and proposed slopes are not steep enough to present a hazard during development or upon completion of the project. In addition, during construction, measures would be incorporated to shore slopes and prevent potential earth movement. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides are considered less than significant.
b. Grading activities will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction and over covering of soils associated with site preparation (grading and trenching for utilities). Grading activities for the project will be limited to the project site.

Grading activities require a grading permit from the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department.

The grading permit will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s Improvement Standards, including the provision of proper drainage, appropriate dust control and erosion control measures. Grading and erosion control measures will be incorporated into the required grading plans. c-d. The project site is not located in a sensitive geologic area and does not expose people to potential geologic impacts. Additionally, the Roseville General Plan finds such impacts to be less than significant since new buildings and structures are required to comply with all applicable building codes. A soil report is required with the submittal of the improvement plans. The City of Roseville Building Department will review construction plans before a building permit is issued and the Engineering Division will review and approve NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 16 of 27 all rough grading plans to ensure that all grading and structures would withstand shrink-swell potentials and earthquake activity in this area.
e. A General Plan Policy requires that new development connect to the City’s sanity sewer system. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department has reviewed the project and determined that City’s sanity sewer system can accommodate the project. No septic tanks will be permitted as part of the project. Therefore, no impact to soils relative to supporting use of septic tanks would occur.

Impacts to the geology and soils on site are considered to be less than significant.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
X
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 17 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The California Health and Safety Code and local City Ordinances regulate the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. The California Health and Safety Codes require a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for those uses that handle specified quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials. Also, businesses that handle toxic or hazardous materials are required to complete a Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP). Furthermore, all business owners must file a site-specific business plan with the City Fire Department before a new building is occupied. All plans would need to specify what materials would be used or stored on-site and what to do in the event of an accident and which transportation routes would be used. The property has a Light Industrial zoning so there is the potential for future users to have hazardous materials on-site. It is however not known at this time if any hazardous materials will be used or stored on-site. Any potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the HMMP and business plan requirements.

During construction activities, there is the possibility that potentially hazardous materials might be stored or used at the project site. The developer (during construction) is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City Ordinances regulating the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. The California Health and Safety Codes require a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for those uses that handle specified quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials.

The project is not located within an airport land use plan area, no airports are located within two miles of the project site, and the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

This project is located within an area currently receiving City emergency services. Fire Station 8 is located less than 0.3 miles from the property and would be able to serve the site within the City’s standard response time. The project will not increase the demand for emergency services beyond that identified in the General Plan EIR, and therefore will have a less than significant impact to the City's Emergency Response or Management Plans.

8. Hydrology and Water Quality

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
X

c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
X
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 18 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding onor off-site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted water?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Development of the site will not result in any significant water-related impacts. Construction of the proposed project and over covering of the site with paving will have a minor effect on the absorption rate of water on-site; however, the project will include a drainage system designed in accordance with the City’s improvement standards which will adequately handle on-site drainage associated with the development of the property. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the developer shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City, as defined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, to ensure that the project will not result in the release of materials that will affect water quality.

A grading permit, with associated mitigation measures for dust control, will be required before construction starts.

There may be minor amounts of wind and/or water erosion associated with construction of the facility. Standard erosion control measures will be required during construction. Additionally, measures to protect water quality will be taken as determined by the Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan required by DTSC prior to any grading or construction on site.

No groundwater withdrawal is proposed. The proposed project will have no effect on groundwater supplies.

Seiches and tsunamis are seismically induced large waves of water. Because there are no large bodies of water nearby, the threat of seiche and tsunami is non-existent. Similarly, mudflows are not a concern in Placer County.

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 19 of 27 Therefore, based on the soil types found in Placer County, the proposed project would have no impact relative to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.

Based on the information provided above, impacts regarding hydrology and water quality are considered less than significant.

9. Land Use and Planning

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The General Plan land use designation is General Industrial (IND); the zone district designation is General Industrial (M2). The development will include 13 light industrial buildings, two (2) office buildings, and two retail/commercial buildings totaling 575,505 square feet, and associated landscaping and parking which is consistent with the existing zoning designation. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans covering the project site. The land use and planning impacts that would occur in association with the proposed project are consistent with the General Plan EIR, WRSP EIR and CIP EIR and are less than significant.

10. Mineral Resources

Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the
state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X

The project site is not known to include any mineral resources that would be of local, regional, or statewide importance, therefore, the project is not considered to have any impacts on mineral resources.

11. Noise

Would the project result in:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?

X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?

X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Short term impacts such as construction activities could expose nearby tenants/landowners to increased noise levels. These impacts would be temporary and are considered less then significant since noise levels and construction hours are limited by the City’s Municipal Code to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday, Sunday and holidays).

Buildout in the area will result in an increase in the ambient (background) noise level in the project area. In particular, point source noise from vehicular traffic is anticipated to raise the ambient noise level in the area. However, the anticipated level of traffic is within the limits anticipated by the General Plan EIR and CIP EIR for build out of the site.

Future uses on-site will be required to maintain noise levels in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. As a result, the long term impacts related to noise generation are considered less than significant.

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 21 of 27

12. Population and Housing
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The proposal is not a housing-related project, does not induce growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR and does not displace any existing housing. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on population or housing.

13. Public Services

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Other public facilities? X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The General Plan EIR identifies and adopts mitigation for impacts to public services, including police and fire protection, wastewater services, and solid waste disposal. The proposed project will not increase the need for public services and utilities beyond that identified in the General Plan EIR. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary.

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 22 of 27

14. Recreation
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The proposed project will not generate new jobs that could increase park usage in the area of the project.

However adequate facilitates are located within the plan area and the project does not require and additional facilities. Therefore, the project will not impact the existing and planned park facilities.

15. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads and highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
X
NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 23 of 27 d) Substantially increase hazards due to
design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities.

X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

A short-term traffic analysis was prepared for the project by Fehr & Pers Transportation Associates (dated August 5, 2008). The short-term analysis looked at transportation impacts as a result of the trip generation created by the project and evaluated turning movements and site and circulation improvements. The analysis also evaluated the improvements to the City’s existing roadways and circulation system that are proposed as part of the project as well as the City proposed improvements adjacent to the project site. Improvements include; 1) the removal of the Blue Oaks Bl. to Industrial Ave. jughandle, 2) the installation of two new roadways to connect Blue Oaks Bl to Industrial Ave. and Washington Bl, 3) left-turn access into the project site from the westbound Hwy 65 fly-over, 4) construction of third eastbound travel lane/right-turn lane on Blue Oaks Bl., 5) construction of a left turn lane on Blue Oak Bl. into the project site, 6) reconfiguration of Washington Bl. to allow deceleration lanes into the project site, 7) deceleration lanes into the project on Industrial Ave., 8) the addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of “Road A” and Washington Bl., 9) continuation of bicycle lanes on Blue Oaks and Washington Bl’s., 10) installation of sidewalks along all roadways within and fronting the project site, and 11) the addition of bus shelters within the project. The analysis was reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, Engineering Division, taking into account the City of Roseville level of service policies and improvement standards. The analysis determined, and the Engineering Division concurred, that the existing traffic levels of service do not meet City level of service standards and, the proposed project plus development of the adjacent Parcel 49 project, would exasperate traffic conditions. However, with the proposed improvements, the project would restore traffic operations to better than “no project” levels. The project drive aisle depths and internal circulation were also found to be adequate for the project and do not present a know traffic hazard.

The left-hand turn lane at the intersection of the HWY 65 fly-over and the jughandle currently presents a vehicular safety issue. The roadway improvements proposed with the project will improve vehicular safety. Circulation in the area will improve with the project and emergency access will not be negatively impacted.

The Alternative Transportation division has also reviewed the project to ensure that it will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project is conditioned to provide a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan. The intent is to reduce vehicle trips and reduce peak hour traffic generated from the project. The installation of sidewalks, continuation of bicycle lanes and installation of bus shelters along the existing bus route will encourage alternative transportation methods, which have the potential to further reduce the amount of vehicle trips generated from the project. That applicant must show alternative commute options are encouraged as part of the TSM plan. The City’s Alternative Transportation Division will review and approve the plan prior to building permit approval of the project.

The project will have a less than significant impact on traffic and transportation.

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 24 of 27

16. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
X
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
of the provider's existing
commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
X

Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Roseville. The developer will be responsible for extending new lines onto the site in order to serve the project. Storm water will be collected on-site and transferred via pipe into an off-site storm drain system. Solid waste will be collected by the City of Roseville’s Refuse Department. The City of Roseville will provide electric service to the site, while natural gas will be provided by PG&E. Comcast will provide cable. Adequate services are available to the project, therefore, impacts to utilities are considered to be less than significant.

17. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 25 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
Background

Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth, which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. It is exacerbated by greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere (thus the “greenhouse” effect). Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and are emitted by natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature, and is natural and desirable, as without it the Earth’s surface would be about 61 degrees cooler. 2

Scientific evidence suggests that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle emissions, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, and are increasing the rate and magnitude of climate change to a degree that could present hazardous conditions. Potential adverse effects of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels, changes to ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. 3

The potential for climate change impacts at specific locations remains uncertain, and to assign specific impacts to the project site would be speculative. Some conclusions can be drawn about the potential in general for the project area to be subject to increased likelihood of flooding, drought, and susceptibility to the increased potential for infectious diseases as cited above. An individual project, even a very large project, does not in itself generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Global climate change is a cumulative process. A project contributes to this potential impact through its cumulative incremental contribution combined with the emissions of all other sources of greenhouse gases.

Legislation
In 2006, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 32, which acknowledged global climate change and charged the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with developing regulations to address global climate change. CARB is mandated to achieve feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases by 2020, and to approve an implementation plan no later than January 1, 2009. On December 12, 2008, the CARB adopted a Scoping Plan that provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CARB is currently working to implement the measures outlined in the plan.

There are currently no established thresholds for measuring the significance of a project’s cumulative contribution to global climate change. How ever, individual projects can contribute to greenhouse gas emission reductions by incorporating features that reduce vehicle emissions, and maximize energy- efficiency. The City has existing programs in place that reduce and minimize greenhouse gas emissions:

• City Adopted National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency (2006)
• Solar Electric (PV) Incentive
Programs

2 “Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Comment Draft”. March 5, 2007. 3 Division 25.5 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Part 1. General Provisions. Section 38501 (a).

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 26 of 27 • Joined California Climate Action Registry
(2006)
• Asphalt Recycling
• City adopted “ Smart Choices for Roseville’s
Future: Implementation Strategies to
Achieve Blueprint Project Objectives (June
2005)
• Residential Energy Efficiency
Programs
• City has installed solar electric generation
(PV) on several City Facilities.
• Energy Efficiency Programs for Low
Income Residents
• City’s Civic Center and Roseville Electric
buildings w ith clean, renew able pow er by
purchasing 100% of their energy use from
Green Roseville.
• Commercial Energy Efficiency
Programs
• 20% renew able pow er resources in Roseville
Electric’s pow er portfolio.
• Tree Mitigation Ordinance
• Shade Tree Program • Parking Lot Shade Tree Ordinance • Roseville Electric goal to reduce energy
requirements by 5% by 2012
• Recycling Drop-Offs throughout City
• Alternatively Fueled City Vehicles • Summer Youth Bus Pass • Electric Vehicle Charging Stations • Bicycle Incentive Programs • City Traffic Signal Head Retrofit from
traditional incandescent to LED
• ITS (Intelligent Transportation
System) for traffic management
• City facilities retrofitted with a HVAC
efficiency management program
• Alternatives to Paper at the Library
Since there are no thresholds of significance against which to measure the impacts of the project, the project has been evaluated qualitatively relative to its incremental contribution to the overall issue of global warming. The magnitude of global warming is such that the contributions of the proposed project itself are negligible. It is acknowledged that the project would include sources of greenhouse gas emissions; however, the project also includes mitigating features that are beneficial in terms of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. The potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions are therefore considered less than significant.

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Does the project have the
potential to 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
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
X

NIPA Blue Oaks Commerce Center – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration _________________________________________________________________________April 2010 – Page 27 of 27 Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
community, 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
which 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).

X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. The cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated by the 2020 General Plan EIR. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings.

Attachments:

Attachment 1: Blue Oaks Commerce Center project plans
Attachment 2: Reference Documents
1013 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 255 Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 773-1900 Fax (916) 773-2015 www.fehrandpeers.com

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: July 26, 2022
To: Jack Varozza, PE, City of Roseville
From: John Gard, PE, RSP1, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center RS22-4207
This memorandum presents the data collection, analysis, and recommendations of our focused access review of Blue Oaks Commerce Center (BOCC), which is situated south of Blue Oaks Boulevard and east of Industrial Avenue in the City of Roseville (refer to Figure 1 for project location). Our review specifically focuses on two driveways planned on Industrial Avenue that would serve the project’s industrial uses. The remainder of this memorandum is organized into the following sections:

I. Existing Conditions
II. Project Travel Characteristics
III. Project Access Review
IV. Recommendations
I. Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
The following roadways would provide direct vehicular access to the BOCC:

Industrial Avenue – is a two-lane north-south collector street that begins at Washington Boulevard and extends northerly through Roseville into unincorporated Placer County. Along the project frontage, it has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). The travel lanes are divided by either left-turn pockets or a paved median. Industrial Avenue parallels SR 65 between Roseville and Lincoln and is a time-competitive alternate route when SR 65 becomes congested.

Freedom Way – is a two-lane east-west street that begins at Industrial Avenue and terminates at Washington Boulevard. Along the project frontage, it has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and two undivided 16-foot wide travel lanes.

Fidelity Way – is a two-lane north-south street that begins at Blue Oaks Boulevard and terminates at Freedom Way. Along the project frontage, it has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and two undivided 16-foot wide travel lanes. Movements at the Blue Oaks Boulevard/Fidelity Way intersection are controlled by a traffic signal, though northbound left-turns are prohibited.

ATTACHMENT 2
Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 2 ends

Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way Intersection
This T-intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The southbound left-turn movement operates with a flashing yellow arrow, which requires motorists to yield to oncoming traffic (see Image 1). If southbound motorists are required to wait in the left-turn lane for an extended period of time (while waiting to find a gap in northbound traffic), the flashing yellow arrow changes into a solid green arrow, converting the southbound left-turn from a permitted to protected movement.

Image 1: Flashing yellow arrow for southbound left-turn lane on Industrial Avenue Truck Routes
Within the City of Roseville, there are two types of truck routes: Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) routes and local routes. STAA routes allow large trucks to operate on the interstate freeway system and certain primary routes. These trucks, referred to as STAA trucks, are longer than California legal trucks. On surface streets, STAA routes are designated either as Terminal or Service Access routes.

Terminal routes are approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the roadway to enable the truck to reach its ultimate destination. Service Access routes allow STAA trucks to exit the interstate onto a local road, for one mile only, for food, fuel, lodging, or repair.

According to the City of Roseville website1
, STAA Terminal routes exist on Industrial Avenue along its entire length within the City. An STAA Terminal route also exists on the entirety of Fidelity Way. A

1 11X17 (civiclive.com)
Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 3 ends

California legal truck route exists on the entirety of Freedom Way. Thus, a variety of established truck routes are located in the immediate proximity of the project site. Based on June 2022 traffic counts (described in detail below), trucks constitute about 8% of AM peak hour traffic and 3% of PM peak hour traffic at this intersection.

Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes on Industrial Avenue and Freedom Way were collected from the City’s ITS traffic count database for Tuesday – Thursday, May 10-12, 2022. Schools were in session at the time of the counts.

The average daily traffic across the three weekdays was 11,200 vehicles on Industrial Avenue north of Freedom Way and 8,100 vehicles south of Freedom Way. Freedom Way east of Industrial Avenue carried 4,800 daily vehicles.

Traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak periods at the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way intersection were also obtained from the City’s ITS traffic count database for the same three days in May 2022. The busiest hour of travel during the morning occurred from 7:45 to 8:45 AM. The busiest hour of travel during the evening occurred from 4 to 5 PM. Figure 2 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes (averaged for the three days), lane configurations, and traffic control at this intersection.

The City’s ITS count database does not provide data regarding vehicle queue lengths. Accordingly, Fehr & Peers retained NDS to conduct traffic volume and maximum queue length counts on several different weekdays in June and July 2022. The first count was conducted on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 and yielded an unexpectedly high southbound left-turn volume of 458 vehicles from 4-5 PM.2 Because of this anomaly, a second set of observations was conducted from 4-5 PM on Thursday, July 7, 2022.

One last observation was made on Monday, July 11, 2022. Table 1 shows the results of these data collection efforts.

2 The City’s ITS count database was queried and showed a near identical southbound left-turn volume as the traffic count, indicating the observation was not erroneous. The ITS count database showed that midweek volumes tend to be in range of 180 to 240 vehicles per hour. The anomaly on this particular day could have been caused by any number of atypical conditions such as severe SR 65 congestion resulting in diverted traffic to Industrial Avenue, construction activity, special events, or other effects.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 4 ends

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022, a maximum queue of five vehicles was observed during the PM peak hour. One incidence of this queue is shown in Image 2 based on the camera placed at the intersection by NDS. During the observation period on Monday, July 11, 2022, a maximum queue of five vehicles was also observed as shown in Image 3.

TABLE 1

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND MAXIMUM QUEUES AT INDUSTRIAL AVENUE/FREEDOM WAY 15-Minute Time Period
Starting at:

Southbound Left-Turn Northbound Through/Right
Volume Maximum Queue Volume
Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1
7:00 AM 13 1 43
7:15 AM 9 1 58
7:30 AM 12 1 72
7:45 AM 14 1 88
8:00 AM 23 2 67
8:15 AM 10 1 61
8:30 AM 29 2 59
8:45 AM 30 1 58
4:00 PM 132 4 49
4:15 PM 125 4 57
4:30 PM 134 5 58
4:45 PM 67 4 62
5:00 PM 76 5 46
5:15 PM 40 2 88
5:30 PM 54 1 50
5:45 PM 21 2 39
Thursday, July 7, 2022 2
4:00 PM 38 5 71
4:15 PM 43 4 59
4:30 PM 41 9 89
4:45 PM 57 10 74
Monday, July 11, 2022 3
4:45 PM 42 5 63
Notes:
1 Traffic and queuing observations conducted by NDS.
2 Traffic volumes from City’s ITS count database. Queuing observations conducted by NDS. 3 Traffic volumes from City’s ITS count database. Queuing observations conducted by Fehr & Peers.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 5 ends

Image 2: Maximum queue of 5 vehicles in southbound left-turn lane during PM peak hour on Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Image 3: Maximum queue of 5 vehicles in southbound left-turn lane during PM peak hour on Monday, July 11, 2022 (note that the protected green arrow had been activated) Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 6 ends

Neither video nor photography were available for the count on Thursday, July 7, 2022. NDS staff confirmed the accuracy of this data with the technician who performed the observations.

It is apparent from field observations, review of video collected on June 29, 2022, and the observed maximum queues themselves that many factors (beyond simply the left-turn volume) affect the number of vehicles queued in the southbound left-turn lane. Following is a list of those factors:

1. Level of northbound through/right traffic – these vehicles have the right-of-way and prevent southbound left-turns from occurring.

2. Random versus platooned arrivals on southbound Industrial Avenue – in some instances, vehicles arrived in large platoons (caused by a slow traveling lead vehicle). This quickly filled up the left-turn lane.

3. Driver uncertainty – some motorists appeared unfamiliar with the flashing yellow indication, waiting in the turn lane despite no approaching northbound traffic.

In summary, with respect to vehicle queues in the southbound left-turn lane, maximum queues of 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour are typical, though longer queues can develop under certain conditions (as was evidenced on July 7th). Additionally, since Industrial Avenue and Freedom Way are truck routes, trucks comprise a portion of the left-turn demand. As shown in Image 2, the maximum queue on June 29th included a truck, thereby resulting in a queue that was about 175 feet long.3

Collision History
City of Roseville staff provided data from its collision database for the segment of Industrial Avenue between the Blue Oaks Boulevard overcrossing and Galilee Road for the four-year period from June 2018 to June 2022. Table 2 shows the results. Note that the southbound left-turn flashing yellow arrow had been installed prior to 2018.

This table shows 9 total collisions at the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way intersection over the fouryear period. Injuries were reported for 7 of the 9 collisions, but no fatalities occurred. The majority (6 of 9) were multi-vehicle broadside collisions involving southbound left-turn and northbound through motorists. No collisions involved bicyclists or pedestrians. Additionally, no collisions were reported along Industrial Avenue immediately north or south of the intersection.

3 Note that the 5th vehicle in the queue was positioned north of the terminus of the northbound Class II bike lane. The rear bumper of that vehicle was positioned about 180 feet north of the southbound leftturn stop bar, meaning that queued vehicles occupied an average of 36 feet of turn lane space. This is due to the truck that was present and the nature of the permissive left-turn, which tends to result in more of a “rolling queue” versus a stationary queue.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 7 ends

TABLE 2: COLLISION HISTORY IN PROJECT VICINITY
Date Location Collision
Type
Primary Collision
Factor Violation
MultiVehicle
Collision?
Injury
Collision?
Fatal
Collision?
Bicycle or
Pedestrian
Involved?
8/27/2018 Industrial Ave/
Freedom Way Rear-End Unsafe Speed Yes No No No
12/11/2018 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Broadside Other Hazardous Movement Yes 1 No No No 1/10/2019 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Broadside Improper Turning Yes Yes No No 1/11/2019 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Head-On Auto R/W Violation Yes 1 Yes No No 1/28/2019 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Head-On Auto R/W Violation Yes 1 Yes No No 5/18/2019 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Broadside Auto R/W Violation Yes 1 Yes No No 8/1/2020 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Hit Object Improper Turning No Yes No No 10/13/2020 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Broadside Auto R/W Violation Yes 1 Yes No No 2/10/2021 Industrial
Ave/Freedom Way Broadside Auto R/W Violation Yes 1 Yes No No Notes:

1. Involved a collision between a southbound left-turning vehicle and northbound through vehicle.

Source: City of Roseville collision database, June 2018 – June 2022.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 8 ends

II. Project Travel Characteristics
Project Land Uses and Access
The portion of the BOCC under study is shown on Figure 3. As shown, this portion of BOCC is situated east of Industrial Avenue on both sides of Freedom Way. According to the site plan (source: Blue Oaks Commerce Center, VLMK Engineering+Design, March 2022), the following land uses are planned on each parcel:
• North Parcel – two industrial buildings with a total of 119,000 square feet of floor space. • South Parcel – two industrial buildings with a total of 189,280 square feet of floor space.

In total, the two parcels would comprise 308,280 square feet of industrial space.

A total of 7 driveways would serve the two parcels. Driveways 1 and 2 would be situated along Industrial Avenue, driveways 3 through 6 would be situated on Freedom Way (directly opposite each other), and driveway 7 would be situated on Fidelity Way. This study analyzes what turning movements should be allowed at Driveways 1 and 2. For analysis purposes, both driveways are assumed to permit all turning movements so as to understand travel demands, queuing, etc. under this condition.

Driveways 1 and 2 are described in more detail below:
• Driveway 1 on Industrial Avenue – has already been constructed with curb returns and driveway apron in place. It is situated 215 feet north of Freedom Way.4 The driveway would be 40 feet wide, consist of a 100-foot throat depth, and have curb return radii of 20 feet. A northbound 120-foot right-turn deceleration lane is present. The southbound left-turn at the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way intersection is 260 feet in length and extends beyond this driveway. • Driveway 2 on Industrial Avenue – has already been constructed with curb returns and driveway apron in place. It is situated 275 feet south of Freedom Way and 340 feet north of the driveway serving 8880 Industrial Avenue.
5 The driveway would be 40 feet wide, consist of a 100-foot throat depth, and have curb return radii of 20 feet. The driveway is situated along a section of Industrial Avenue that has a continuous 650-foot northbound acceleration/deceleration lane that becomes a right-turn lane at Freedom Way. The median of Industrial Avenue is paved with a width of 12 feet in the driveway vicinity.

The following page shows photos of each driveway.

4 Referenced from the near curb return of the adjacent intersection to the centerline of the driveway. 5 Referenced from the centerline of each driveway.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 9 ends

Image 4: View looking southbound on Industrial Avenue at Driveway 1 entrance Image 5: View looking northbound on Industrial Avenue toward Driveway 2 Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 10 ends

Trip Generation
The “Industrial Park” (Land Use Code 130) category from the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (ITE 2021) was chosen to estimate the project’s trip generation and is defined as follows:

An industrial park contains several individual industrial or related facilities. It is characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a wide variation in the proportion of each type of use from one location to another. Many industrial parks contain highly diversified facilities. Some parks in the database have a large number of small businesses and others have one or two dominant industries.

Table 3 shows the project’s estimated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation. As shown, the North and South parcels would generate a combined 104 trips during each of the AM and PM peak hours. Trips during these two periods would be highly directional, with about 80% being inbound in the AM peak hour and outbound during the PM peak hour.

Data from the Trip Generation Manual also provides insights into the relative amount of passenger vehicle versus truck traffic at industrial parks. ITE data includes truck trip rate data and total trip rate data for three specific sites. Key findings from this data were:
• During the AM peak hour, trucks ranged from 11 to 13 percent of total trips at the three sites, for an average of 12 percent trucks.
• During the PM peak hour, trucks ranged from 4 to 12 percent of total trips at the three sites, for an average of 8 percent trucks.

This suggests that about 10 trucks are expected to enter/exit the two parcels during each peak hour.

TABLE 3

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use ITE
Code Quantity
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Trip
Rate 1
Vehicle Trips Trip
Rate 1
Vehicle Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Industrial Park
(North Parcel) 130 119 KSF 0.34 32 8 40 0.34 8 32 40
Industrial Park
(South Parcel) 130 189.28 KSF 0.34 52 12 64 0.34 14 50 64 Total - 84 20 104 - 22 82 104
Notes:
1 Trip rates from the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 11 ends

Trip Distribution
Table 4 displays the project’s estimated trip distribution. As shown, separate distribution percentages were derived for passenger vehicles (i.e., primarily employee trips) versus trucks. Whereas passenger vehicles are expected to be generally oriented in proportion to the location of residences, truck trip distribution is more aligned with truck routes and key destinations.

As shown, an estimated 15% of project trips would be distributed to/from the north on Industrial Avenue. Industrial Avenue is expected to be utilized by 20% of outbound project trips to travel westbound on Blue Oaks Boulevard (via Alantown Drive) toward Foothills Boulevard.

Trip Assignment
It is unlikely that project trips distributed to/from the east (i.e., on SR 65 or Washington Boulevard) would use project driveways situated on Industrial Avenue given the proximity and convenience of other more easterly driveways.

Conversely, it is also possible that some trips destined for Industrial Avenue will choose to use driveways on Fidelity Way or Freedom Way, which carry considerably less traffic compared to Industrial Avenue. The traffic assignments that follow consider these behaviors.

Figure 4 shows the existing plus project volumes at the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way intersection and Driveways 1 and 2 on Industrial Avenue. As shown, Driveways 1 and 2 would each carry 15 or fewer vehicles per hour. The project would cause very modest changes in traffic volumes at the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way intersection.

TABLE 4

PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip Distribution Passenger Vehicles Trucks Weighted 1
Blue Oaks Blvd toward SR 65 (East) 50% 60% 51%
Blue Oaks Blvd toward Foothills Blvd (West) 20% 15% 20% Industrial Avenue toward Sunset Blvd (North) 15% 15% 15% Industrial Avenue toward Washington Blvd (South) 5% 5% 5% Freedom Way toward Washington Blvd (South) 10% 5% 10%
Total 101% 2
Notes:
1 Weighting is 90% passenger vehicles and 10% trucks (see previous page). 2 Sum exceeds 100% due to rounding.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 12 ends

III. Project Access Review
The project access review focuses on the following project driveway aspects:

1. Sight distance analysis for southbound left-turn at Driveway 1

2. Maximum queue lengths at Driveways 1 and 2

3. Conflict points in southbound left-turn lane on Industrial Avenue at Driveway 1 Sight Distance Analysis for Southbound Left-Turn at Driveway 1 Motorists desiring to turn left into Driveway 1 could encounter sight distance limitations due to southbound queued vehicles in the Industrial Avenue/Freedom Way southbound left-turn lane. Since Industrial Avenue is posted with a 45 mph speed limit, a design speed of 50 mph was selected for the analysis. Figure 5 shows that under conditions present in Image 5 (i.e., queue of 5 vehicles including one truck), a southbound left-turning vehicle at Driveway 1 would have 375 feet of available sight distance. This is less than the 440 feet required (refer to Figure 5 for calculation details). Thus, insufficient sight distance would be provided for the southbound left-turn into Driveway 1.

Maximum Queue Lengths at Driveways 1 and 2
The modest volumes (15 vehicles per hour or less) turning into and out of Driveways 1 and 2 suggest that maximum queues would typically be one or two vehicles. Both driveways would have throat depths of 100 feet, which is sufficient for either four passenger vehicles, or one truck and one passenger vehicle.

It is possible to stripe a 175-foot southbound left-turn lane in the Industrial Avenue median serving Driveway 2. This would provide adequate stacking for vehicles turning into this driveway.

Conflict Points in Southbound Left-Turn at Driveway 1
Field observations revealed many motorists on southbound Industrial Avenue enter the Freedom Way left-turn at its beginning (versus merging into the lane 100 feet further south for instance). This behavior is especially common among motorists who are following a slower lead vehicle. If southbound left-turns were permitted at Driveway 1 within this turn lane, continuing southbound motorists would encounter vehicles stopped in the turn lane, waiting to turn into Driveway 1. This would introduce a clear and obvious conflict area, which could lead to an increase in rear-end collisions.

Additionally, since queued left-turning vehicles already spill back to Driveway 1, it would not be possible to stripe separate left-turn lanes serving both Driveway 1 and Freedom Way.

Technical Memorandum: Focused Access Evaluation for Blue Oaks Commerce Center July 27, 2022

Page 13 ends

IV. Recommendations
Based on the data and analyses presented in this memorandum, the following recommendations are offered at each driveway:

Driveway 1

1. Restrict inbound and outbound movements to right-turns only by constructing a narrow, raised curb on the east edge of the median/left-turn lane. The raised curb would begin 100 feet north of the driveway centerline and end 75 feet south of the driveway centerline. 6 2. Post a One Way Only sign within the raised curb visible to vehicles exiting Driveway 1.

3. Post a No U-Turn sign at the north end of the raised curb or in the adjacent median.

Driveway 2

1. Stripe a 175-foot southbound left-turn lane within the paved median to serve this driveway.

2. Permit all turning movements.

6 A raised curb could be constructed similar to what exists on portions of Hazel Avenue (STAA route) north of Oak Avenue in Sacramento County. The recommended extents of the raised curb consider the minimum distance required to deter direct left-turns, while also not extending the raised curb an excessive distance.
1 \\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study.aprx Project Location
Study Intersection
Portion of BOCC Currently Under Study
Figure 1
·65
1 Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
FreedomWay
Foothills BlvdWashington Blvd
Lonetree Blvd
Roseville
Rocklin
Fidelity Way
\\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\RS224207 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Existing Conditions
Figure 2
A
PSTO
ONLY
12 34
65 7 A
A
!1
èéëìí
AF
AC
CF
Industrial Ave
Freedom Way
351(311)
25 (38)
290 (561)99 (263)
168 (231)
36 (33)

1. Industrial Ave/Freedom Way
\\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\Fig02_Ex_PHTV.mxd ! Study Intersection

AM (PM)
1 Freedom Way
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Washington Blvd
Fidelity Way
I-65 Blue Oaks O Ramp
I-65 O Ramp
p
Peak Hour Traffic Volume
èéëìí Traffic Signal
Turn Lane
A
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Fidelity Way
Freedom Way
Wasington Blvd
1 Portion of BOCC Currently Under Study
Traffic Signal
1 Project Driveway
PSTO Stop Sign
1 Study Intersection
Turn Lane
Traffic Signal
Peak Hour Traffic Volume
A
AM (PM) èéëìí
\\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\RS224207 Project Site Plan
Figure 3
A
OTS P
ONLY
1 2
3 4 6
5 7
A
A
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Fidelity Way
Freedom Way
Wasington Blvd
Portion of BOCC Currently Under Study
Traffic Signal
1 Project Driveway
OTS P Stop Sign
\\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\RS224207 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Figure 4
A
PSTO
ONLY
12 34
65 7 A
A
!1
\\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS224207_Blue_Oaks_Commerce_Center_Access_Study\Fig02_Ex_PHTV.mxd ! Study Intersection

AM (PM)
1 Freedom Way
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Washington Blvd
Fidelity Way
I-65 Blue Oaks O Ramp
Peak Hour Traffic Volume
èéëìí Traffic Signal
Turn Lane
A
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Fidelity Way
Freedom Way
Wasington Blvd
1 Turn Lane
A èéëìí Traffic Signal
PSTO
"$ Stop Sign
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Portion of BOCC
Currently Under Study
1 Project Driveway

1. Industrial Ave/Freedom Way 2. Industrial Ave/Driveway 1 3. Industrial Ave/Driveway 2 2 (10)
1 (2)
171 (242)
36 (35)
2 (8)
1 (1)
295 (563)102 (263)
396 (825)5 (1)
326 (596)
5 (2)
355 (322)
25 (38)
378 (350)
3 (1)
524 (564)
2 (1)
Driveway 1 Driveway 2
Industrial Ave
Industrial Ave
Freedom Way
Industrial Ave
AF
AC
G
CF CF
AC
G
AC
CF
èéëìí
!"$!"$
1 Study Intersection
AVAILABLE SIGHT DISTANCE = 375' LINE OF SIGHT 30' TYP 4' 1"=40' Left Turn Sight Distance at Driveway 1 Figure 5 DESIGN SPEED INDUSTRIAL AVENUE IS A COLLECTOR STREET WITH A POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH. DESIGN SPEED OF 50 MPH (5 MPH ABOVE SPEED LIMIT) ASSUMED FOR ANALYSIS. LEFT TURN SIGHT DISTANCE QUEUING OF VEHICLES SHOWN IS BASED ON POSITIONING AND VEHICLE TYPES OBSERVED IN THE FIELD (SEE IMAGE 2 OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM). NOTE THAT QUEUED VEHICLES ARE ASSUMED TO BE CENTERED IN LANE. LEFT-TURNING VEHICLE ASSUMED TO HAVE A 4-FOOT OFFSET FROM THE DRIVERS EYE TO THE LEFT STRIPE EDGE PER CITY OF ROSEVILLE DESIGN STANDARDS EXHIBIT 7-1. REQUIRED LEFT TURN SIGHT DISTANCE = 440 FEET (CALCULATED PER 2018 AASHTO GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS CHAPTER 9.5.3.6 CASE F) INDUSTRIAL AVE

FREEDOM
WAY
DRIVEWAY 1

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT B

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE (CONFORM) END PAVEMENT WIDENING (CONFORM) 8N7N7N7N OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
OH/E

OH/E VAN
TRAN.

G G
TRAN.

G G VAN VAN
TRAN.

G
G VAN
TRAN.

G
G
130
130 130128
129
129
131
131 130 130
130
130
130
129
129
129 129 129 131
131131 131
131
131
131
131
132 132
132
132
132
132
132 132 132 133
130
130
130
128
129 130 129
132
133
134 135 133
133 134 136 131132 137 133
133 133134
132132
132
132
133
130 129
131
132 133 134
130
130
131 131 132 133 134
130
130 131
131 133 132
134
130 130 129131132 130
129
131
130
131 BLUE OAKS BLVD.

INDUSTRIAL AVENUE ℄ FREEDOM WAY
FIDELITY WAY ℄
130
131 130 131 131
℄
133 134 130 130
129
130 131 128 128
130
131 BLDG A 134.45 FF BLDG B 132.15 FF BLDG C 131.75 FF BLDG D 132.95 FF CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C1.0 GRADING PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:04 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C1.0 OVERALL GRADING PLAN E
S
W OVERALL GRADING PLAN 80
0 80 160 240 1" = 80' FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) GATE VALVE CHECK VALVE UTILITY POLE LIGHT POLE TRANSFORMER WALL MOUNTED LIGHT VALVE BOX COVER TRANSFORMER AND PAD UTILITY VAULT FIRE HYDRANT (FH) MANHOLE (MH) CATCH BASIN (CB) -OR- AREA DRAIN (AD) METER NEW. GENERAL SYMBOLS POST INDICATOR VALVE CLEAN OUT (CO) C.O. ABBREVIATIONS AC ASPHALT CONCRETE AD AREA DRAIN B.M. BENCH MARK CB CATCH BASIN CONC CONCRETE EG EXISTING GRADE EL ELEVATION EXTG EXISTING F.F. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE GB GRADE BREAK H.P. HIGH POINT MH MANHOLE TC TOP OF CONCRETE TYP. TYPICAL 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE AS SHOWN ON PLANS. WHEN ACTUAL CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR TO LEAVE ALL AREAS OF PROJECT FREE OF DEBRIS AND UNUSED CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SURVEYING, TESTING, PERSONNEL, TRAFFIC SAFETY CONTROL AND AS-BUILTS FOR ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. 5. PROPERTY LINE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES AS WELL AS SITE AREA CALCULATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR ZONING AND PERMIT REVIEW ONLY. REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND AREA CALCULATIONS ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR. 6. PROPERTY CORNER SURVEY MONUMENTS, WHICH ARE IN DANGER OF BEING DISTURBED OR DESTROYED BY THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE TIED-OUT BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL BE RE-SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION 7. ADA REQUIREMENTS - ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND PARKING SPACES, AISLES, RAMPS, ETC. SHALL BE INCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT OSSC REQUIREMENTS AND ANSI-A117.1-2009 (ADAAG). ADDITIONAL DESIGN PARAMETERS: 7.1. MAXIMUM RAMP SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 7.5% 7.2. MAXIMUM WALK CROSS-SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.5% 7.3. MAXIMUM LANDING SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.5% 7.4. NO PORTION OF ADA PARKING SPACES AND AISLES SHALL EXCEED 2.0% 1. ATTENTION EXCAVATORS: OREGON LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FOLLOW RULES ADOPTED BY THE OREGON UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER. THOSE RULES ARE SET FORTH IN OAR 952-001-0010 THROUGH OAR 952-001-0090. YOU MAY OBTAIN COPIES OF THESE RULES FROM THE CENTER BY CALLING 811 OR 1-800-332-2344. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RULES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE CALL CENTER. YOU MUST NOTIFY THE CENTER AT LEAST 2 BUSINESS DAYS, BUT NOT MORE THAN 10 BUSINESS DAYS, BEFORE COMMENCING AN EXCAVATION. CALL 811 OR 1-800-332-2344. 2. ALL NEW CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ORGANIC AND UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT LANDSCAPED ARE TO BE HYDROSEEDED OR BEDDED IN STRAW TO PREVENT EROSION. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 5. ALL FILL AREAS SHALL BE STRIPPED OF ORGANIC MATERIAL. FILL WILL BE PLACED IN 6 TO 8-INCH LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT RELATIVE MAXIMUM DENSITY ACCORDING TO ASTM D-1557 STANDARDS. BASE ROCK IN THE PAVED AREAS WILL BE COMPACTED TO 95% ASTM D-1557. LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT. ADDITIONAL COMPACTION TESTS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OR THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, IF POOR COMPACTION EFFORTS ARE OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. COMPACTION REPORTS FROM A REPUTABLE TESTING LAB WILL BE SUPPLIED TO THE ENGINEER. 6. INTERIOR SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL IN WATER QUALITY/DETENTION POND, TYPICAL. 7. TOPSOIL STRIPPINGS SHALL BE REPLACED IN LANDSCAPING AREAS AFTER SITE GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. GENERAL NOTES GRADING NOTES SEE SHEET G1.0 FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS NEW ASPHALT PAVING AS NOTED PROVIDE STAKE.NEW CONTOUR LINE EXISTING CONTOUR LINE 144 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION NEW SPOT ELEVATION 140 GRADING SYMBOLS 142.84 EG143.40 FG OVERLAND RELEASE ARROW SURVEY LEGEND ROAD SIGN MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED DIMENSION POINT POST INDICATOR VALVE BLOW OFF VALVE DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTOR WATER VALVE WATER METER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FIRE HYDRANT DRAIN INLET CURB INLET CLEANOUT MANHOLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STREET LIGHT (ELECTROLIER) AREA LIGHT OR POLE LIGHT POWER OR TELEPHONE POLE W/GUY TRANSFORMER EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNDERGROUND SEWER PIPE UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN PIPE UNDERGROUND WATER PIPE FOUND MONUMENT IN WELL KEY PLAN N.T.S. C1.1 C 1.2 C1.3 C1.4 REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT C
303 128.10 OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E VAN G
G 130
130
130
129
129 129 131
131
131 131 131
131
131
131
132
132 132
132
132
132 133
130
130
130
128
129 130 129 130
129
131128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 130.86 TC 130.36 AC 130.65 TC 130.15 AC 130.37 TC 129.87 AC CB RIM 129.17 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 130.56 TC 130.06 AC 132.20 TC 131.70 AC 132.26 TC 131.76 AC 132.20 TC 131.70 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 132.10 TC 131.60 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 129.41 TC 128.91 AC 130.49 TC 129.99 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 131.58 TC 131.08 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 132.26 TC 131.76 AC 132.02 TC 131.52 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 131.55 TC 131.05 AC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 131.65 TC 131.15 AC 132.31 TC 131.81 AC 131.57 TC 132.39 TC 131.07 AC 131.89 AC 132.56 TC 132.06 AC 132.21 TC 131.71 AC 131.17 TC 130.67 AC 131.00 TC 130.50 AC 130.11 TC 129.61 AC 131.26 TC 130.76 AC 131.33 TC 130.83 AC 131.46 TC 130.96 AC 127.84 TC 127.34 AC 127.76 TC 127.26 AC 129.89 TC 129.39 AC 130.48 TC 129.98 AC SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 CB RIM 128.64 CB RIM 129.28 131.03 TC 130.53 AC CB RIM 129.72 CB RIM 129.68 131.15 TC 130.65 AC 131.15 TC 130.65 AC FILTERA GL 130.66 FILTERA GL 130.60 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC FILTERA GL 130.60 131.00 TC 130.50 AC 130.37 TC 129.87 AC BLDG C 131.75 FF BLDG D 132.95 FF 130.49 TC 129.99 AC 130
131
EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 25.0' P.U.E.

EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. 131 128 BLUE OAKS BLVD

INDUSTRIAL AVE
℄ FREEDOM WAY PROPOSED 15.0' SAN EASEMENT
H.P.

2.4% 2.9%

2.2%

3.2%

1.5%

2.6%

2.7%

3.0%

2.3%

2.5%

3.0%

1.3%

3.3%

6.8%

2.8% H.P. CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C1.0 GRADING PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:04 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C1.1 GRADING PLAN NW INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C1.1 C 1.2 C1.3 C1.4
E
S
W GRADING PLAN NW 30
0 30 60 90 1" = 30' MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.3
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.2

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
7N 22900 129.95 ramp OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
TRAN.

G
TRAN.

G VAN
130
130 130128
129
129
129
131
131 130
130
129 129 131
131
132 132 132 132 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.75 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 128.05 CONC/AC 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 131.75 FF 127.75 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 132.95 FF 128.95 CONC 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 131.73 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 132.78 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 131.58 CONC 130.67 TC 130.17 AC CB RIM 129.50 CB RIM 129.54 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 131.78 TC 131.28 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC CB RIM 129.34 131.21 TC 130.71 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 132.70 TC 132.20 AC 132.15 TC 131.65 AC 132.67 TC 132.17 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 132.25 TC 131.75 AC 132.57 TC 132.07 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 131.10 TC 130.60 AC 131.99 TC 131.49 AC 133.03 TC 132.53 AC 132.35 TC 131.85 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 131.44 TC 130.94 AC 132.46 TC 131.96 AC 131.66 TC 131.16 AC 132.69 TC 132.19 AC 131.58 TC 131.08 AC 131.69 TC 131.19 AC 132.43 TC 131.93 AC 132.52 TC 132.02 AC 132.24 TC 131.74 AC 132.58 TC 132.08 AC 132.56 TC 132.06 AC 131.28 TC 130.78 AC 131.00 TC 130.50 AC 131.28 TC 130.78 AC 131.28 TC 130.78 AC 131.24 TC 130.74 AC 131.03 TC 130.53 AC 130.91 TC 130.41 AC 130.53 TC 130.03 AC 130.38 TC 129.88 AC130.22 TC 129.72 AC 131.18 TC 130.68 AC 131.05 TC 130.55 AC 131.00 TC 130.50 AC 130.92 TC 130.42 AC 132.90 TC 132.40 AC 131.73 AT DOOR 130.90 TC 130.40 AC 130.92 TC 130.42 AC CB RIM 129.65 CB RIM 129.66 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 FILTERA GL 131.01 FILTERA GL 130.60 FILTERA GL 130.60 GRATE EL 126.18 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 132.21 TC 131.71 AC BLDG C 131.75 FF BLDG D 132.95 FF 129.96 TC 129.46 AC 132.70 TC 132.20 AC 131.73 AT DOOR 132.93 AT DOOR 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 130.84 TC 130.34 AC 130.84 TC 130.34 AC 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 130 131 128 130
131 FREEDOM WAY BLUE OAKS BLVD

FIDELITY WAY
℄
H.P.

2.8%

3.1%

2.6%

2.2%

1.2%

1.8% 2.0%

1.8%

2.8%

1.9%

1.0%

2.6%

2.8%

2.4%

1.3%

1.8%

1.3%

1.3% H.P.
1 C1.2 130 128
129
129
129 131.72 CONC 131.55 CONC 127.67 CONC 127.60 CONC 127.51 CONC 127.38 CONC 127.52 CONC 127.60 CONC 129.69 CONC 129.62 CONC 129.77 CONC 129.69 CONC 129.79 129.86 CONC CONC 129.79 CONC 129.71 CONC 131.72 CONC 131.80 CONC 131.80 CONC 131.62 CONC 0.0% 0.0%

1.5%

7.1%

7.2% 1.5% 1.5%

1.5%

1.5% 4.0% 7.7%

2.6% 2.0% 3.3% 1.5% 1.5%

1.5%

1.5% 1.5%

1.5% CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C1.0 GRADING PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:05 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C1.2 GRADING PLAN NE INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4
E
S
W GRADING PLAN NE 30
0 30 60 90 1" = 30'
E
S

W ADA GRADING DETAIL
5 0
5 10 15 1 1" = 5' C1.2 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.4
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.1

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
TRAN.

G VAN
TRAN.

G 131 132 133
133 133 134
132 132
132
132
133
130 129
131
132 133 134 130 129 131 132 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.72 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.15 FF 128.15 CONC 132.13 AT DOOR 132.15 FF 128.15 CONC 132.15 FF 128.15 CONC 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.45 FF 130.45 CONC 134.43 AT DOOR 134.45 FF 130.45 CONC 134.45 FF 130.45 CONC 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.42 AT DOOR 129.95 CONC/AC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 130.72 TC 130.22 AC CB RIM 130.15 133.55 TC 133.05 AC 133.60 TC 133.10 AC131.50 TC 131.00 AC 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 131.90 TC 131.40 AC 132.30 TC 131.80 AC 131.12 TC 130.62 AC 132.30 TC 131.80 AC 134.23 TC 133.73 AC 130.50 TC 130.00 AC 130.59 TC 130.09 AC 131.59 TC 131.09 AC 130.55 TC 130.05 AC 130.55 TC 130.05 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 133.45 TC 132.95 AC 133.45 TC 132.95 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 132.51 TC 132.01 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 129.99 TC 129.49 AC CB RIM 129.40 130.67 TC 130.17 AC 131.14 TC 130.64 AC 131.30 TC 130.80 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 133.93 TC 133.43 AC 131.52 TC 131.02 AC 129.92 CONC/TC 131.49 TC 130.99 AC 130.85 TC 130.35 AC 130.73 TC 130.23 AC 131.55 TC 131.05 AC 131.63 TC 131.13 AC 131.60 TC 131.10 AC 131.70 TC 131.20 AC 133.85 TC 133.35 AC 133.07 TC 132.57 AC 134.11 TC 133.61 AC 133.97 TC 133.47 AC 133.82 TC 133.32 AC 133.65 TC 133.15 AC 133.05 TC 132.55 AC 131.16 TC 130.66 AC 130.34 TC 129.84 AC CB RIM 129.81 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 FILTERA GL 132.01 129.95 CONC/AC FILTERA GL 132.00 FILTERA GL 130.05 GRATE EL 126.58132.03 TC 131.53 AC 132.49 TC 131.99 AC 129.55 TC 129.05 AC 132.37 TC 131.87 AC 129.58 TC 129.08 AC 131.94 TC 131.44 AC BLDG A 134.45 FF BLDG B 132.15 FF 132.13 AT DOOR 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.20 BERM 134.20 BERM 131.50 TC 131.00 AC 130
131 EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT
EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. 130FREEDOM WAY

INDUSTRIAL AVE
℄ PROPOSED 15.0' SAN EASEMENT PROPOSED 15.0' SAN EASEMENT H.P.7.8%

1.2%

2.2%

1.6%

2.5%

3.3%

3.2%

3.3%

2.2%

3.9%

5.4%

3.5%

2.0%

1.2% H.P. CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C1.0 GRADING PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:05 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C1.3 GRADING PLAN SW INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4
E
S
W GRADING PLAN SW 30
0 30 60 90 1" = 30' MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.1
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.4

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
VAN G G 132 133
134 135 133 133 134 136 137 130 130 131 131 132 133 134 130 130 131 131 132 133 134 130 128.72 CONC/AC 128.72 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 129.95 CONC/AC 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 138.45 FF 134.45 CONC 138.45 FF 134.45 CONC 138.45 FF 134.45 CONC 138.45 FF 134.45 CONC 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.43 AT DOOR 134.42 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 136.15 FF 132.15 CONC 136.15 FF 132.15 CONC 136.15 FF 132.15 CONC 136.15 FF 132.15 CONC 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 132.13 AT DOOR 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 134.30 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 131.93 CONC 133.71 TC 133.21 AC 133.82 TC 133.32 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 133.49 TC 132.99 AC 133.38 TC 132.88 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 132.50 TC 132.00 AC 133.99 TC 133.49 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 134.21 TC 133.71 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.84 TC 131.34 AC CB RIM 128.90 129.57 TC 129.07 AC 130.50 TC 130.00 AC 130.39 TC 129.89 AC 130.10 TC 129.60 AC 131.00 TC 130.50 AC 130.34 TC 129.84 AC CB RIM 129.74 131.05 TC 130.55 ACCB RIM 129.83 131.84 TC 131.34 AC 131.76 TC 131.26 AC 130.35 TC 129.85 AC 130.44 TC 129.94 AC 131.57 TC 131.07 AC 131.41 TC 130.91 AC 132.99 TC 132.49 AC 132.83 TC 132.33 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 132.78 TC 132.28 AC 134.00 TC 133.50 AC 134.00 TC 133.50 AC 134.30 CONC 132.74 TC 132.24 AC 130.10 TC 129.60 AC 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 131.53 TC 131.03 AC 130.80 TC 130.30 AC 131.40 TC 130.90 AC 131.59 TC 131.09 AC 131.68 TC 131.18 AC 131.58 TC 131.08 AC 131.66 TC 131.16 AC 130.70 TC 130.20 AC 133.97 TC 133.47 AC 133.82 TC 133.32 AC 133.97 TC 133.47 AC 133.82 TC 133.32 AC 134.03 TC 133.53 AC 133.65 TC 133.15 AC 133.06 TC 132.56 AC 133.65 TC 133.15 AC 133.05 TC 132.55 AC 134.15 TC 133.65 AC 138.45 FF 134.45 CONC SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 CB RIM 129.13 SFCB RIM 132.23 130.94 TC 130.44 AC 133.50 TC 133.00 AC 133.92 TC 133.42 AC 131.00 TC 130.50 AC FILTERA GL 132.00 GRATE EL 126.44 129.95 CONC/AC 128.70 CONC/AC 131.62 TC 131.12 AC FILTERA GL 132.03 131.52 TC 131.02 AC BLDG A 134.45 FF BLDG B 132.15 FF 134.20 BERM 134.20 BERM 131.76 TC 131.26 AC 131.89 TC 131.39 AC EXTG R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT EXTG 20.0' P.U.E.

EXTG 20.0' WATER
EASEMENT 133 134 130 129 130 131 FREEDOM WAY PROPOSED 15.0' SAN EASEMENT PROPOSED 15.0' SAN EASEMENT

2.5%

2.2% 3.1%

1.4%3.3% 2.0% H.P. CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C1.0 GRADING PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:05 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C1.4 GRADING PLAN SE INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 E S W GRADING PLAN SE 30 0 30 60 90 1" = 30' MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.2 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C1.3

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE (CONFORM) END PAVEMENT WIDENING (CONFORM) 8N7N7N7N 126 129.17 TBM 1 128 -9858.64 FND 5/8" REBAR 133 -9861.58 FND REBAR 134 -9859.33 FND REBAR 126 129.17 TBM 1 128 -9858.64 FND 5/8" REBAR 133 -9861.58 FND REBAR 134 -9859.33 FND REBAR OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
48" D
48" D
48" D
48" D
66" D 12" D 12" D
S 10" S
8" S 10" S
8" S 8" S
8" S 36" D
12" D36" D
D
12" D 36" D
12" D
12" D 12 "D 12" D
12" D 12" D 12" D 12" D
12" D 24" D 24" D
12" D 12"W
30"W 30"W 12"W
12"W
12"WS 12"W
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
66"D 66"D VAN
TRAN.

G G

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP RTU

FIRE PUMP
ELECTRIC TRAN.

G G VAN

RTU VAN

ELECTRIC
FIRE PUMP TRAN.

G
G VAN

FIRE PUMP
ELECTRIC TRAN.

G
G BLUE OAKS BLVD.

INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
℄ FREDOM WAY
FIDELITY WAY ℄ EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT
EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 20.0' P.U.E.

EXTG 20.0' P.U.E.

EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT EXTG 25.0' P.U.E. EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. BLDG D 132.95 FF BLDG C 131.75 FF BLDG B 132.15 FF BLDG A 134.45 FF 26.7% CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C2.0 UTILITY PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:06 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C2.0 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN E
S
W OVERALL UTILITY PLAN 80
0 80 160 240 1" = 80' FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) GATE VALVE CHECK VALVE UTILITY POLE LIGHT POLE TRANSFORMER WALL MOUNTED LIGHT VALVE BOX COVER TRANSFORMER AND PAD UTILITY VAULT FIRE HYDRANT (FH) MANHOLE (MH) CATCH BASIN (CB) -OR- AREA DRAIN (AD) METER NEW. GENERAL SYMBOLS POST INDICATOR VALVE CLEAN OUT (CO) C.O. ABBREVIATIONS AC ASPHALT CONCRETE AD AREA DRAIN B.M. BENCH MARK CB CATCH BASIN CONC CONCRETE EG EXISTING GRADE EL ELEVATION EXTG EXISTING F.F. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE GB GRADE BREAK H.P. HIGH POINT MH MANHOLE TC TOP OF CONCRETE TYP. TYPICAL SITE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY: MORTON & PITALO, INC. (ADDRESS:600 COOLIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 140, FOLSOM, CA 95630 , PHONE: 916-984-7621 , JOB #:220009 ) BENCHMARK: CITY OF ROSEVILLE B.M. NO. 45, A 3-1/4" BRASS DISK STAMPED L.L. 5614, FEB 1993, TOP OF CURB WEST SIDE OF D.I. AT SE CORNER OF WASHINGTON BLVD./ROSEVILLE PARKWAY AT NE END OF CURB RETURN. ELEVATION = 146.073 FEET. SURVEY LEGEND ROAD SIGN MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED DIMENSION POINT POST INDICATOR VALVE BLOW OFF VALVE DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTOR WATER VALVE WATER METER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FIRE HYDRANT DRAIN INLET CURB INLET CLEANOUT MANHOLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STREET LIGHT (ELECTROLIER) AREA LIGHT OR POLE LIGHT POWER OR TELEPHONE POLE W/GUY TRANSFORMER EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNDERGROUND SEWER PIPE UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN PIPE UNDERGROUND WATER PIPE FOUND MONUMENT IN WELL 1. ATTENTION EXCAVATORS: CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FOLLOW RULES ADOPTED BY DIGALERT. YOU MUST NOTIFY DIGALERT AT LEAST 2 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE COMMENCING AN EXCAVATION. CALL 811 OR 1-800-422-4133. 2. THE WORKING DRAWINGS ARE GENERALLY DIAGRAMMATIC. THEY DO NOT SHOW EVERY OFFSET, BEND OR ELBOW REQUIRED OR INSTALLATION OF THE UTILITIES SHOWN. THE DRAWINGS DO NOT DEPICT EVERY DIMENSION, COMPONENT PIECE, SECTION, JOINT OR FITTING REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. ALL LOCATIONS FOR WORK SHALL BE CHECKED AND COORDINATED WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LAYING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SHALL BE VERIFIED AS TO CONDITION, SIZE AND LOCATION BY UNCOVERING, PROVIDING SUCH IS PERMITTED BY LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WITH JURISDICTION, BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. BEDDING AND PIPE ZONE BACKFILL SHALL BE PER "PIPE TRENCH EMBEDMENT" DETAIL, SHEET ____ 4. CONTRACTORS SHALL CONTACT CITY OF ROSEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AT LEAST 2 BUSINESS DAYS, BUT NOT MORE THAN 10 BUSINESS DAYS, BEFORE COMMENCING AN EXCAVATION. CALL (___) ___-____. 5. THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN SEWER LINES & PUBLIC WATER LINES SHALL BE 10-FT. 6. EXCAVATED SEWER TRENCH SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL BE TESTED AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF AT A PROPER LANDFILL OR OTHER APPROPRIATE LOCATION. 7. ALL SEWER TRENCH LINES AND EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE PROPERLY SHORED AND BRACED TO PREVENT CAVING. UNUSUALLY DEEP EXCAVATIONS MAY REQUIRE EXTRA SHORING AND BRACING. ALL SHEETING, SHORING, AND BRACING OF TRENCHES SHALL CONFORM TO OREGON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH DIVISION (OSHA) REGULATIONS AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY AND COORDINATE WITH PRIVATE UTILITIES FOR RELOCATION OF CONDUITS, POWER POLES, VAULTS, PEDESTALS, ETC. 9. ALL EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR DIRECTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT, MAINTAIN, OR OTHERWISE PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER FACILITIES AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL LEAVE EXISTING FACILITIES IN AN EQUAL OR BETTER-THAN-ORIGINAL CONDITION. 10. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION, SIZE & DEPTH OF EXISTING UTILITIES. NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 11. ALL SANITARY DRAINAGE, RAIN DRAIN AND STORM SEWER PIPING INSTALLED WITHIN 5-FT OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CAST IRON, SCHEDULE 40 ABS-D.W.V., SCHEDULE 40 PVC-D.W.V. OR OTHER MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE OREGON AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE. 12. HORIZONTAL STORM AND SANITARY DRAINAGE PIPE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CLEANOUT AT ITS UPPER TERMINAL AND EACH RUN OF PIPING, WHICH IS MORE THAN 100 FOOT IN TOTAL DEVELOPED LENGTH, SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CLEANOUT FOR EACH 100 FOOT, OR FRACTION THEREOF, IN LENGTH OF SUCH PIPING. AN ADDITIONAL CLEANOUT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH AGGREGATE HORIZONTAL CHANGE OF DIRECTION EXCEEDING 135 DEGREES. THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE ALLOWED BETWEEN MANHOLES IS 300 FEET. ALL REQUIRED CLEANOUTS MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON PLAN. 13. PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER LINES, DENOTED "SAN" OR "SA", SHALL BE PVC 3034 OR APPROVED EQUAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. USE PVC C900 OR CL52 DIP WHERE COVER IS LESS THAN 15-INCHES FROM PIPE CROWN TO PAVED SURFACE. NOTE: ALL SANITARY PIPING WITHIN 5-FT OF AN EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR OTHER PER APPROVED MATERIALS PER THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE. 14. PRIVATE STORM SEWER LINES, DENOTED "STM" OR "ST", SHALL BE PVC 3034, PVC C900, PVC C905, HDPE, CL52 DIP OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL STORM PIPING SHOWN HAS BEEN SIZED FOR A MANNING’S "N" VALUE = 0.013 AND PIPE INVERTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED USING CONCENTRIC PIPE TO PIPE AND WYE FITTINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. ALL STORM LATERALS SHALL HAVE #10 GAUGE COPPER WIRE OR TRACER TAPE AT 1.5-FT TO 2.0-FT ABOVE THE LATERAL. 16. ALL DOMESTIC (POTABLE) WATER SERVICE LINES OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING DENOTED "DW" SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR PVC C900 CL150 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FIRE WATER SERVICE LINES OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING DENOTED, "FW", "FDC" SHALL BE PVC C900 CL150 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 17. CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING AND/OR MECHANICAL RESTRAINTS ("MEGA-LUG" OR EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL WATERLINE FITTINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. BLOCKING SHALL BE POURED AGAINST UNDISTURBED EARTH AND CLEAR OF JOINT ACCESSORIES. BEARING AREA OF THRUST BLOCK SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE. SEE DETAIL SHEET G_____. 18. MINIMUM COVER OVER WATERLINES IS TO BE 36 INCHES AS MEASURED FROM FINISH GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE. MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN WATERLINE AND SANITARY SEWER AT A CROSSING IS 18 INCHES. SANITARY SEWER AT WATERLINE CROSSINGS WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE WITH WATERTIGHT JOINTS. IN SUCH CASES THE 18-FOOT LENGTH OF SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE CENTERED AT THE CROSSING. 19. PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN SERVICE, THE WATERLINE AND SERVICES SHALL BE FLUSHED, STERILIZED, AND RE-FLUSHED, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE "PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CODE." CITY CREWS WILL TAKE BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS WHEN SO REQUESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR INSTALLING WATER MAINS. THE REQUEST FOR THESE TESTS SHALL BE MADE THROUGH THE CITY INSPECTOR. 20. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ALL ON-SITE FIRE WATER SYSTEM LINE SIZES, METER SIZES, DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLY (DCDA) SIZES, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES SHOWN ON THE UTILITY PLAN SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM SHALL BE FROM THE NEW FACILITY SERVICE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. THE MAKES AND MODELS OF ALL SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE PER WATER DISTRICT LIST OF APPROVED COMPONENTS. UTILITY NOTES INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

ACDE
FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C2.1 C 1.2 C2.3 C2.4 REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT D
6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTBLDG D 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER & 2" BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY BLDG C 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER & 2" BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PROPOSED DCDA6" W 2" W 2" W 6" W
2" DW
2" DW
8" FW EXTG 12" W 1-1/2" WATER METER & BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY FOR SITE IRRIGATION SEE IRRIGATION DRAWINGS FOR CONTINUATION TAP EXTG 12" LINE FOR NEW 6" CONNECTION 128.04 RIM RCP 120.76 48" FL RCP 120.94 48" FL RCP 120.07 48" FL (SLY) RCP 120.12 48" FL (SLY) RCP 128.51 121.09 48" FL RCP 128.52 121.12 48" FL DI AT FC 126.81 GRT 121.28 FL (N) 121.27 FL (S) DMH 128.71 RIM 123.36 36" FL (E) 122.51 BTM DMH 130.07 RIM 123.85 36" FL (E) 123.87 BTM DI AT FC 128.13 GRT 125.26 12" FL (NLY) 125.20 12" FL (S) RCP 128.52 121.27 36"x42" FL (SE TO DI) OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E DI 133.84 GRT 130.64 12" FL (S) DI 143.73 GRT 141.35 12" FL (S) 125.72 GRT 122.82 12" FL (E) 122.72 12" FL (W) TELE MH 127.40 RIM DITCH BOX 133.41 129.03 12" FL (N) 128.53 12" FL (W) CMP 130.76 12" FL END FES 128.86 12" FL (ELY) RCP 119.16 48" FL RCP 119.18 48" FL RCP 119.16 48" FL FES 122.53 12" FL FES 125.45 12" FL RCP 120.76 12" FL (SLY) 48" D
48" D
48" D
8" S 36" D 36" D
D
12" D
12" D 12 "D 12" D 12" D
12" D 12"W
30"W
12"WS VAN
G

G FREEDOM WAY

INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
℄ BLUE OAKS BLVD. PROPERTY LINE
EXTG R.O.W. EXTG R.O.W.

EXTG P.U.E. 20.0'
EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 25.0' P.U.E. 6" IE 126.35
6" SAN
S=1.00% 8" SAN S=0.40% MH-C3 RIM:126.45 6" IE IN (E) 122.66 6" IE IN (W) 122.66 6" IE OUT (S) 122.56 MH-C1 RIM:128.14 6" IE IN (N) 124.79 6" IE OUT (E) 124.69 6" SAN
S=1.64% 6" IE 125.47 6" SAN S=1.80%
6" SAN 6" IE 122.31
S=1.02% MH-D1 RIM:129.23 6" IE IN (N) 125.81 8" IE OUT (E) 125.71 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 2 C2.1 FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY 8" FW (2) 2" DW 4" FDC 8" FW 2" DW 4" FDC 2" DW 2" DW 2" DW 8" FW 8" FW 8" FW
6" FW 8" FW PROPOSED SWALE 12'' IE 122.50 12'' IE 122.89 12'' IE 123.67 12'' IE 123.28 12" STM S = 0.39% 12" STM S = 0.39% 12" STM S = 0.39% 8" STM S = 0.39% UNDER
GROUND
DETENTION CB RIM 128.66 MAINTENANCE MH RIM 129.29 CBRIM 129.21 CB RIM 129.75 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 8" STM
S = -5.74% 8" IE 125.37
8" STM
S = 4.77%
8" STM
S = 3.79% 8" IE 125.37 8" IE 125.37 FLOW CONTROL MH -SEE DETAIL, THIS SHEET 12" IE 120.76 EXTG OUTFALL MAINTENANCE MH RIM 131.51 CB RIM 129.49 CB RIM 129.68 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT R50'
R30'
R30'
R50' BLDG D 132.95 FF BLDG C 131.75 FF
R30' R50'
R30' R50' 2" DW 2" DW 8" FW
R30.0' R50.0'
R30.0' R50.0' BLDG C FDC BLDG D FDC 12'' IE 124.25 12'' IE 123.18 12'' IE 123.71 12'' IE 122.77 12" STM
S = 0.50%
12" STM 12'' IE 122.50
S = 0.50% 12" IE 125.26 12" STM S = 0.50% 12" STM S = 0.50% 12" STM S = 0.50% 8" IE 127.70 8" STM S = 0.76% 12'' IE 126.89 12" IE 126.87 8" STM S = -0.17% 8" IE 127.07 8" IE 127.33 8" IE 127.33 8" STM
S = -0.17%
8" STM
S = 0.59% CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C2.0 UTILITY PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:06 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C2.1 UTILITY PLAN NW E
S
W UTILITY PLAN NW 30
0 30 60 90 1" = 30' UTILITY DETAIL
5 0
5 10 15
2 1" = 5' C2.1 PLAN VIEW OF STM MH 2 CONTROL STRUCTURE WEIR WEIR DETAIL 6"STM, S=0.007 OVERFLOW OVERFLOW MANHOLE 4" DIA. ORIFICE (2) 2" x 2" STAINLESS L STIFFENERS SC 740
ENDCAP NORTH OUTFLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE CONNECTION DETAIL WEIR SHALL BE 1" SOLID WALL HDPE. ANCHOR WEIR TO 2" x 2" STAINLESS L EVERY 12" MAXIMUM WITH STAINLESS HARDWARE (OUTLET SIDE). CREATE WATER TIGHT SEAL ALONG ALL EDGES AFTER INSTALLATION. INSTALL TWO 2" x 2" STAINLESS L STIFFENERS ON OUTLET SIDE OF WEIR (3'-7"), CENTERED AND ANCHORED TO WEIR, WITH STAINLESS HARDWARE AT 5 POINTS. CONCRETE MAY BE USED TO SEAL BOTTOM OF WEIR 12" STM

33.0" 12"STM S=0.0050 SEAL EDGES OF WEIR AT ALL POINTS OF CONTACT WITH MANHOLE WALLS 2" x 2" STAINLESS L SEAL EDGES OF WEIR AT ALL POINTS OF CONTACT WITH MANHOLE WALLS MANHOLE STEP, TYP. FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE DETAIL 5 0
5 10 15 1 1" = 5' C2.1
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

ACDE
FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C2.1 C 1.2 C2.3 C2.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.3 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.2

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
7N 126 129.17 TBM 1 133 -9861.58 FND REBAR 134 -9859.33 FND REBAR 126 129.17 TBM 1 133 -9861.58 FND REBAR 134 -9859.33 FND REBAR SMH 130.63 RIM 121.25 8" FL (S) 121.23 FL (N) 120.63 10" FL (W) 120.53 10" FL (E) dfdf OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
OH/E
OH/E DI 129.51 GRT 127.19 12" FL (W) 127.06 12" FL (E) 133.84 GRT 130.64 12" FL (S) DI 125.86 GRT 123.20 12" FL (E) DI 125.81 GRT 122.96 12" FL (NELY) 122.9112" FL (W) DITCH BOX 129.03 12" FL (N) 128.53 12" FL (W) OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E DI 129.50 GRT 126.93 12" FL (N) 126.80 12" FL (S) DI 125.42 GRT 122.9012" FL (E) 122.83 12" FL (W) DITCH BOX 126.71 122.66 12" FL (SWLY) 122.66 12" FL (N) 122.53 18" FL (W) 122.53 24" FL (E) FES 126.18 12" FL OH/E
S 36" D 12" D 12" D
12" D 24" D 12"W
12"WS
TRAN.

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP RTU
FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC TRAN.

G VAN
RTU

FIDELITY WAY
℄ FREEDOM WAY BLUE OAKS BLVD. EXTG R.O.W.

EXTG R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE EXTG 24.8' P.U.E. EXTG VARIABLE WIDTH P.U.E.

EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. 6" IE 126.35
6" SAN
S=3.76%
8" SAN
S=0.40% MH-C2 RIM:128.42 6" IE IN (N) 125.07 6" IE OUT (W) 124.97 6" SAN S=1.05% 6" SAN
S=0.99% 6" IE 125.47 MH-D5 RIM:125.42 8" IE IN (E) 121.79 8" IE OUT (S) 121.68 8" SAN S=0.40% 8" SAN
S=0.54% 8" IE 121.55 MH-D4 RIM:126.12 8" IE IN (N) 122.57 8" IE OUT (W) 122.47 MH-D3 RIM:127.19 8" IE IN (W) 123.42 8" IE OUT (S) 123.32 8" SAN S=0.40% MH-D2 RIM:129.90 8" IE IN (W) 124.32 6" IE IN (N) 124.32 8" IE OUT (E) 124.22 8" SAN S=0.40% 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERRA BIORETENTION FACILITY 6" FW 8" FW
8" FW
8" FW 8" FW 8" FW
6" FW 8" FW 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED DCDA PROPOSED SWALE 8" IE 124.06 8" IE 124.45 8" IE 124.83 8" IE 125.22 8" IE 125.37 8" STM S = 0.39% 8" STM S = 0.39% 8" STM S = 0.39% 8" STM
S = 0.35% DITCH INLET 12'' IE 126.18 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 SFCB RIM 127.60 8" STM
S = -3.13% 8" IE 125.37
8" STM
S = -2.20% 8" IE 125.37
8" STM
S = -1.28% 8" IE 125.37 CB RIM 129.66 CB RIM 129.67 CBRIM 129.54 CB RIM 129.50 CBRIM 129.23 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT R30' R50'
R30'
R50' BLDG D 132.95 FF BLDG C 131.75 FF
R30.0' R50.0'
R30.0' R50.0' 8" IE 126.39 8" IE 128.00 8" IE 127.30 8" STM 8" IE 125.47 S = 0.50% 8" STM S = 0.50% 8" IE 125.26 8" IE 126.27 8" IE 127.81 8" IE 127.65 8" STM
S = 0.28% 8" STM S = 0.28% 8" IE 127.32 8" STM S = 0.28% 12'' IE 126.96 12'' IE 126.83 8" IE 126.86 8" STM S = 0.28% 8" IE 127.16 8" STM S = 0.50% CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C2.0 UTILITY PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:06 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C2.2 UTILITY PLAN NE E
S
W UTILITY PLAN NE 30
0 30 60 90 1" = 30'
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

ACDE
FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.1

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
BLDG A 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER & 2" BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY BLDG B 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER & 2" BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PROPOSED DCDA 2" W 2" W 2" DW
2" DW
8" FW EXTG 12" W1-1/2" WATER METER & BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY FOR SITE IRRIGATION SEE IRRIGATION DRAWINGS FOR CONTINUATION TAP EXTG 12" LINE FOR NEW 2" CONNECTION 127.92 GRT 126.21 12" FL (E) DMH 127.31 RIM 121.58 36" FL (E) 121.58 BTM RCP 121.72 48" FL RCP 121.67 48" FL SMH 128.56 RIM 122.56 8" FL (S) 122.16 8" FL (E) DI AT FC 128.25 GRT DI SQ. 125.15 12" FL (N) 126.58 GRT 123.83 12" FL (N) SMH 129.94 RIM 122.09 8" FL (N) 121.58 8" FL (W) 121.43 10" FL (E) RCP 131.45 122.35 +/-66" FL 126.79 12" FL (E) RCP 126.54 12" FL 129.38 RIM 125.63 BTM RCP 132.36 123.71 +/-66" FL (W. END) 129.96 RIM DMH 135.23 RIM 123.50 BTM 124.73 TOP OF WATER RCP 122.70 +/-66" FL (S END) RCP 124.79 24" FL RCP 125.86 12" FL DITCH BOX 129.78 124.98 24" FL 124.88 24" FL FES 124.67 48" FL FES 126.54 24" FL 48" D
66" D 12" D 12" D 8" S
8" S
12" D
12" D 30"W 12"W
12"WS 66"D

ELECTRIC
FIRE PUMP TRAN.

G VAN

FIRE PUMP
ELECTRIC TRAN.

G FREEDOM WAY
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE ℄
EXTG R.O.W. EXTG R.O.W. EXTG R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE
EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT MH-B3 RIM: 126.57 8" IE IN (E) 123.05 MH-B2 RIM: 127.32 8" IE IN (E) 123.57 6" IE IN (S) 123.57 8" IE OUT (W) 123.47 8" SAN
S=0.49%
6" SAN
S=5.56% 8" SAN S=0.49% 6" IE 125.85 MH-A1 RIM: 129.14 6" IE IN (S) 125.72 8" IE OUT (E) 125.62 6" SAN
S=0.99% 6" IE 126.42 8" SAN S=0.37% FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY 2 C2.3 8" FW 2" DW 2" DW 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED SWALE 8" FW 8" FW 8" FW
6" FW 6" FW DITCH INLET 12'' IE 126.58 8" STM S = -0.30% 12" STM S = -0.30% 12" STM S = -0.30% 12" STM S = -0.30% 12" STM S = -0.30% 12'' IE 124.28 12'' IE 124.35 UNDER
GROUND
DETENTION 12'' IE 124.04 12'' IE 123.96 12'' IE 123.73 12'' IE 123.65 12'' IE 123.65 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 12" STM S = -0.30% 6" IE 125.776" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.776" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 12" IE 122.60 FLOW CONTROL MH -SEE DETAIL, THIS SHEET CBRIM 130.01 CB RIM 130.17 CBRIM 129.81 OUTFALL PROPOSED PIPE THROUGH HEADWALLMAINTENANCE MH RIM 130.81 MAINTENANCE MH RIM 130.68 R50'
R30'
R30'
R50' BLDG B 132.15 FF BLDG A 134.45 FF
R30'
R50'
R30'
R50' 26.7%
R30.0' R50.0'
R30.0' R50.0' 8" FW
8" FW 8" FW 2" DW (2) BLDG A FDC BLDG B FDC 2" DW 4" FDC 8" FW 4" FDC 2" DW 12'' IE 123.38 12'' IE 123.42 12'' IE 123.46 12'' IE 124.22 12'' IE 124.78 12'' IE 125.97 S = 0.59%
12" STM 12" STM S = 0.59% 8" STM S = 0.59% 12'' IE 125.38 12" STM S = 0.59% 12" STM S = 0.59% 8" IE 128.18 12'' IE 127.75 8" STM S = -0.35% 12'' IE 127.69 8" IE 128.09 8" STM S = -0.37% 8" IE 128.50 8" STM
S = -0.35% 12" IE 127.59 CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C2.0 UTILITY PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:06 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C2.3 UTILITY PLAN SW E
S
W UTILITY PLAN SW 30
0 30 60 90 UTILITY DETAIL 1" = 30'
5 0
5 10 15
2 1" = 5' C2.3 FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE DETAIL
5 0
5 10 15 1 1" = 5' C2.3 PLAN VIEW OF STM MH 2 CONTROL STRUCTURE WEIR WEIR DETAIL 6"STM, S=0.007 OVERFLOW OVERFLOW MANHOLE 4" DIA. ORIFICE (2) 2" x 2" STAINLESS L STIFFENERS SC 740
ENDCAP NORTH OUTFLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE CONNECTION DETAIL WEIR SHALL BE 1" SOLID WALL HDPE. ANCHOR WEIR TO 2" x 2" STAINLESS L EVERY 12" MAXIMUM WITH STAINLESS HARDWARE (OUTLET SIDE). CREATE WATER TIGHT SEAL ALONG ALL EDGES AFTER INSTALLATION. INSTALL TWO 2" x 2" STAINLESS L STIFFENERS ON OUTLET SIDE OF WEIR (3'-7"), CENTERED AND ANCHORED TO WEIR, WITH STAINLESS HARDWARE AT 5 POINTS. CONCRETE MAY BE USED TO SEAL BOTTOM OF WEIR 12" STM

33.0" 12"STM S=0.0050 SEAL EDGES OF WEIR AT ALL POINTS OF CONTACT WITH MANHOLE WALLS 2" x 2" STAINLESS L SEAL EDGES OF WEIR AT ALL POINTS OF CONTACT WITH MANHOLE WALLS MANHOLE STEP, TYP.

INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD.

ACDE
FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.1 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.4

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
128 -9858.64 FND 5/8" REBAR DMH 130.16 RIM 125.62 24" FL (E) 125.11 BTM DMH 131.14 RIM 126.66 12" FL (N) 126.24 18" F (S) 126.15 24" FL (E) DI 129.47 GRT 126.77 12" FL (N) 126.72 12" FL (S) 126.15 BTM 10" S 8" S 10" S
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
66"D FES 126.44 12" FL VAN G G FREEDOM WAY FREEDOM WAY EXTG R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXTG 20.0' WATER EASEMENT EXTG 20.0' P.U.E. 8" SAN S=0.36% 8" SAN
S=0.36% 8" SAN S=0.36%
8" SAN
S=0.54% 8" IE 121.47 MH-A5 RIM:125.71 8" IE IN (E) 121.75 8" IE OUT (N) 121.65 MH-B1 RIM:129.06 6" IE IN (S) 125.44 8" IE OUT (W) 125.34 MH-A4 RIM:126.51 8" IE IN (S) 122.51 8" IE OUT (W) 122.41 MH-A3 RIM:127.32 8" IE IN (W) 123.46 8" IE OUT (N) 123.36 MH-A2 RIM:128.10 6" IE IN (S) 124.37 8" IE IN (W) 124.37 8" IE OUT (E) 124.27 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT 15.0' PROPOSED SANITARY EASEMENT 6" IE 126.42 6" IE 125.85 6" SAN
S=1.00% 8" SAN S=0.37%
6" SAN
S=2.92% 8" SAN S=0.49% FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY FILTERA BIORETENTION FACILITY 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT 6" PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED SWALE 8" FW 8" FW
8" FW 8" FW 6" FW 6" FW
8" FW 8" FW 8" FW 6" FW 12.0' PROPOSED DCDA
8" STM
S = -0.32% 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" IE 125.77 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" IE 125.61 8" IE 124.67 8" IE 124.61 8" IE 124.90 8" IE 125.53 DITCH INLET 12'' IE 126.44 SFCB RIM 128.00 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" IE 124.98 8" IE 125.22 6" IE 125.53 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 6" IE 125.77 8" STM S = -0.30% 8" IE 125.29 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 SFCB RIM 128.00 CBRIM 132.22 OUTFALL INTO SWALE CB RIM 133.42 R50' R30' R30' R50' INSTALL SLOPED LID DITCH INLET AT LOW POINT. CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM LATERAL. BLDG B 132.15 FF BLDG A 134.45 FF 8" FW 8" FW 8" FW 12'' IE 127.31 12'' IE 128.34 12'' IE 129.15 8" IE 129.92 12" STM S = 0.59% 12" STM S = 0.59% 12" STM S = 0.59% 8" STM
S = 0.59% 12'' IE 126.61 12'' IE 127.83 12" STM S = 0.59% 8" IE 128.30 8" IE 127.98 8" IE 127.69 8" IE 127.42 8" IE 127.23 12" IE 127.01 12'' IE 127.04 12" STM S = -0.27% 8" STM
S = -0.27% 8" STM S = -0.27% 8" STM S = -0.27% 8" IE 127.44 8" STM S = -0.50% 8" STM S = -0.27% CBRIM 129.85 CBRIM 129.83 CHECKED PROJ. NO. DATE DRAWN REVISIONS PROJECT NAME SCALE \\srv06\VLMK-Projects\Acad2021\20210696\0-Drawings\100 C2.0 UTILITY PLAN.dwg8/5/2022 12:07 PM ADDRESS AS NOTED # DATE DESCRIPTION BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER (BOCC) 2200 FREEDOM WAY ROSEVILLE, CA. AS NOTED 20210696 DECEMBER 2021 Schnitzer P R O P E R T I E S VLMK.COM 3933 S Kelly Avenue Portland, Oregon 97239 503.222.4453 23 JG BMD C2.4 UTILITY PLAN SE E S W UTILITY PLAN SE 30 0 30 60 90 1" = 30' INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FREEDOM WAYBLUE OAKS BLVD. ACDE
FIDELITY WAY KEY PLAN N.T.S. C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.2 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C2.3

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT E
10 142.93
SET X
11126.80SET X
12128.19SET MAG NAIL
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
303128.10
fnd c/w in well ls 7350
10142.93
SET X
11126.80SET X
12128.19SET MAG NAIL
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
303128.10
fnd c/w in well ls 7350
20013
128.25

DI AT FC
20021128.13DI AT FC
20023128.56SMH
20039128.00
H2O VLV
20040
127.98
H2O VLV
20041
127.92
H2O VLV
20099129.41H2O VLV
20132
129.94
SMH
20650
129.81
SSCO
20896
126.58
H2O VLV
20952128.04TEL MH
20983127.28H2O VLV
21025
126.81

DI AT FC
21095127.96
H2O VLV
21288127.40TEL MH
21423
125.72

DI AT FC
21437
126.30TEL VAULT
22044
133.84

DI AT FC
22104143.73DI AT FC

OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
48" D
48" D
48" D
48" D
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
D
12" D
12" D
12 "D
12" D 12" D
12" D
12"W
30"W
12"WS
12"WS
VAN
G
G

END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE
(CONFORM)

END PAVEMENT WIDENING
(CONFORM) 4129.97
HV-4 5 133.92 HV-5
10142.93SET X
11126.80SET X
128.19SET MAG NAIL
130.24SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
1627.29

FND MON IN WELL
126129.17TBM 1
128
-9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133-9861.58FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
300130.35fnd n/t ls 7350
302129.45set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
30109129.96TEL MH30113129.48FIRE HYDRO
30120129.41H2O VLV30121129.31FIRE HYDRO
20011129.68FIRE HYDRO
20013128.25DI AT FC
20021128.13DI AT FC
20023128.56SMH
20026129.65SSCO
20039128.00H2O VLV
20040127.98H2O VLV
20041127.92H2O VLV
20099
129.41
H2O VLV
20132129.94SMH
20234131.20SSCO
20240130.63SMH
20252129.92SSCO
20256130.20H2O VLV
20272130.40FIRE HYDRO
20411135.23DMH
20650129.81SSCO
2066412.58DI SQ
20673127.50FIRE HYDRO
20762128.73DI AT FC
20800129.38DMH
20896126.58H2O VLV
20952128.04TEL MH
20983127.28H2O VLV
21025126.81DI AT FC
21081127.92DI AT FC
21095127.96H2O VLV
21288127.40TEL MH
21423125.72DI AT FC
21437126.30TEL VAULT
21925125.86DI AT FC
21954125.42DI AT FC
21958125.38DI AT FC
22044133.84
22104 DI AT FC143.73DI AT FC
2215819.47DI SQ22161130.16DMH
22166129.50DI AT FC
22353130.64H2O VLV
22354130.60H2O VLV
22380131.14DMH
22387131.09SMH
22455129.51DI AT FC 22457
130.12DMH
22463129.50DI AT FC2265815.81DI AT FC
22900129.95ramp
2327810.67ramp
OH/E
48" D
48" D 48" D
48" D
66" D
12" D
12" D
S
10" S
8" S
10" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
D
12" D
36" D
12" D
12" D
12 "D
12" D
12" D
12" D 12" D
12" D
12" D
24" D
12" D
12"W
30"W
30"W
12"W
12"W
12"WS
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
66"D
66"D
VAN
TRAN.

G
G

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE RTU

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE
TRAN.

G
G
VAN
RTU
VAN

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,600A SERVICE RTU
TRAN.

G
G
VAN

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
TRAN.

G
G
2,000A SERVICERTU
CHECKEDPROJ. NO.

DATE
DRAWN

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAMESCALE
S:\dwg\Blue Oaks Commerce Center\DWG's\DD\BOCC LP.dwg7/25/2022 2:29 PM # DATE DESCRIPTION
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
2200 FREEDOM WAY
ROSEVILLE, CA.
20210696
JUNE 10, 2022
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
0' 60'
30' 120' L1.1

LANDSCAPE PLAN
NW
1"=30'-0"

EJG JMA
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

PROJECT NAME
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT F
126
129.17
TBM 1
133
-9861.58FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
307
131.15
fnd n/t ls 7350
126129.17
TBM 1
133
-9861.58FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
307
131.15
fnd n/t ls 7350
20132129.94SMH
20240130.63SMH
20252129.92SSCO
20256130.20
H2O VLV
20650129.81SSCO
21925
125.86

DI AT FC
21954125.42DI AT FC
21958
125.38

DI AT FC
22158129.47
DI SQ
22161130.16DMH
22166
129.50

DI AT FC
22353130.64H2O VLV
22354
130.60
H2O VLV
22380
131.14
DMH
22455
129.51
DI AT FC 22457 130.12
DMH
22900
129.95
ramp

OH/E OH/E OH/E

OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
OH/E
S
10" S 10" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
12" D
24" D
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
TRAN.

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE RTU

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
1,200A SERVICE
TRAN.

G
VAN
RTU

END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE
(CONFORM)

END PAVEMENT WIDENING
(CONFORM)
4129.97HV-4 5 133.92HV-5
10142.93SET X
1126.80SET X
1228.19SET MAG NAIL
130.24SET MAG NAIL
1528.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
126129.17TBM 1
128-9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133-9861.58FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
30013.35fnd n/t ls 7350
302129.45set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
4129.97HV-4 5 133.92HV-5
10142.93SET X
1126.80SET X
1228.19SET MAG NAIL
130.24SET MAG NAIL
1528.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
126129.17TBM 1
128-9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133-9861.58FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
30013.35fnd n/t ls 7350
302129.45set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
30109129.96TEL MH
30113129.48FIRE HYDRO
30120129.41H2O VLV30121129.31FIRE HYDRO
20011129.68FIRE HYDRO
20013128.25DI AT FC20021128.13DI AT FC
20023128.56SMH
20026129.65SSCO
20039128.00H2O VLV
20040127.98H2O VLV
20041127.92H2O VLV
20099129.41H2O VLV
20132129.94SMH
20234131.20SSCO
20240130.63SMH
20252129.92SSCO
20256130.20H2O VLV20272130.40FIRE HYDRO
20411135.23DMH
20650129.81SSCO
20664126.58DI SQ
20673127.50FIRE HYDRO
20762128.73DI AT FC
20800129.38DMH
20896126.58H2O VLV
20952128.04TEL MH
20983127.28H2O VLV
21025126.81DI AT FC
21081127.92DI AT FC
21095127.96H2O VLV
21288127.40TEL MH
21423125.72DI AT FC
21437126.30TEL VAULT
21925125.86DI AT FC
21954125.42DI AT FC
21958125.38DI AT FC
22044133.84DI AT FC
22104143.73DI AT FC
2215819.47DI SQ
22161130.16DMH
2216619.50DI AT FC
22353130.64H2O VLV
22354130.60H2O VLV
22380
131.14DMH
22387131.09SMH
2245519.51DI AT FC 22457130.12
DMH
22463129.50DI AT FC2265815.81DI AT FC
229001.95ramp
2327810.67ramp
OH/E
48" D
48" D 48" D
48" D
66" D
12" D
12" D
S
10" S
8" S
10" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
D
12" D
36" D
12" D
12" D
12 "D
12" D
12" D 12" D
12" D
12" D
24" D
12" D
12"W
30"W
30"W
12"W
12"W
12"WS
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
66"D
66"D
VAN
TRAN.

G
G

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE RTU

ELECTRIC
FIRE PUMP 1,200A SERVICE
TRAN.

G
G
VAN
RTU
VAN

ELECTRIC
FIRE PUMP 1,600A SERVICE
RTU
TRAN.

G
G
VAN

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
TRAN.

G
G
2,000A SERVICERTU
CHECKEDPROJ. NO.

DATE
DRAWN

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAMESCALE
S:\dwg\Blue Oaks Commerce Center\DWG's\DD\BOCC LP.dwg7/25/2022 2:30 PM # DATE DESCRIPTION
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
2200 FREEDOM WAY
ROSEVILLE, CA.
20210696
JUNE 10, 2022
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
0' 60'
30' 120' L1.2
1"=30'-0"

EJG JMA

LANDSCAPE PLAN
NE

PROJECT NAME
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
12 128.19SET MAG NAIL

SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
302
129.45
set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304
127.62
set nail
305129.80set nail
12128.19SET MAG NAIL

SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
302
129.45
set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304
127.62
set nail
305129.80set nail
30109129.96TEL MH
30113
129.48

FIRE HYDRO
30120
129.41
H2O VLV
30121129.31FIRE HYDRO
20011
129.68

FIRE HYDRO
20013128.25DI AT FC
20023
128.56
SMH
20026
129.65SSCO
20132129.94SMH
20664126.58DI SQ
20673127.50FIRE HYDRO
20762128.73DI AT FC
20800129.38DMH
21081127.92DI AT FC
48" D
66" D
12" D
12" D
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
12" D
30"W
12"W
12"WS
66"D

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
G
VAN

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
G

END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE
(CONFORM)

END PAVEMENT WIDENING
(CONFORM) 4129.97
HV-4 5133.92 HV-5
10142.93SET X
1126.80SET X
128.19SET MAG NAIL
13130.24SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
1627.29FND MON IN WELL
12629.17TBM 1
128-9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133-9861.58FND REBAR134-9859.33FND REBAR
30013.35fnd n/t ls 7350
302129.45set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350 4129.97
HV-4 5133.92 HV-5
10142.93SET X
1126.80SET X
128.19SET MAG NAIL
13130.24SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
1627.29FND MON IN WELL
12629.17TBM 1
128-9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133-9861.58FND REBAR134-9859.33FND REBAR
30013.35fnd n/t ls 7350
302129.45set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
30109129.96TEL MH
30113129.48FIRE HYDRO
30120129.41H2O VLV30121129.31FIRE HYDRO
20011129.68FIRE HYDRO
20013128.25DI AT FC
20021128.13DI AT FC
20023128.56SMH
20026129.65SSCO
20039128.00H2O VLV
20040127.98H2O VLV
20041127.92H2O VLV
20099129.41H2O VLV
20132129.94SMH
20234131.20SSCO20240130.63SMH
20252129.92SSCO
20256130.20H2O VLV20272130.40FIRE HYDRO
20411135.23DMH
20650129.81SSCO
2066412.58DI SQ
20673127.50FIRE HYDRO
20762
128.73DI AT FC
20800129.38DMH
20896126.58H2O VLV
20952128.04TEL MH
20983127.28H2O VLV
21025126.81DI AT FC
21081
127.92DI AT FC
21095127.96H2O VLV
21288127.40TEL MH
21423125.72DI AT FC
21437126.30TEL VAULT
21925125.86DI AT FC
21954125.42DI AT FC
21958125.38DI AT FC
22044133.84
22104 DI AT FC143.73DI AT FC
2215819.47DI SQ22161130.16DMH
2216619.50DI AT FC
22353130.64H2O VLV
22354130.60H2O VLV
22380131.14DMH
22387131.09SMH
22455129.51DI AT FC 22457
130.12DMH
22463129.50DI AT FC22658125.81DI AT FC
22900129.95ramp
23278130.67ramp
OH/E
48" D
48" D 48" D
48" D
66" D
12" D
12" D
S
10" S
8" S
10" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
D
12" D
36" D
12" D
12" D
12 "D
12" D
12" D 12" D
12" D
12" D
24" D
12" D
12"W
30"W
30"W
12"W
12"W
12"WS
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
66"D
66"D
VAN
TRAN.

G
G

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE RTU

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE
TRAN.

G
G
VAN
RTU
VAN

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,600A SERVICE RTU
TRAN.

G
G
VAN

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
TRAN.

G
G
2,000A SERVICERTU
CHECKEDPROJ. NO.

DATE
DRAWN

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAMESCALE
S:\dwg\Blue Oaks Commerce Center\DWG's\DD\BOCC LP.dwg7/25/2022 2:35 PM # DATE DESCRIPTION
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
2200 FREEDOM WAY
ROSEVILLE, CA.
20210696
JUNE 10, 2022
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
0' 60'
30' 120' L1.3
1"=30'-0"

EJG JMA

LANDSCAPE PLAN
SW

PROJECT NAME
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
5 133.92
HV-5
300130.35fnd n/t ls 7350
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308
130.68
fnd c/w in well ls 7350
5 133.92
HV-5
300130.35fnd n/t ls 7350
306130.65set nail
307131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308
130.68
fnd c/w in well ls 7350
20132
129.94
SMH
20234131.20SSCO
20240
130.63
SMH
20272130.40FIRE HYDRO
20411135.23DMH
22158129.47DI SQ
130.16
DMH
10" S
8" S
10" S
36" D
24" D
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
66"D
VAN

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,600A SERVICE RTU
TRAN.

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
TRAN.

G
2,000A SERVICE
RTU

END NEW FOG LINE STRIPE
(CONFORM)

END PAVEMENT WIDENING
(CONFORM)
4 129.97HV-4
5133.92HV-5
1042.93SET X
1126.80SET X
128.19SET MAG NAIL
1330.24SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
126129.17TBM 1
128 -9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133 -9861.58

FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
300130.35fnd n/t ls 7350
129.45302
set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307 131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
4 129.97HV-4
5133.92HV-5
1042.93SET X
1126.80SET X
128.19SET MAG NAIL
1330.24SET MAG NAIL
15128.47FND CAP REBAR LS 3341
16127.29FND MON IN WELL
126129.17TBM 1
128 -9858.64FND 5/8" REBAR
133 -9861.58

FND REBAR
134-9859.33FND REBAR
300130.35fnd n/t ls 7350
129.45302
set nail
303128.10fnd c/w in well ls 7350
304127.62set nail
305129.80set nail
306130.65set nail
307 131.15fnd n/t ls 7350
308130.68fnd c/w in well ls 7350
30109129.96TEL MH
30113129.48FIRE HYDRO
30120129.41H2O VLV30121129.31FIRE HYDRO
20011129.68FIRE HYDRO
20013
128.25DI AT FC20021128.13DI AT FC
20023128.56SMH
20026129.65SSCO
20039128.00H2O VLV
20040127.98H2O VLV
20041127.92H2O VLV
20099129.41H2O VLV
20132129.94SMH
20234131.20SSCO20240130.63SMH
20252129.92SSCO
20256130.20H2O VLV20272130.40FIRE HYDRO
20411135.23DMH
20650129.81SSCO
20664126.58DI SQ
20673127.50FIRE HYDRO
20762128.73DI AT FC
20800129.38DMH
20896126.58H2O VLV
20952128.04TEL MH
20983127.28H2O VLV
21025126.81DI AT FC
21081127.92DI AT FC
21095127.96H2O VLV
21288127.40TEL MH
21423125.72DI AT FC
21437126.30TEL VAULT
21925125.86DI AT FC
21954125.42DI AT FC
21958125.38DI AT FC
22044133.84DI AT FC
22104143.73DI AT FC
2215819.47DI SQ
22161130.16DMH
22166129.50DI AT FC
22353130.64H2O VLV
22354130.60H2O VLV
22380131.14DMH
22387131.09SMH
2245519.51DI AT FC 22457130.12
DMH
2246319.50DI AT FC2265815.81DI AT FC
22900129.95ramp
23278130.67ramp
OH/E
48" D
48" D 48" D
48" D
66" D
12" D
12" D
S
10" S
8" S
10" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
36" D
12" D
36" D
D
12" D
36" D
12" D
12" D
12 "D
12" D
12" D 12" D
12" D
12" D
24" D
12" D
12"W
30"W
30"W
12"W
12"W
12"WS
12"W
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
12"WS
66"D
66"D
VAN
TRAN.

G
G

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE RTU

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,200A SERVICE
TRAN.

G
G
VAN
RTU
VAN

ELECTRIC

FIRE PUMP
1,600A SERVICE
RTU
TRAN.

G
G
VAN

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRIC
TRAN.

G
G
2,000A SERVICE
RTU
CHECKEDPROJ. NO.

DATE
DRAWN

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAMESCALE
S:\dwg\Blue Oaks Commerce Center\DWG's\DD\BOCC LP.dwg7/25/2022 2:36 PM # DATE DESCRIPTION
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
2200 FREEDOM WAY
ROSEVILLE, CA.
20210696
JUNE 10, 2022
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
0' 60'
30' 120' L1.4
1"=30'-0"

EJG JMA

LANDSCAPE PLAN
SE

PROJECT NAME
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
L1.5
CHECKEDPROJ. NO.

DATE
DRAWN

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAMESCALE
S:\dwg\Blue Oaks Commerce Center\DWG's\DD\BOCC LP.dwg
# DATE DESCRIPTION
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
2200 FREEDOM WAY
ROSEVILLE, CA.
20210696
JUNE 10, 2022
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EJG JMA

LANDSCAPE

LEGENDS & NOTES
N.T.S.

PROJECT NAME
VLMK.COM
3933 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453

BLUE OAKS

COMMERCE

CENTER (BOCC)
JEFF AMBROSIA, ASLA C4057
1223 HIGH STREET
AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603
(530) 885-0040
FAX (530) 885-0042
www.yamasaki-la.com

Y A M A S A K I

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT G

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT H

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

CC EXHIBIT I

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
8/01/2022

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22

REVISED MODIFIED STAGE I
AND STAGE II INTAKE SET:
08-01-22
�--BODY COLOR "SITE WHITE"--�
36'-0"
T.O.W.

PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION
Sherwin Williams
"SITE WHITE"
SW 7070
"Body Color"
N.T.S.

Sherwin Williams
"NETWORK GRAY"
SW 7073
"Light-Gray"
1234
ACCENT--�
"EXTRA WHITE"

PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION
Sherwin Williams
-WEB GRAY"
SW 707S
"Dark-Gray"
N.T.S.

Sherwin Williams
"EXTRA WHITE"
SW 7006
"Accent"
Blue Oaks Commerce Center
BUILDING A (BUILDINGS B, C AND DARE SIMILAR) FEBRUARY 2022 40'-6"� T.O.W.

MEDIUM GRAY
"NETWORK GRAY" STOREFRONT GLAZING

PPG VISTACOOL AZURIA
'----STOREFRONT FRAMES

CLEAR ANODIZED
Schnitzer

PROPERTIES
V l VLMKENGINEERING + DESIGN
3933 SW Kelly Avenue• Portland, Oregon 97239
503.222.4453 www.vlmk.com

CC EXHIBIT J

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2414
File #: 0400-04-02-1
Title:

Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project - Northeast Roseville Specific Plan Parcel 12 (1600 Eureka Road) - Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment
Contact: Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 [email protected] Meeting Date: 12/7/2022
Item #: 8.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the November 10, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

1. Adopt a resolution to Consider the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Inpatient Bed Tower Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Adopt a resolution approving text amendments to the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan; and

3. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the First Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the November 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing.

Background/Project Description
The project site is located on the existing 49-acre Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus (“Medical Center Campus”) at 1600 Eureka Road (APN 048-012-001-000), in the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) (see Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map). The site is bordered by Lead Hill Boulevard on the north, Douglas Boulevard on the south, Eureka Road on the east, and Rocky Ridge Drive on the west. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional (BP) and a zoning designation of Planned Development for Medical Campus (PD 470). Surrounding uses include a mix of commercial and office uses. The property is currently developed with seven buildings totaling 1,441,750 square feet that comprise the Medical Center Campus, along with 3,077 surface and garage parking spaces and associated lighting and landscaping.

Development of the Medical Center Campus was originally approved in 1992 through the City’s Use Permit process, which included a 270,000-square-foot hospital and 108,000-square-foot medical office building (MOB 1) that were constructed in 1995. Subsequently in 2004, the City Council approved a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 and MPP Stage 2 to allow an expansion of the Medical Center Campus (“2004 Expansion Project”) consisting of over 700,000 square feet of medical uses (file #MPP 02-02 & #MPP 02-03). As part of the 2004 Expansion Project, an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2003062014) was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. The expansion was proposed to be constructed in three phases. The first two phases ran concurrently, with construction from 2004 through 2009. The third phase was tentatively scheduled to run from 2010 through 2012, but ultimately was never constructed. The third phase included a five-story, 155,000 square-foot Surgery and Intensive Care Unit Facility located along the north elevation of the existing main hospital building, a threelevel, approximately 400-space parking garage located in the northeast corner of the Medical Center Campus, and a helicopter landing pad. A detailed project description and phasing plan of the 2004 expansion is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 2).

The requested entitlements will facilitate a new expansion of the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center located at 1600 Eureka Road. The project includes a request for a Specific Plan Amendment (text only) to the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) to modify the minimum setback requirements and an Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals to address the increased use intensity and vested entitlements.

Associated with this request was a MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2, which were approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2022, to allow construction of an approximate 278,000-square-foot, six-story inpatient bed tower building on the site of the previously approved Surgery and Intensive Care Tower; a new 800 stall four-level parking garage with rooftop parking on the site of the previously approved parking garage (at the northeast corner of Lead Hill Boulevard and Eureka Road); relocation of the northwest corner loop road; new main hospital entrance and drop off area; expansion of the existing Emergency Department to add 36 new treatment bays; and a new generator yard and internal upgrades to the existing Central Utility Plant. Further discussion and exhibits for these entitlements are included in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachments 2-5.

Summary Evaluation
The NERSP includes a Medical Campus (MC) component applicable to the project site. The intent of the MC land use is to provide a setting for medical hospitals and health care related uses. The MC component includes a list of design standards, including minimum setback requirements. From the ultimate back of curb of any adjacent existing or planned public roadway, a minimum 50-foot setback is required for buildings of two stories and less in height, and any parking, paved or enclosed areas; and a minimum 100-foot setback is required for any building of three stories or more in height. The project proposes a four-level parking garage at the northeast corner of Eureka Road and Lead Hill Boulevard, which would require a 100-foot setback from the adjacent roadways. The applicant proposes to amend the NERSP to modify the setback requirement from 100 feet to 50 feet for the new parking garage. The setback requirements will also be modified to specify that ancillary right-turn lanes, bus turn-outs, and standard tapers are included in the required setback. This is consistent with other Specific Plans in the City. The NERSP change pages are included as Exhibit A.

The proposed parking garage has a total of four levels with rooftop parking and an overall height of approximately 58 feet. The parking garage will be setback approximately 50 feet from Eureka Road to the east and approximately 130 feet south of Lead Hill Boulevard. As required by the NERSP, a visual impact analysis was prepared to evaluate the visual impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area (see Attachment 6). The visual impact analysis includes three-dimensional renderings of the project as seen from the different view sheds in the area.

The tallest portions of the structure are the elevator towers, which are located on the western facing elevation internal to the site and away from the frontage. While the overall height of the structure is approximately 58 feet, the height of the structure is approximately 50 feet along the roadways. Visual impacts of the structure will be minimized by the existing mature landscaping along the roadway frontages. The height of the structure is in scale with the existing buildings on the site and will not significantly alter the existing visual character of the site. Furthermore, existing topography in the area is sloping and includes parcels with higher elevations to the northeast. As a result, the apparent height of the parking garage will not be as great when viewed in context to the existing buildings to the northeast. Therefore, based on the foregoing, staff supports the proposed SPA to allow a 50-foot setback for the parking garage.

The project includes a first amendment of the Development Agreement (DA) by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The DA Amendment is included as Exhibit B.

Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties. The DA Amendment will revise the relevant sections of the original DA to address the increased use intensity and vested entitlements proposed with the project. Items that are not addressed in the amendment are subject to the terms of the original DA. In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, NERSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City's Planning Commission on November 10, 2022. The applicant’s representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested approval by the Commission. No public testimony was received at the hearing. After deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission certified the Final SEIR; adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approved the MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2; and recommended the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment with a vote of 4 aye, 0 nay, 2 absent, 1 recused.

Public Outreach
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website and on the City’s Projects of Interest website.

On June 28, 2022 the applicant held a public informational meeting at the Maidu Community Center. Notice of this meeting was posted on the RCONA website, the project website, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. The purpose of the informational meeting was to provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions about the project, the process, and the environmental review of the project. In attendance were applicant representatives and City staff. Approximately seven members of the public attended, primarily from the Maidu Neighborhood Association, and asked questions about the project. None of the attendees expressed opposition.

Notices of both the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing were published in the Roseville Press Tribune and on the RCONA website, and mailed to all property owners and residents within a 300 foot radius of the project site. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comments regarding the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the City’s General Fund. The approximate 278,000-square-foot, six-story, Inpatient Tower building proposed with the project would help ensure the retention of the approximately 2,800 existing Kaiser employees in the City, and is anticipated to generate approximately 728 new jobs. In addition to creating long-term employment opportunities through the new hospital tower building, project construction would generate approximately 370 new construction-related jobs at peak construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Buildout of the Medical Center Campus and potential impacts associated with construction activity site disturbance were analyzed in the 2004 Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2003062014) (2004 Expansion Project EIR). In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15163, because only minor additions and changes would be needed to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised, the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH#2022020590) to the 2004 Expansion Project EIR to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the Draft SEIR was available for a 45 day public review and comment period starting July 22, 2022 and ending September 6, 2022. The Draft SEIR is available for review on the City’s website at www.roseville.ca.us/environmentaldocuments. Two agency comment letters were received during the public review period, from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, however no comments were received from members of the public. The agency comment letters consisted of information on standard permitting requirements. The Draft SEIR found one significant and unavoidable impact (cumulative impacts to light and glare) and concluded that all other impacts were either less than significant, or would be less than significant with application of the recommended mitigation. A full summary of the project’s environmental impacts is included in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft SEIR.

A Final SEIR was published on October 17, 2022 and is included as Exhibit C. CEQA requires the City of Roseville (as the CEQA lead agency) to make written findings whenever it decides to approve a project for which an EIR (or SEIR) was certified (Public Resources Code Section 21081). The findings explain how the lead agency approached the significant impacts identified in the SEIR. Findings for the proposed project have been prepared and are included as Exhibit D.

CEQA prohibits an agency from approving a project that will have a significant, unavoidable environmental impact unless the agency adopts a statement describing the specific benefits of the project that outweigh its expected unavoidable impacts (i.e., the overriding considerations). Since project implementation would involve significant and unavoidable light and glare impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is included with the Findings. The final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Exhibit E and will ensure mitigation compliance during project construction and operation.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments Attachment 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibits F-L Attachment 5 Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibits M-R Attachment 6 Visual Impact Analysis
Resolution 22-424
Exhibit C Final Supplemental EIR
Exhibit D Findings of Fact & Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit E Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Resolution 22-425
Exhibit A NERSP Change Pages
Ordinance for First Amendment of Kaiser DA
Exhibit B First Amendment of the Kaiser DA
Vicinity Map
City of Roseville, Nearmap, Maxar
Roseville Parcel
Roseville Street Label
11/14/2022, 11:39:20 AM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
1:9,028
City of Roseville - Development Services
City of Roseville | Development Services
CC ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 2022
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.3: Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment, Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification, and Major Project Permit Stage 2 – 1600 Eureka Road – NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project – File #PL22-0038

REQUEST
The applicant requests a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 in order to construct an approximate 278,000-square-foot, six-story inpatient bed tower building for the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center. The project will also consist of a new 800 stall four-level parking garage with rooftop parking; relocation of the northwest corner loop road; new main hospital entrance and drop off area; expansion of the existing Emergency Department to add 36 new treatment bays; and a new generator yard and internal upgrades to the existing Central Utility Plant. The project includes an Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals to address the increased use intensity and vested entitlements; and a Specific Plan Amendment (text only) to the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan to modify the minimum setback requirements.

Applicant – Belinda Young, HOK, Inc.

Property Owner – Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH#2022020590) for the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus Inpatient Bed Tower Project, adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program;

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Development Agreement Amendment by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals;

4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Stage 2 subject to one hundred forty-four (144) conditions of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The project site is located on the existing 49-acre Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus (“Medical Center Campus”) at 1600 Eureka Road (APN 048-012-001-000), in the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) (see Figure 1 below). The site is bordered by Lead Hill Boulevard on the north, Douglas Boulevard on the south, Eureka Road on the east, and Rocky Ridge Drive on the west. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Professional (BP) and a zoning designation of Planned Development for Medical Campus (PD 470). Surrounding uses include commercial and office uses to the north across Lead Hill Boulevard and to the east across Eureka Road, Rocky Ridge Town Center and office uses to the south across Douglas Boulevard, and the Roseville Center and commercial CC ATTACHMENT 2
NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 2 of 34
uses to the west across Rocky Ridge Drive. The property is currently developed with seven buildings totaling 1,441,750 square feet that comprise the Medical Center Campus, along with 3,077 surface and garage parking spaces and associated lighting and landscaping.

Figure 1: Project Site
Development of the Medical Center Campus was originally approved in 1992 through the City’s Use Permit process, which included a 270,000-square-foot hospital and 108,000-square-foot medical office building (MOB 1) that were constructed in 1995. Subsequently in 2004, the City Council approved a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 and MPP Stage 2 to allow an expansion of the Medical Center Campus (“2004 Expansion Project”) consisting of over 700,000 square feet of medical uses (file #MPP 02-02 & #MPP 02-03). As part of the 2004 Expansion Project, an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2003062014) was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. The expansion was proposed to be constructed in three phases. The first two phases ran concurrently, with construction from 2004 through 2009. The third phase was tentatively scheduled to run from 2010 through 2012, but ultimately was never constructed. A detailed project description and phasing plan of the 2004 expansion is provided below, and the approved site plan is shown in Figure 2 below.  Phase 1 (construction from 2004 to 2009)
o Medical Office Building II (4-stories, 270,000 SF)
o Central Utility Plant Expansion (3,000 SF)
o Fire Pump Building
o Parking Garage #1 (6-levels plus 1,000 SF security office)  Phase 2 (construction from 2004 to 2009)
o Women’s and Children’s Hospital (4-stories, 200,000 SF) o Emergency Department Renovation and Expansion (55,000 SF) o Radiology Department Addition (10,000 SF)
o Cafeteria Addition (5,500 SF)
o Internal tenant improvements to Existing Hospital and MOB 1 o Auxiliary Shops Building (5,500 SF)
o Interim Helicopter Landing Pad
 Phase 3 (construction from 2010 to 2012)
o Surgery and Intensive Care Tower (5-stories, 155,000 SF) o Parking Garage #2 (3-levels)
o Final Helicopter Landing Pad atop Parking Garage #2
Project Site
Rocky Ridge Dr.

Eureka Rd.

Douglas Bl.

Lead Hill Bl.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 3 of 34
Figure 2: Approved 2004 Expansion Project Site Plan
Legend

1. Surgery/ ICU Expansion

2. ED Expansion & Radiology Addition

3. Existing Hospital

4. Auxiliary Shops Building

5. Service Area w/ Trash Enclosures

6. Mobile MRI

7. Patient Transport

8. Women and Children’s Center

9. Existing MOB 1

10. MOB 2

11. Parking Structure 1

12. Parking Structure 2/Final Helistop

13. RV Parking

14. Interim Helistop

15. Cafeteria Expansion

16. Central Utility Plant Expansion

17. Loading Dock

18. Fire Pump Building

19. Security Office
NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 4 of 34
All of the buildings approved as part of the 2004 Expansion Project, described above, have been constructed with the exception of Phase 3, which included a five-story, 155,000 square-foot Surgery and Intensive Care Unit Facility located along the north elevation of the existing main hospital building, a three-level, approximately 400-space parking garage located in the northeast corner of the Medical Center Campus, and a helicopter landing pad.

The proposed project would increase the size and capacity of the previously approved buildings that were not constructed and would add a few additional elements. The applicant requests a MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 in order to construct an approximate 278,000-square-foot, six-story inpatient bed tower building (“bed tower”) on the site of the previously approved Surgery and Intensive Care Tower. The project will also consist of several other new elements:
 An 800 stall four-level parking garage with rooftop parking on the site of the previously approved parking garage (at the northeast corner of Lead Hill Boulevard and Eureka Road);  Relocation of the northwest corner of the internal loop road;  A new main hospital entrance and drop off area;
 Expansion of the existing Emergency Department to add 36 new treatment bays; and  A new generator yard and internal upgrades to the existing Central Utility Plant.

The proposed project would be constructed on portions of the property currently occupied by surface parking lots. In addition, the project includes a First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals to address the increased use intensity and vested entitlements; and a Specific Plan Amendment (text only) to the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan to modify the minimum setback requirements. Figure 3 below includes an overall site plan of the project. The existing buildings are shown in gray and the new buildings are in yellow.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 5 of 34
Figure 3: Proposed Project Site Plan
The proposed revisions to the approved 2004 Expansion Project are detailed in Table 1 below. The proposed project will replace the previously approved five-level, 155,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) Surgery and Intensive Care Unit facility with a six-level, 278,000 gsf bed tower building (approximately 123,000 square feet larger). Table 2 details the number of hospital beds and staffing numbers. The proposed project will add 138 hospital beds and 728 employees. This is an incremental increase of 58 beds and 69 employees when compared to the 2004 Expansion Project. A Supplemental EIR to the 2004 Expansion Project EIR was prepared to analyze the proposed project components that were not previously evaluated and the potential effects on the environment. The Supplemental EIR is included as Exhibit A and is further discussed in the Environmental Determination section of this staff report. Rocky Ridge Dr. Eureka Rd.

Douglas Bl.

Lead Hill Bl.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 6 of 34
Table 1: 2004 Expansion Project as Compared to the Proposed Project Building
Description
Building Size Number of
Stories
Building Height
2004 Expansion
Project
Surgery and
Intensive Care Unit
Facility
155,000 gross
square feet (gsf)
5 83 feet
Parking Garage n/a 3 levels 23 feet
Proposed
Project
Inpatient Bed
Tower Building
278,000 gsf 6 107 feet
Parking Garage
with rooftop parking
260,897 gsf 4 levels ±58 feet
Table 2: Hospital Beds and Staffing Levels
2004 Expansion
Project
Existing Existing Plus
Proposed
Project
Incremental
Increase
compared to
2004 Expansion
Project
Number of
Hospital Beds
432 352 490 58
Number of Staff 3,459 2,800 3,528 69
If the project is approved, project construction is anticipated to take approximately 4.5 years to complete and would occur in multiple phases. Phasing is required in order for the existing hospital and medical office buildings to remain open with sufficient parking capacity and public access during construction.

The intent is to have the parking structure be built first in order to provide additional parking on site while the Inpatient Tower Building is under construction in the northwest corner of the Campus. An off-site parking lot with shuttle service located at 2130 Douglas Boulevard (to the south of the site across Douglas Boulevard) would provide temporary parking for Kaiser employees during project construction.

EVALUATION – SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
The project includes a text only amendment to the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP). Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the affected plan.

The NERSP includes a Medical Campus (MC) component applicable to the Sutter Roseville Medical Center Hospital site (located at 1 Medical Plaza Drive) and the Kaiser Roseville Medical Center Campus site (located at 1600 Eureka Road), which are both located within the NERSP area. The intent of the MC land use is to provide a setting for medical hospitals and health care related uses. The MC component includes a list of design standards, including minimum setback requirements. From the ultimate back of curb of any adjacent existing or planned public roadway, a minimum 50-foot setback is required for buildings of two stories and less in height, and any parking, paved or enclosed areas; and a minimum 100-foot setback is required for any building of three stories or more in height. The project proposes a four-level parking garage at the northeast corner of Eureka Road and Lead Hill Boulevard, which would NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 7 of 34
require a 100-foot setback from the adjacent roadways. The applicant proposes to amend the NERSP to modify the setback requirement from 100 feet to 50 feet for the new parking garage. The setback requirements will also be modified to specify that ancillary right-turn lanes, bus turn-outs, and standard tapers are included in the required setback. This is consistent with other Specific Plans in the City. The NERSP change pages are included as Exhibit D.

The proposed parking garage has a total of four levels with rooftop parking and an overall height of approximately 58 feet. The parking garage will be setback approximately 50 feet from Eureka Road to the east and approximately 130 feet south of Lead Hill Boulevard. As required by the NERSP, a visual impact analysis was prepared to evaluate the visual impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area (see Attachment 1). The visual impact analysis includes three-dimensional renderings of the project as seen from the different view sheds in the area. Figure 4 is a rendering of the parking garage from the view of Lead Hill Boulevard/Eureka Road. Figure 5 is from the perspective of traveling northbound on Eureka Road.

Figure 4: View from Lead Hill Bl./Eureka Rd.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 8 of 34
Figure 5: View from northbound Eureka Rd.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, staff supports the proposed SPA to allow a 50-foot setback for the parking garage.

EVALUATION – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Section 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consideration of the following:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. Conformity with the public health, safety and general welfare;

4. The effect on the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Agreement.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 9 of 34
The project includes a first amendment of the Development Agreement (DA) by and between the City of Roseville and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The DA Amendment is included as Exhibit E. Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

The DA Amendment will revise the relevant sections of the original DA to address the increased use intensity and vested entitlements proposed with the project. The DA Amendment will also include reference to the Supplemental EIR prepared for the project. Items that are not addressed in the amendment are subject to the terms of the original DA. In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, NERSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with items 1-5 above.

EVALUATION – MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION & STAGE 2 The proposed project is being evaluated through the Major Project Permit (MPP) entitlement process.

The intent of the MPP process is to streamline the review of large and diverse projects that could be constructed over a period of several years. The MPP process allows for the resolution of site issues prior to the review of more detailed architectural and landscape issues that may not be finalized at the time the site plan is ready. In accordance with the City’s MPP Ordinance, the MPP review process is segregated into three separate stages. Provided below is a summary of each Stage:
 Stage 1: Stage 1 of the MPP application consists of the approval of a preliminary development plan.

The preliminary development plan will establish the configuration of the buildings, parking areas and ratios, landscaping, open space, rough grading, drainage, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and development phasing. The complete environmental review of the project is also performed at this stage. Stage 1 review and approval is performed by the Planning Commission.  Stage 2: Stage 2 of the MPP application process consists of the review of the detailed architecture and landscaping for the project. Stage 2 review is also performed by the Planning Commission.  Stage 3: Stage 3 is an administrative review of the improvement and building plans for compliance with the conditions of the Stage 1 and 2 approvals.

The evaluation section of this report includes an analysis of the requested MPP Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2. Each entitlement is analyzed for its consistency with the goals and policies of the applicable regulations, including the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP).

Section 19.82.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance describes the procedures for an amendment to a Major Project Permit. According to Section 19.82.040(C), all amendments that are not considered minor shall be reviewed in the same manner as the initial approval. The proposed request includes modifying the site plan, constructing a new bed tower building, parking garage, and generator yard, as well as additional changes as described in the Background section of this report. These modifications do not meet the minor modification criteria and; therefore, require final action by the Planning Commission subject to the findings for a MPP Stage 1. The required findings are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 10 of 34 The findings for a MPP Stage 1 (or modification of same) are as follows:

1. The Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines; and

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

The findings for the MPP Stage 2 are as follows:

1. The architecture and landscaping is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and adopted City Design Guidelines; and Phase 1 approval; and

2. The design and installation of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

These findings are essentially the same, with the MPP Stage 1 Modification findings referring to the preliminary development plan, and the MPP Stage 2 findings referring to the architecture and landscaping, as well as consistency with the Stage 1 project. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation, both stages are examined together. The project plans are included as Exhibits F—R.

Site Planning and Development Standards
The proposed 278,000-square-foot bed tower building will be located on the site of the previously approved Surgery and Intensive Care Unit facility, which is currently developed with an interim surface parking lot. The bed tower would be located near the existing hospital in the northwest portion of the site, approximately 200 feet south of Lead Hill Boulevard and approximately 140 feet east of Rocky Ridge Drive. The available footprint for the bed tower was predicated by site constraints, including the hospital loop road to the west, the existing emergency department to the north, and the existing hospital entrance and courtyard to the south (See Figure 3 above). The existing emergency department will be expanded to add 36 new treatment bays and will feature a new entrance. A new main lobby entrance and entry drop-off will also be provided for the hospital with primary access off of Rocky Ridge Drive. Connections between the new bed tower building and the existing hospital building will be provided through a public corridor that connects the lobbies of both buildings, with landscaped courtyards and amenity spaces.

The four-level plus rooftop parking garage will be located near the Women and Children’s Center in the northeastern portion of the site in an area currently developed with an interim surface parking lot. As mentioned, a parking garage was previously approved in this location as part of the prior MPP Stage 1 approval. A new generator yard will also be built on the northeastern potion of the site, on a paved pad across from the existing Central Utility Plant, to house two, 2-megawatt emergency generators to support the bed tower building.

The MC component of the NERSP identifies development standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. Table 3 compares the proposed project with the applicable development standards.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 11 of 34 Table 3: NERSP Medical Campus Component Development Standards Standard Requirement Proposed
Setback 50’ minimum for buildings 2 stories tall or
less, and any parking, paved or enclosed
areas
50’ minimum for the parking
garage and generator yard
100’ minimum for buildings 3 stories or
more in height
100’ minimum for the Inpatient
Bed Tower
Lot Coverage Shall not exceed 35% of the gross square
footage of the parcel
28%
Building Height As approved by the City based upon a
visual impact analysis
107’ – Inpatient Bed Tower (6
stories)
±58’ – Parking Garage (4
stories)
±28’ – Generator Yard (1 story)
As discussed in the SPA evaluation section of this report, the project will amend the NERSP to allow a minimum 50-foot setback requirement for the proposed parking garage. The generator yard is only one story and therefore is also subject to the minimum 50-foot setback. The bed tower building is 6 stories and requires a minimum 100-foot setback. The project does not exceed the maximum 35% lot coverage, and the proposed buildings meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements from the ultimate back of curb of adjacent public roadways.

As mentioned, a visual impact analysis was prepared for the project. The analysis includes conceptual renderings of the proposed buildings as seen from the adjacent roadways to assist with staff’s evaluation of the proposed building heights. The highest point of the bed tower building is approximately 107 feet, with limited additional height for a screened mechanical enclosure at the roof level. The highest point of the parking garage is approximately 58 feet to the elevator towers and the generator yard is approximately 28 feet tall. The analysis demonstrates that the proposed buildings will not significantly alter the existing visual character of the site and will not have a significant adverse effect on important view sheds in the area. This conclusion is based upon a visual survey of the site and surrounding properties, including the three-dimensional perspective renderings of the project. The perspective renderings demonstrate that the proposed buildings will tie in cohesively with the existing visual context of the site and will not significantly be out of scale with the surrounding area. The gently rolling topography, setbacks, and dense landscaping minimize the potential visual effect of the taller buildings. Staff has determined that the design of the proposed buildings is compatible with the existing built environment on the site and on surrounding properties.

Vehicle Access and Circulation
The Medical Center Campus is currently accessible by each of the adjacent roadways, with one driveway on Douglas Boulevard, one driveway on Rocky Ridge Road, two driveways on Lead Hill Boulevard, and one driveway on Eureka Road. Existing access to the Medical Center Campus from Eureka Road and Douglas Boulevard would not change. The proposed project will relocate the western driveway on Lead Hill Boulevard approximately 400 feet west to provide more convenient access to the new Inpatient Tower building. The existing driveway on Rocky Ridge Drive would function as the main entry to the Medical Center Campus, providing direct access to a new hospital drop off area fronting the new hospital entrance atrium and plaza. The existing main hospital entrance and drop off area that is located south of the proposed tower building would be repurposed as a secondary access. In addition, the project would change the internal circulation system by relocating the internal Loop Road in the northwest quadrant of the site to accommodate the bed tower building. Vehicular access to the new parking garage would primarily occur via the eastern driveway on Lead Hill Boulevard and the driveway on Eureka Road, which are directly north and south of the new parking garage, respectively.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 12 of 34 The pedestrian walkways in the northwest portion of the Medical Center Campus would be reconfigured to accommodate the new bed tower building. These walkways would provide internal pedestrian circulation between the new hospital entrance and reconfigured surface parking lots to the north, west, and south of the new main hospital drop off. The walkways would also provide a continuous path along the north side of the Bed Tower building between the new main hospital entrance and emergency department entrance. A combination of new and existing pedestrian walkways would connect the new main hospital drop off to Rocky Ridge Drive and the ED drop off to Lead Hill Boulevard.

The proposed site access and circulation design was evaluated in a transportation impact study prepared by Fehr & Peers, which is included as Attachment 2. Specifically, the study documents the proposed project’s travel characteristics, traffic operations (i.e., Level of Service (LOS)) effects at nearby intersections, site access evaluation, and on-site circulation review. The study determined the project would not have a substantial effect on traffic operations at signalized intersections in the study area. The study’s recommendations for site access and on-site circulation were incorporated into the project design. These include off-site improvements to Lead Hill Boulevard, such as widening and extending the existing raised median in the eastbound left-turn pocket approaching Eureka Road and adding a “no U-turn” sign facing westbound traffic in the widened median. The project was also reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff and was found to comply with refuse service standards and with emergency circulation requirements.

Parking
Per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement for hospitals is based upon the number of doctors, employees, and beds within the hospital. One (1) space is required per doctor, plus one (1) space per three (3) employees for the largest shift, plus one (1) space per three (3) beds. This parking ratio is applied to the proposed Inpatient Tower building and the existing hospital building. The parking requirement for medical office buildings is one (1) space per 150 square feet of building square footage, and is applied to the existing Medical Office Building I and Medical Office Building II. Parking is not required for the central utility plant, generator yard, fire pump building, and auxiliary shops because they are considered ancillary to the hospital and employees manning these areas are accounted for in the hospital calculation. The current parking required for the existing hospital and medical office buildings is 2,948 spaces. The proposed Inpatient Tower building will consist of 62 doctors, 666 employees, and 138 hospital beds, resulting in a parking requirement of 330 spaces. With the addition of the project, the total parking requirement for the Medical Center Campus amounts to 3,278 spaces.

The project will reconfigure the surface parking and add a parking structure on the northeastern corner of the site, creating a total of 1,079 parking spaces (with 248 surface spaces and 810 spaces in the structure). With the proposed and existing number of parking spaces, there will be a total of 3,303 spaces provided on site, which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Building Architecture
The five-story bed tower building is designed in a contemporary architectural style. The building will be clad in metal panel with board formed concrete applied on portions of the base. Two shades of neutralcolored metal panels in combination with varying orientation are used to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the façade. The proposed neutral color palette complements the existing color palette of the site. Glazed curtainwalls (glass wall systems) will be strategically applied on the ends of the building to provide visual relief amidst the metal panels. To reduce glare, all exterior windows and glass used on the building surfaces would be non-reflective or treated with an anti-reflective coating to minimize glare.

The building will feature entry canopies, a glazed main entry rotunda, patient window modules, and sunshade devices, as shown in Figures 6 and 7 below. The building is well articulated with a mix of colors and materials and variation in wall planes and height.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 13 of 34 Figure 6: Southwest side of the Inpatient Bed Tower near Hospital Entry NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 14 of 34 Figure 7: Northwest side of the Inpatient Tower Building near Emergency Department The parking structure will consist of painted cast-in-place concrete designed as a rectangular building to allow for the most efficient parking stall layout (see Figure 8 below). Perimeter concrete crash walls are used for crash protection and to reduce lighting impacts from vehicles. The elevator towers are constructed of concrete masonry units, with additional cladding to enhance the vertical circulation corners of the structure. Enhanced architectural treatment is applied to the elevations visible along the main street frontages, particularly on the elevations facing Lead Hill Boulevard and Eureka Road. Decorative perforated metal panels are applied on the building corners on the north, south, and east elevations, as well as in the middle of the eastern elevation facing Eureka Road to break up the building massing and provide additional screening of vehicles. The existing mature trees along the frontage will be maintained to the extent feasible to enhance and screen the structure from view.

Figure 8: Northeast side of the Parking Garage (Facing Lead Hill Bl./Eureka Rd.) NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 15 of 34 The generator yard building is clad in a combination of horizontal and corrugated metal panels, painted in neutral beige and light brown tones to complement the parking garage and the nearest buildings on site.

Figure 9 is a perspective view of the generator yard from Lead Hill Boulevard. Trees along the street-facing elevations will soften views of the building
Figure 9: Northwest side of Generator Yard (Facing Lead Hill Bl.) Landscaping and Lighting
The project will require the removal of trees within the parking lot areas to accommodate the new parking garage and reconfigured surface parking areas. None of the trees proposed for removal are protected oak trees. Minor modifications to the landscaping along the Lead Hill Boulevard frontage will also be made to accommodate the relocation of the western driveway, and along the Eureka Road frontage to accommodate the parking garage. However, the required 35-foot-wide landscape setbacks adjacent to these roadways will be maintained. Maidenhair trees added within the new surface parking lot areas will provide a minimum 50 percent shading of the parking areas, consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. Landscaping consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs will also be added around the parking structure, the new generator yard, around the bed tower, and in front of the new main entrance. The landscaping will soften views of the proposed structures and will tie in cohesively with the existing site landscaping. Overall, the landscape design is consistent with the NERSP design guidelines, the CDG and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

In addition to landscape plans, the project plans also include furnishings and fixtures. Outdoor gathering spaces will be provided in front of the new bed tower building as well as outside the new rotunda area in between the bed tower and main hospital building. Furnishings include concrete seatwalls, benches, and outdoor tables.

A site lighting plan was provided that proposes parking lot lighting in the new surface parking areas and in the parking garage. The project will also consist of building-mounted lighting at entrances and low-level lighting on bollards to illuminate landscaped areas and pedestrian paths. The light fixtures will consist of premium-efficiency LED light sources. The project is conditioned to provide a photometric plan to ensure consistency with the City’s minimum lighting level requirements (0.5 foot-candles in pedestrian areas and

1.0 foot-candles in vehicle areas). In addition, the City’s Community Design Guidelines limits the height of parking lot lighting to be no taller than 25 feet in height and directed to have no off-site glare.

Conclusion
The project has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan, the NERSP, and the Community Design Guidelines, providing both appropriate vehicle access and circulation and pedestrian connectivity; building designs which use a variety of materials, colors, and building forms; landscaping NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 16 of 34 consistent with the design guidelines; lighting that is energy efficient and is shielded to avoid light trespass; and infrastructure adequate to serve the proposed expansion in use. The site is appropriately designed, and will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach for the proposed project has occurred at multiple points during the processing of the project, as described below.
 Upon receipt of the application, the proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website; no comments were received.
 The project was posted on the City’s Projects of Interest website and was routinely updated with project updates.
 On February 25, 2022 the City published the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), which was published on the RCONA website, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site, and distributed to all interested parties and agencies. No comments from the public were received.
 On July 22, 2022 the Draft SEIR was published. Notice of the SEIR was published on the RCONA website and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project, as well as to all interested parties and agencies. Agency comments were received, but no comments from RCONA or members of the public were received.
 On June 28, 2022 the applicant held a public informational meeting at the Maidu Community Center. Notice of this meeting was posted on the RCONA website, the project website, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. The purpose of the informational meeting was to provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions about the project, the process, and the EIR. In attendance were applicant representatives and City staff. Approximately seven members of the public attended, primarily from the Maidu Neighborhood Association, and asked questions about the project. None of the attendees expressed opposition.  A notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on October 28, 2022, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. To date, no comments have been received as of publication of the staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Buildout of the Medical Center Campus and potential impacts associated with construction activity site disturbance were analyzed in the 2004 Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2003062014) (2004 Expansion Project EIR). In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15163, because only minor additions and changes would be needed to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised, the City of Roseville, acting as Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH#2022020590) to the 2004 Expansion Project EIR to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the Draft SEIR was available for a 45 day public review and comment period starting July 22, 2022 and ending September 6, 2022. The Draft SEIR is available for review on the City’s website at www.roseville.ca.us/environmentaldocuments.

Two agency comment letters were received during the public review period, from the Central Valley NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 17 of 34 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, however no comments were received from members of the public. The agency comment letters consisted of information on standard permitting requirements. The Draft SEIR found one significant and unavoidable impact (cumulative impacts to light and glare) and concluded that all other impacts were either less than significant, or would be less than significant with application of the recommended mitigation. A full summary of the project’s environmental impacts is included in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft SEIR.

A Final SEIR was published on October 17, 2022 and is included as Exhibit A. CEQA requires the City of Roseville (as the CEQA lead agency) to make written findings whenever it decides to approve a project for which an EIR (or SEIR) was certified (Public Resources Code Section 21081). The findings explain how the lead agency approached the significant impacts identified in the SEIR. Findings for the proposed project have been prepared and are included as Exhibit B. CEQA prohibits an agency from approving a project that will have a significant, unavoidable environmental impact unless the agency adopts a statement describing the specific benefits of the project that outweigh its expected unavoidable impacts (i.e., the overriding considerations). Since project implementation would involve significant and unavoidable light and glare impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is included. The final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Exhibit C and will ensure mitigation compliance during project construction and operation.

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 1600 EUREKA ROAD – NERSP PCL 12 – KAISER INPATIENT BED TOWER PROJECT – FILE #PL22-0038;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT – 1600 EUREKA ROAD – NERSP PCL 12 – KAISER INPATIENT BED TOWER PROJECT – FILE #PL22-0038;

4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION AND STAGE 2 – 1600 EUREKA ROAD – NERSP PCL 12 – KAISER INPATIENT BED TOWER PROJECT – FILE #PL22-0038 subject to one hundred forty-four (144) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT STAGE 1 MODIFICATION AND STAGE 2 – FILE #PL22-0038

1. This Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Stage 2 approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from November 10, 2022 and if not effectuated shall expire on November 10, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time. (Planning)

2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibits F—R, and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Kaiser Roseville Medical Center Expansion EIR (SCH #2003062014) and Supplement to the EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments) NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 18 of 34

4. The project is subject to the previously approved conditions of approval for the Major Project Permit Stage 1 for the Kaiser Roseville Medical Center Expansion (File #MPP 02-02), except as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

5. The project shall be addressed as 1600 Eureka Rd. If the new tower is attached to the existing building it will utilize the same address of 1600 Eureka Rd. The address for the new parking structure shall be 1630 Eureka Rd. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s) to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for building/suite addressing. (Business Services)

6. The project shall comply with the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Kaiser. (Planning)

7. The Major Project Permit application shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning)

8. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.

Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. A deposit in the amount of two (2) percent of the value of the public improvements, or $1000, whichever is greater, shall be provided at the time plans are submitted to the City for review. Prior to plan approval, the applicant shall provide an additional deposit of two (2) percent of the value of the public improvements, or $1000, whichever is greater.

City costs will be billed against the deposited amount on a monthly basis. Monthly statements will be issued by the City’s Finance Department to the applicant. If at any time the balance in the deposit account is less than $500, the applicant may be required to deposit additional funds as estimated by the City. All funds remaining in the deposit account will be refunded upon completion of the project. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Finance)

9. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

10. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the rightof-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)

11. The approval of this project does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

12. Prior to or concurrent with issuance of a building permit(s) from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), the applicant must satisfy all applicable conditions of the Major Project Permit and provisions of the Development Agreement, including the payment of applicable City fees to the Roseville Building Department. (Building, Planning)

13. Parking stalls shall meet, or exceed, the following minimum standards:

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 19 of 34 a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6" raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
b. Standard -- 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact--8 feet x 16 feet; Parking Garage – as approved by the Planning Commission; Accessible--14 feet x 18 feet (a 9 foot wide parking area plus a 5 foot wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be van accessible- -17 feet x 18 feet (9 foot wide parking area plus an 8 foot wide loading area). (Planning) c. An ‘exterior routes of travel’ site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross-slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signages, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B-208.2 of the CBC. Outpatient units shall provide 10% of the total parking spaces for accessible parking and facilities that specialize in treatment or services for persons with mobility impairments shall provide 20% of the total parking spaces for accessible parking.
ii. Accessible spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Title 24 amendments of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Chapter 11B. (Building)

14. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Division to control on-site traffic movements. Parking lot striping and signage shall be maintained in a visible and legible manner. (Planning)

15. The plans submitted to the Building Division for permits shall indicate all approved revisions/alterations as approved by the Commission including all conditions of approval. (Planning)

16. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:
a. The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines; backflow preventers; fire department connections; and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
b. The tree plantings in the parking lot shall be designed to provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage after 15 years. (Planning)
c. At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning) d. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for Northeast Roseville Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)
NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 20 of 34 e. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the Electric Department's Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments "Specification for Commercial Construction." (Electric) f. Slopes within landscape planters shall be no more than 3:1. A two-foot flat bench located at back-of-walk shall be included in the landscape area to slow or allow absorption of nuisance run-off from the planters. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries) g. All landscaping shall conform to the standards of crime prevention through environmental design with the intent to create natural surveillance, controlling access, and territorial reinforcement to property boundaries. (Police)

17. Project phasing shall be substantially consistent with the phasing plan described in the staff report and identified in Exhibit G. Site, grading and landscape plans shall be provided for each phase.

Stage 3 plans shall provide on-site access, driveways, parking and utilities for each phase in compliance with City standards. (Building, Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Fire, Planning)

18. Prior to HCAI’s issuance of permits for building exteriors, the Stage 3 elevations for all buildings under HCAI jurisdiction shall be approved by the Planning Division. (Planning)

19. Retaining walls shall have a textured finish with color to match the buildings as approved by Planning. (Planning)

20. Protective fencing shall be provided around all native oaks when construction activities will occur within 50 feet of said areas. (Planning)

21. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Division to control on-site traffic movements. (Planning)

22. Any roof-mounted equipment and satellite dishes proposed shall be shown on the building plans.

The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning)

23. A separate Architectural Site Accessibility Plan which details the project's site accessibility information as required by California Title 24, Part 2 shall be submitted as part of the project Building Permit Plans. (Building)

24. For Multiple Building Complexes: As part of the required Architectural Site Accessibility Plan, the developer shall delineate the extent of the site accessibility improvements being installed as part of the initial improvements for the project, and those that are planned to be developed as part of subsequent phases (i.e. around future pad buildings). (Building)

25. Building permit plans shall comply with all applicable code requirements (California Building Code – CBC – based on the International Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code– CGBSC, California Mechanical Code – CMC – based on the Uniform Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code – CPC – based on the Uniform Plumbing Code, California Fire Code – CFC – based on the International Fire Code – with City of Roseville Amendments – RFC, California Electrical Code – CEC – based on the National Electrical Code, and California Energy Standards – CEC T- 24 Part 6), California Title 24 and the American with Disabilities Act - ADA requirements, and all State and Federally mandated requirements in effect at the time of submittal for building permits (contact the Building Division for applicable Code editions). (Building)

26. For restaurants or other food services: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department. (Building)
NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 21 of 34

27. For restaurants or other food services: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department and the City of Roseville Industrial Waste Division. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

28. Maintenance of copy of building plans. Health and Safety Code Section 19850 requires the Building Department of every city or county to maintain an official copy of the building plans for the life of the building. As such, each individual building shall be submitted as a separate submittal package.

Building plan review, permit issuance and archiving is based on each individual building address. (Building)

29. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to Public Works prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)

30. The Improvement Plans shall include a complete set of Landscape Plans. The Landscape Plans shall be approved with the Improvement Plans. (Planning, Engineering, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

31. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the city's current standards on the existing shelter pad adjacent to the site along northbound Rocky Ridge Drive, north of Douglas Boulevard. Upon installation and final inspection by the City of Roseville, the bus shelter and related improvements shall become the property of the City of Roseville. The Developer and City may enter into a construction fee agreement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 for future construction of the Bus Shelter along northbound Rocky Ridge Drive, north of Douglas Boulevard (shelter number #10). Should the City install a bus shelter at this location prior to the developer obtaining a building permit, the developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of the shelter in the amount of $10,000. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

32. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way or Public Utility Easement for the widening of any streets or transfer of public utilities across and over any portion of the property as required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

33. Bike parking and clean air vehicle spaces shall be provided per the California Green Building Standards. Bike rack/locker design and location shall be approved by Alternative Transportation.

Clean air vehicle spaces shall be marked “CLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV”. (Alternative Transportation, Building).

34. The site shall include a designated Dial-a-Ride drop off and pick up area with an accessible path of travel to the main entrance of the building. Applicant shall install a pole for Dial-A-Ride sign (sign provided by Alternative Transportation). A covered seating area for our Dial-A-Ride passengers shall be located at the main entrance and it will be visible from the drive aisle of the drop-off and pick-up area. The Dial-A-Ride drop-off/pick-up area shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of three (3) dial-a-ride buses with a minimum storage capacity of 76-feet for loading/unloading passengers. (Alternative Transportation, Planning, and Engineering).

35. The site’s onsite wayfinding signage shall be updated to direct people to transit service locations onsite and directly adjacent to the site (i.e. Dial-A-Ride drop-off/pick-up areas and bus stops).

Coordinate transit information with the PW/Alternative Transportation Division (Alternative Transportation, Planning).

36. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 22 of 34 a. Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b. Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions. c. A rough grading permit may be approved by Engineering prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d. Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

37. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department prior to any work conducted within the City right-of-way. (Engineering)

38. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the project proponent’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)

39. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall pay into the following fee programs:

Citywide Drainage Fee, Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF), Highway 65 Joint Partners Association (JPA), South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA), and City/County Fee. (Engineering)

40. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profile-view where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility. Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

41. The grading plans shall show the amount of cut and fill for the site. If the site earthwork does not balance, a note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
a. “Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess earthen material shall be borrowed or deposited. If the borrow or deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported or imported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)

42. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices.

The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 23 of 34 flow. The storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)

43. The grading plans shall clearly show the overland release path for surface flow storm water runoff.

The water surface elevation of any retained water shall not be higher than 1 foot below the adjacent building finished floor elevation. The overland release along the drainage easement through the center of the parcel shall be maintained and shall be graded such that all public waters shall stay within this easement. (Engineering)

44. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required onsite and available for viewing by City inspection staff upon request. (Engineering)

45. The developer shall be responsible for any necessary relocation of signal interconnect cables that may require re-location as a result of the construction of turn lanes and/or driveways. (Engineering)

46. To ensure that the design for any necessary widening, construction, or modifications of Public Streets does not conflict with existing dry utilities generally located behind the curb and gutter, and prior to the submittal of design drawings for those frontage improvements, the project proponent shall have the existing dry utilities pot holed for verification of location and depth. (Engineering)

47. If at any time prior to the “Notice of Completion”, the determination is made that existing curb ramp(s) do not meet standard City requirements, it will be the responsibility of the developer to remove/replace or modify the deficient ramp(s) to meet City standards. (Engineering)

48. The grading plans shall be accompanied by engineered structural calculations for all retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. All retaining walls shall be of masonry or Keystone type construction unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. (Engineering)

49. The Stage 3 Landscape Plans shall include the location of all existing and planned above and below ground utilities, including fire hydrants, signage, street lights, storm drain, water, sewer, etc., in addition to all other hardscape features, i.e. sidewalks, sounds walls, etc. Where new or rehabilitated landscaping is installed near driveway entrances to the site, view corridors shall be provided on the plans as required by the Engineering Department. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Parks)

50. The applicant shall pay for all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

51. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards and shall include:

52. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area, which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12’ unless approved by the Environmental Utilities Director. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes.

53. Water and sewer mains shall not exceed a depth of 6’ and 12’ respectively, below finished grade, unless authorized by the Environmental Utilities Director. If water line improvements will be constructed below a sewer and/or storm drain line, a waiver will be required from the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 24 of 34

54. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather 10-ton vehicle access unless authorized by these conditions of approval.

55. No trees or permanent structures shall be allowed within water or sewer easements except with the approval of the Environmental Utilities Director.

56. No tap shall be allowed off the 36-inch transmission water main along Eureka Road.

57. All on-site water shall be considered private and shall be maintained by the owner. The proposed 12-inch loop from Eureka Road and Lead Hill Road shall be a private looped system unless otherwise approved by the Environmental Utilities Director. This requires the installation of backflow preventors at both points of connection.

58. The applicant/developer shall revise the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan for Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission. (Transportation)

59. Access to the existing trash pick-up area shall maintain an inside turning radius of 25 feet and an outside turning radius of 45 feet to allow refuse truck access. Enclosures must have a clear approach of 65 feet in front of the enclosure to allow servicing bins. Any new trash enclosures for the project shall be designed to current Refuse Division specifications for size, design, access and approach, shall meet the Fire Department requirements, and shall have materials and colors to match adjacent buildings. (Refuse, Planning, Fire)

60. A trash enclosure and recycling enclosure is required for each building and each tenant, otherwise, the building owner is responsible for the trash service. (Refuse)

61. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided to within 150 feet of all structures and combustible storage piles. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (Fire)

62. Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (32 tons) and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Said access shall be provided prior to any construction or storage of combustible materials on site. (Fire)

63. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved provision for the turning around of fire apparatus. A minimum back of curb radii of not less than 48 feet shall be provided. (Fire)

64. The required fire flow for the protection of the proposed project will be addressed for each building individually. The flow will be based on the square footage of the building and the type of construction used including the installation of a full coverage automatic fire sprinkler system. A change in any of the conditions may increase the required fire flow. (Fire)

65. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a hydraulic analysis (prepared by a State licensed fire protection, civil, or mechanical engineer) that evaluates the private fire service water main serving the complex. The analysis shall demonstrate that an approved water supply is available and that it is capable of supporting the combined demands for the required fire flow and the fire sprinkler system. (Fire)

66. The applicant shall provide a minimum number of fire hydrants within the complex in accordance with the Roseville Fire Code. The average spacing between fire hydrants within the complex shall NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 25 of 34 not exceed spacing in accordance with the Roseville Fire Code. A fire hydrant shall be located within 40- feet of all fire department connections to fire sprinkler systems and located on the same side of the street as the sprinkler connection. The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to the water supply shall be provided as required and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire)

67. Fire hydrants shall be operable and accessible to Fire Department apparatus by roads meeting the requirements of the Roseville Fire Code prior to bringing combustible materials onto the project site.

Isolation valves shall be provided throughout the campus subject to the approval of this department. (Fire)

68. A minimum clearance of 3-feet shall be provided between trees, shrubs and other landscape materials and all fire protection equipment (hydrants, fire sprinkler system connections, valves). Fire protection equipment shall not be located behind parking stalls or other obstructions to access. (Fire)

69. When the proposed project is to be provided with perimeter security fencing, fire apparatus access and occupant exiting shall be considered. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall be equipped with approved Knox and Opticom emergency vehicle access devices. If pedestrian gates are designed as part of the overall exiting system, they shall comply with the exiting provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. (Fire)

70. An approved access walkway shall be provided to all exterior doors and openings required by either the Uniform Fire Code or the Uniform Building Code. A concrete sidewalk or other approved hard surface will meet the intent of the access walkway requirement. Adequate space adjacent to the access walkway, vertically and horizontally, shall be provided to allow firefighters to access required building openings in order to effectively perform rescue operations, to allow for equipment maneuverability, and to safely raise ground ladders. Any landscaping adjacent to the access walkway shall be such that it does not obstruct the functional purpose of the walkway upon maturity. (Fire)

71. The design and installation of all fire protection equipment shall conform to the California Fire Code and the amendments adopted by the City of Roseville, along with all standards and policies implemented by the Roseville Fire Department. (Fire)

72. The applicable codes and standards adopted by the City shall be enforced at the time construction plans have been submitted to the City for permitting. (Fire)

73. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a. one (1) set of improvement plans;
b. load calculations; and
c. electrical panel one-line drawings. (Electric)

74. Lighting shall be provided in conformance with the following:
a. All external lighting shall be vandal resistant and installed/directed to have no off-site glare. b. Lighting for surface parking shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot candle of light. The maximum height of pole lights for surface parking shall be 25 feet, as measured to the top of the fixture and including any base.

NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 26 of 34 c. Lighting within the parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot-candle, and 0.5 foot-candle of light, respectively. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant.
d. The applicant shall work with the Planning Division to reduce the potential glare resulting from pole lights on the top deck of the parking structures. Options may include reduced pole heights, location of pole lights away from the edges of the structure, sheet metal cut-offs, wall-mounted lights or bollard lights as necessary to avoid off-site glare as approved by the Planning Division. Line of sight studies may be required to verify avoidance of off-site glare. (Planning & Police)

75. The parking lot shall have properly posted signs that state the use of the parking area is for the exclusive use of employees and customers of this project. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 22507.8, 22511.5, 22511.8, 22658(a), and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 11.20.110).

The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning & Police)

76. A security plan with the goal of enhancing public safety shall be submitted and approved by the Police Department. The plan shall address the following items:
a. Parking lot identification and labeling.
b. Design of the video surveillance system.
c. Coordination of training for emergency evacuations.
d. Provision of a floor plan and a SWAT walk-through prior to occupancy for each building. e. Availability of an on-site computer work station(s). (Police)

77. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E) DURING CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:

78. The applicant shall provide a new 35’ wide A-7 driveway along Lead Hill Boulevard, approximately 450 linear feet east of Rocky Ridge Drive. In addition, the applicant shall remove the existing central driveway located along Lead Hill Boulevard. (Engineering)

79. The applicant shall widen and extend the existing raised median in the eastbound left-turn pocket approaching Eureka Road, and shall add a “No U Turn” sign facing westbound traffic in the widened median. (See Figure 22 of the Transportation Impact Study dated October 2022 by Fehr & Peers). (Engineering)

80. The applicant shall provide a westbound left-turn pocket with raised medians along Lead Hill Boulevard to prevent outbound trips from the existing business park driveway located on the north side of Lead Hill Boulevard. (See Figure 22 of the Transportation Impact Study dated October 2022 by Fehr & Peers). (Engineering)

81. The applicant shall provide “Keep Clear” pavement marking and “Do Not Block Intersection” signage at the new entry along Lead Hill Boulevard and Loop Road intersection. (Engineering)

82. The applicant shall provide a “Do Not Block Intersection” signage at the southbound approach of Loop Road at the intersection with the entry off Douglas Blvd. (Engineering) NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 27 of 34

83. The applicant shall demonstrate adequate site distance at the driveways associated with the new parking garage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

84. Existing landscaping damaged or removed during the course of construction shall be replanted in conformance with the Stage 2 Major Project Permit plans and the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan Landscape Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (Planning)

85. Any backflow preventors visible from the street shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventor to the landscaping.
b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall only be installed on three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventor shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)

86. The following easements shall be provided by separate instrument and shown on the site plan, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. A 12.5-foot-wide public utilities easement along all road frontages. b. Water and sewer easements. (Electric, Engineering, Environmental Utilities) c. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric) d. Bus Shelter easements for the bus shelter pads adjacent to the site on Rocky Ridge Drive, Douglas Boulevard, Lead Hill Boulevard, Eureka Road. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation).

87. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville”. All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

88. Easement widths shall comply with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards.

Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville". All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. All existing public utility, electric, water, sewer and reclaimed water easements shall be maintained unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

89. Inspection of the potable water supply system for each building, including the hospital buildings, shall be as follows:
a. The Environmental Utilities Inspector will inspect all potable water supply up to the downstream side of the backflow preventor.
b. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible for that portion of the water supply system from the backflow preventor to the building. The builder/contractor shall engage a qualified NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 28 of 34 inspector to approve the installation of this portion of the water supply. The Building Division will require from the builder/ contractor, a written document certifying that this portion of the potable water supply has been installed per improvement plans and in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. This certificate of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Division before a temporary occupancy or a building final is approved. c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

90. To minimize dust/ grading impacts during construction the applicant shall:
a. Spray water on all exposed earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving and other site preparation activities throughout the day to minimize dust. b. Use tarpaulins or other effective covers on all stockpiled earth material and on all haul trucks to minimize dust.
c. Sweep the adjacent street frontages at least once a day or as needed to remove silt and other dirt which is evident from construction activities. d. Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off-site.
e. The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations, if in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)

91. Sight distances for all driveways shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans to verify that minimum standards are achieved. It will be the responsibility of the project proponent to provide appropriate landscaping and improvement plans, and to relocate and/or modify existing facilities as needed to meet these design objectives. (Engineering)

92. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During plan check of the improvement plans and/or during inspection, Engineering will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. (Engineering)

93. Existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)

94. All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Engineering)

95. The words “traffic control appurtenances” shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE’s) located along public roadways. (Engineering)

96. Water and sewer shall be constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. (Environmental Utilities)

97. All water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department. (Environmental Utilities)

98. Restaurants or other Food Service Establishment (FSE). The applicant shall design for installation and/or install an exterior grease interceptor if the proposed business could potentially discharge NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 29 of 34 substances containing fats, oils and grease (FOG) into the sewer system. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in the wastewater from FSE’s prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)

99. In the event an exterior grease interceptor cannot be installed due to space limitation, the developer shall install a grease trap, per City Standards, that will mechanically separate the FOG contained in the wastewater from the FSE prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities) 100. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a FOG waste discharge permit (FOG WDP) from the Environmental Utilities Industrial Waste Division prior to occupancy or prior to discharging waste to the public sewer. The applicant shall submit information required by the Environmental Utilities Department for evaluation, including but not limited to: site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, FOG control device, grease interceptor or other pretreatment equipment and appurtenances by size, location and elevation.

Additional information related to the applicant’s business operations and potential discharge may be requested to properly evaluate the FOG WDP application. (Environmental Utilities) 101. Oxygen and other medical gas systems shall be installed and tested to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. (Fire)
102. An approved automatic fire extinguishing system shall be provided for all buildings where the total fire area is 3,600 square feet or greater, as required by Roseville Fire Code Section 1003.2.2. Fire extinguishing systems installed shall conform to the minimum design standards of the Roseville Fire Code Standard 10-3. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to system installation. Plan review and field inspection fees associated with the installation of said systems shall be paid prior to plan submittal. (Fire)
103. Fire extinguishing systems installed as required by Section 1003.1.1 of the City Fire Code shall have control valves and activation switches electrically supervised and monitored by an approved central alarm monitoring company. Digital alarm communicator system panels shall be installed and maintained in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard # 72 (Fire Alarm Code).

Plan review and field inspection fees associated with the installation of said systems shall be paid prior to plan submittal. (Fire)
104. Fire extinguishing systems installed as required by Section 1003.1.1 of the City Fire Code shall be provided with an approved audible and visual alarm notification signal within the interior of the building to alert building occupants. Said alarm notification signal shall be provided throughout the building and shall be installed and maintained in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard #72 (Fire Alarm Code). Plan review and field inspection fees associated with the installation of said systems shall be paid prior to plan submittal. (Fire) 105. Every building three stories or more in height shall be provided with a Class 1 standpipe system in accordance with Roseville Fire Code Section 1004. Said system installation shall conform to the minimum standards of UBC Standard 9-2 and Roseville Fire Code Standard 10-3. Plan review and field inspection fees associated with the installation of said systems shall be paid prior to plan submittal. (Fire)
106. Every building three stories or more in height shall be provided with not less than one standpipe for use during construction as required by Roseville Fire Code Section 8704.4.3.1. Such standpipes shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 25-feet in height above the lowest level of fire department access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at accessible locations adjacent to usable stairs, and the standpipe outlets shall be located adjacent to such usable stairs. Such standpipe systems shall be extended as construction NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 30 of 34 progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secure decking or flooring.

On each floor there shall be provided a 2 ½-inch valve outlet for fire department use. (Fire) 107. All buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one elevator meeting the requirements of California Building Code Section 3003.5a for emergency medical service. (Fire)
108. An approved project sign shall be placed at vehicle access points into the project during construction to assist emergency responders. The sign shall identify the project name and address, as approved by the City of Roseville. Such signs shall be clearly visible and legible from the street fronting the project. (Fire)
109. Dumpsters and trash containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards [40.5 cubic feet] or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 5-feet of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines unless said areas are protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with the Roseville Fire Code. (Fire) 110. All shrubbery, trees and signs located within center medians adjacent to site access points shall be seven feet (7') in height or lower to allow access to the site by fire apparatus. (Fire) 111. The approved address numbers shall be placed on each building by the applicant in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property and shall be placed as to be seen from all entrances. Proposed address numbers shall be indicated on the elevation drawings contained within the building plan submittal. The address numbers shall be contrasting in color with their background and shall be illuminated. (Fire)
112. The applicant shall properly identify all required fire lanes in accordance with the Fire Department Fire Lane Standard. (Fire)
113. Barricades shall be provided to protect any natural gas meter, fire hydrant, or other fire department control device, which may be subject to vehicular damage. Approved signs may be required to identify the location of fire protection devices. (Fire) 114. Automatic fire extinguishing system risers, fire alarm system panels and digital alarm communicator system panels shall be located within an approved fire control room and shall be accessible from an adjacent fire apparatus roadway. Said fire control room shall be a minimum size of thirty-five (35) square feet in size and shall be openable from the exterior via an approved door opening. (Fire) 115. A Knox Company Model # 4400 key box shall be located adjacent to the door opening into the fire control room for each structure to provide access to fire protection system equipment. Said box shall be mounted at 6-feet above finished grade adjacent to the door opening or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall. Contact the Fire Prevention Division for an approved Knox Company order form. The applicant shall pay a $130 fee associated with the inspection of the key box prior to acceptance by the Fire Department at the time of receiving the Knox Company Order Form. (Fire) 116. A digitized copy of the approved drawings for the project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for pre-fire purposes. Said copy shall be submitted in an approved format. (Fire) 117. Adequate radio coverage shall be provided within buildings for public safety agencies, as required by Roseville Municipal Code Section 16.16.200. A field test shall be provided by a person in possession of a current FCC License, or a current technician certification issued by the Associated Public-Safety Communications Officials International (APCO), or the National Association of Business and Educational Radio (NABER). The building owner shall retain all test records on the NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 31 of 34 inspected premises and a copy shall be submitted to the Fire Department officials. Adequate radio coverage shall include all of the following:
a. A minimum signal strength of 95 dBM available in 90% of the area of each floor of the building when transmitted from the closest City of Roseville Radio Communication site. b. A minimum signal strength of 95 dBM received at the closest City of Roseville Communication site when transmitted from 90% of the area of each floor of the building. c. The frequency range that must be supported shall be 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz. d. A 100 % reliability factor. (Fire, Police)
118. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric)
119. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction.” (Electric) 120. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer and which are explained in the City of Roseville “Specification for Commercial Construction.” These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)
121. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change of existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric)
122. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)
123. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform with the Electric Department’s Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments “Specification for Commercial Construction.” (Electric) 124. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. This can be accomplished in any of the following ways:
a. Locate the metered service panel on the outside of the building. b. Locate the metered service panel in a service room with a door that opens directly to the outside. The developer will be required to provide a key to the door for placement in a lock box to be installed on the outside of the door. Any doors leading from the service room to other areas of the building shall be secured to prohibit unauthorized entry. (Electric) 125. One ¾" conduit with a 2-pair phone line shall be installed from the buildings telephone service panel to the meter section of the customer's electrical switchgear or panel. (Electric) 126. It is the responsibility of the developer to insure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstruction during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric) 127. The Harmonic content at all metering points shall be below 5% per IEEE 519 Standard. (Electric) NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 32 of 34 OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
128. The hospital shall secure all required approvals from the Placer County Air Pollution Control District prior to occupancy of the new buildings. (Planning)
129. The applicant shall pay City's actual cost for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, installation, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities) 130. All existing public utility, electric, water and sewer easements shall be maintained unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Electric, Engineering, Environmental Utilities) 131. Signs shown on the elevations are not approved as part of the Major Project Permit. A Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

132. The parking lot striping and signing shall be maintained in a visual and legible manner. (Planning) 133. Following the installation of the landscaping, all landscape material shall be maintained in a healthy and weed free condition; dead plant material shall be replaced immediately. All trees shall be maintained and pruned in accordance with the accepted practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). (Planning)
134. The City reserves the right to restrict vehicle turning movements within the public right-of-way in the future if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 135. The required width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and vertical clearances established by the Fire Code shall be maintained at all times during construction. Closure of accesses for fire apparatus by gates, barricades and other devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire) 136. Temporary aboveground storage tanks may be used at construction sites for diesel fuel only and shall not exceed 1,000 gallon capacity. Tanks shall comply with all provisions found within the Fire Code. A Fire Department Permit shall be obtained prior to tank installation. The permit shall expire after 90 days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Fire Chief. (Fire) 137. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor or person responsible for the building permit must notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable of not and if site remediation is required. (Fire)
138. The Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) for the site shall be updated per applicable Local, State and Federal Health and Safety Codes. In addition, the business shall file a business plan with the City Fire Department before a new building is occupied, which specify what to do in the event of an accident, and which transportation routes would be used. (Fire) 139. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of the gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)
140. All commercial air conditioning units 5 tons or less (<65,000 btu/ h) shall meet the current Consortium for Energy Efficiency ("CEE") Tier I specifications. The SEER/EER ratings will be specified on building plans and Title 24 compliance certificates at the time building permits are requested. The SEER and EER ratings will be verified with appropriate documentation. These requirements shall be NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 33 of 34 utilized in the overall energy compliance calculations required for issuance of any building permit for any commercial building in the Plan Area. Any variances, with the exception of Tier 2 compliance, must be approved by the Electric Department's Retail Energy Services Department. (Electric) 141. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday, provided that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and be maintained in good working order. (Building) 142. The developer (or designated consultant) shall certify that the building foundation location has been placed according to all approved setback requirements shown on the approved site plan. The developer shall prepare a written statement confirming building placement and provide an original copy to the City Building Division Field Inspector at the time of or prior to the foundation inspection. (Building)
143. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant may apply for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of the building. If a TCO is desired, the applicant must submit a written request to the Building Division a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expected temporary occupancy date and shall include a schedule for occupancy and a description of the purpose for the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. (Building)
144. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include the following:
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and
c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Visual Impact Analysis

2. Transportation Impact Study

3. Draft Supplemental EIR

EXHIBITS
A. Final Supplemental EIR
B. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
D. NERSP Change Pages
E. Draft First Amendment to the Kaiser DA
F. Site Plan
G. Phasing Plan
H. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
I. Surface Improvements Plan
J. Preliminary Grading Plan
NERSP PCL 12 – Kaiser Inpatient Bed Tower Project, 1600 Eureka Rd.; File #PL22-0038 Planning Commission – November 10, 2022 – Page 34 of 34 K. Sections
L. Preliminary Utility Plan
M. Elevations
N. Perspectives
O. Color & Materials Board
P. Preliminary Landscape Plan
Q. Materials & Furnishings Plan
R. Site Lighting Plan
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTE: Attachment 1, and
Exhibits A-E are not included with
the Planning Commission Staff
Report because they are already
included as attachments to the
Council Communication.

Transportation Impact Study for
Kaiser Bed Tower Project
Prepared for:

City of Roseville
October 2022
RS22-4142
3&$77$&+0(17
This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i Impact Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................................... i Traffic Operations Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... ii Project Access and Circulation ............................................................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Proposed Project ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing KPRMC Campus ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Land Use & Access............................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Circulation ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................. 9 Existing KPRMC Campus ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Campus Baseline Parking Inventory ...........................................................................................................................10 Campus Baseline Trip Generation ...............................................................................................................................10 Roadway System ........................................................................................................................................................................13 Baseline Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................14 Transit System .............................................................................................................................................................................17 Bicycle Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................................................19 Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................19

3. Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................ 21 State ................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Senate Bill 743 .....................................................................................................................................................................21 California Department of Transportation .................................................................................................................22 Local ................................................................................................................................................................................................23

4. Project Travel Characteristics ............................................................................................... 29 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................................................29 Parking ...................................................................................................................................................................................29 Trip Generation ...........................................................................................................................................................................31 Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................................................................................................32

5. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................ 37 Significance Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................................37 Impact Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................................38

6. Traffic Operations Analysis .................................................................................................. 44 Study Area and Periods ...........................................................................................................................................................44 Study Scenarios ...........................................................................................................................................................................46 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................46 Signalized Intersections ...................................................................................................................................................46 Traffic Operations Performance Criteria ...................................................................................................................48 Baseline Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................................48 Baseline Plus Project Conditions ..........................................................................................................................................51

7. Project Access and Circulation ............................................................................................. 58 Driveway Throat Depth Evaluation .............................................................................................................................58 Left-Turn Ingress Movements .......................................................................................................................................59 Lead Hill Boulevard Access Evaluation ......................................................................................................................60 Campus Circulation Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................66 Vehicular Circulation.........................................................................................................................................................66 Pedestrian Circulation ......................................................................................................................................................66 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................66 Appendices
Appendix A: Campus Trip Generation Data
Appendix B: Consistency with Roseville General Plan EIR Assessment Appendix C: City Travel Forecasting Model Trip Generation Evaluation Appendix D: Technical Calculations – Baseline Conditions Appendix E: Technical Calculations – Baseline Plus Project Conditions Appendix F: Technical Calculations – Queuing Analysis
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Existing KPRMC Campus .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Proposed Project Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Proposed Project Changes to KPRMC Campus ............................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Project Vehicular & Pedestrian Circulation ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: KPRMC Campus – Baseline (2019) Parking Inventory ................................................................................ 11 Figure 7: KPRMC Campus – Baseline (2019) AM & PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes .................................. 12 Figure 8: Existing Roadway Network ................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9: Baseline (2019) Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 10: Existing Transit Network ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 11: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network ........................................................................................................ 20 Figure 12: KPRMC Campus – With Project Parking Supply ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 13: Project Trip Distribution – Daily .......................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 14: Project Trip Distribution – AM Peak Hour ...................................................................................................... 35 Figure 15: Project Trip Distribution – PM Peak Hour ....................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 17: Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Configurations – Baseline (2020) Conditions ................................... 50 Figure 17: Baseline Plus Project Daily Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................................. 52 Figure 18: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment ..................................................................... 53 Figure 19: Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Configurations – Baseline Plus Project Conditions ........................ 54 Figure 20: KPRMC Campus – Baseline Plus Project Driveway Forecasts .................................................................. 55 Figure 22: Lead Hill Boulevard Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 23: Stopping Sight Distance – Lead Hill Boulevard (west) Driveway – Westbound 25’ Queue ........ 64 Figure 24: Stopping Sight Distance – Lead Hill Boulevard (west) Driveway – Westbound 75’ Queue ........ 65 Figure 25: Campus Access & Circulation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 69 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Peak Hour Intersection Operations ....................................................................................................................... ii Table 1: KPRMC Campus – Existing Building Gross Floor Area by Land Use ................................................................ 9 Table 2: Baseline Trip Generation (2019) – KPRMC Campus ............................................................................................ 10 Table 3: KPRMC Campus Trip Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Proposed Change in Campus Parking Supply ...................................................................................................... 31 Table 5: Project Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate ............................................................................................................... 32 Table 6: Roseville 2035 General Plan EIR: Travel Forecasting Model Inputs for KPRMC ...................................... 42 Table 7: Level of Service Definitions – Signalized Intersections ...................................................................................... 47 Table 8: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Baseline (2020) Conditions ................................................................ 49 Table 9: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Baseline Plus Project Conditions ..................................................... 56 Table 10: Maximum Outbound Vehicle Queues at Campus Driveways ...................................................................... 58 Table 11: Maximum Vehicle Queues – Left-Turn Ingress at Campus Driveways ..................................................... 60 This page intentionally left blank.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study i Executive Summary
This study analyzes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Bed Tower Project (proposed Project) at the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus (KPRMC). This report is intended as supplemental information to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Inpatient Bed Tower Project (SEIR) (Dudek, July 2022). Specifically, this report documents the proposed Project’s travel characteristics, traffic operations (i.e., level of service (LOS)) effects at nearby intersections, site access evaluation, and on-site circulation review.

The Project proposes a 278,000 square foot Bed Tower building, a new four-level plus rooftop parking garage with approximately 800 parking stalls, and supporting utility upgrades. The Project would also relocate the Campus’s internal Loop Road to accommodate the Bed Tower building, reconfigure surface parking lots, and provide a new main hospital drop-off area adjacent to a new main hospital entrance in the proposed Bed Tower building. The Project would result in a net increase of 186 parking stalls, with a net decrease in supply in the west portion of the Campus and a net increase in supply in the northeast quadrant of the Campus. The Project proposes to close an existing driveway on Lead Hill Boulevard (Driveway 1) and add a new driveway (Driveway 6) about 400 feet west of Driveway 1 and 450 feet east of Rocky Ridge Drive. Figure 4 provides a side-by-side comparison of the existing KPRMC Campus site plan with the proposed Campus site plan with the Project.

Impact Assessment
The following summarizes the Project’s potential transportation impacts based on the significance criteria presented in Chapter 5.

Impact 1: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing transit service/facility or interfere with implementation of a planned transit service/facility. This impact is less than significant.

Impact 2: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing bicycle facility or interfere with implementation of planned bicycle facilities. This impact is less than significant.

Impact 3: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility, or conflict with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies regarding pedestrian facilities. This impact is less than significant.

Impact 4: The proposed Project would qualify for screening per the screening criteria outlined in Section 4-9-A of the City of Roseville VMT Impact Standards.

Impact 5: The proposed Project would not result in a geometric design feature that is inconsistent with applicable design standards. This impact is less than significant.

Impact 6: The proposed Project would not result in roadway and transportation facilities that impede access for emergency response vehicles. This impact is less than significant.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
ii
Traffic Operations Analysis
Based on the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards, a Short-Term Traffic Study is sufficient for this Project. This study analyzes traffic operations at 10 study intersections for the following scenarios during the weekday AM and PM peak hours:
• Baseline (2020) Conditions: represents pre-pandemic traffic conditions in February 2020. • Baseline Plus Project: represents baseline (2020) conditions plus the proposed Bed Tower Project.

Table ES-1 presents the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the study intersections.

Table ES-1: Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Baseline Conditions Baseline Plus Project
Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Atlantic St. / I-80 Westbound On-Ramp Signal
AM 5.7 A 1 5.8 A 1
PM 10.2 B 9.4 A

2. Eureka Rd. / Taylor Rd./I-80 Eastbound
Ramps Signal
AM 24.7 C 1 25.3 C 1
PM 54.0 D 51.2 D

3. Eureka Rd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 40.7 D 42.5 D
PM 31.4 C 31.3 C

4. Lead Hill Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 17.4 B 17.6 B
PM 27.7 C 28.0 C

5. Lead Hill Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 36.6 D 37.1 D
PM 40.9 D 41.5 D

6. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal
AM 21.2 C 21.2 C
PM 42.0 D 44.5 D

7. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Eastbound Ramps Signal
AM 6.4 A 1 6.5 A 1
PM 9.1 A 9.7 A

8. Douglas Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 22.5 C 22.6 C
PM 43.1 D 40.1 D

9. Douglas Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 40.4 D 41.0 D
PM 40.2 D 44.8 D

10. Douglas Blvd. / E. Roseville Pkwy. Signal
AM 39.8 D 39.9 D
PM 48.2 D 48.1 D
Notes:

BOLD indicates LOS D or worse operations.

1. Intersection analyzed using the HCM 2000 methodology due to unique intersection configurations that are incompatible with the HCM 6th Edition and HCM 2010 methodology.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study iii Table ES-1 shows seven of the 10 study intersections currently operate at LOS D or worse. However, the Project does not cause any of the study intersections to degrade from the baseline conditions LOS.

Therefore, the Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on traffic operations at signalized intersections in the study area.

Project Access and Circulation
This study evaluates the following with regards to Project access and circulation:
• Estimate maximum vehicle queue lengths for outbound movements at Campus driveways. • Estimate maximum vehicle queue lengths for left-turn ingress movements at Campus driveways. • Evaluate proposed Campus access changes on Lead Hill Boulevard. • Review of internal Campus circulation.

The outbound queue analysis shows maximum vehicle queue lengths exceeding the Campus driveway throat depth at Driveways 2, 3, 4, and 6 under baseline plus project conditions. Recommendations are presented below to address these conditions.

The left-turn ingress queue analysis shows left-turn pockets on Rocky Ridge Drive, Eureka Road, and Lead Hill Boulevard provide adequate storage to accommodate the maximum vehicle queues.

Lead Hill Boulevard Evaluation
This study evaluates stopping sight distance for vehicles approaching the proposed westbound left-turn pocket on Lead Hill Boulevard at Driveway 6. This analysis shows that the proposed design provides adequate stopping sight distance per the AASHTO Green Book standards.

In addition to the stopping sight distance analysis, this study identifies a few recommended modifications to Lead Hill Boulevard to discourage inappropriate vehicle movements. Figure 22 illustrates the recommended modifications to Lead Hill Boulevard.

Campus Circulation Evaluation
Figure 25 illustrates the recommended modifications to the Campus site plan to facilitate on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation. These include:
• Relocate the northeast drive aisle opening to Parking Lot 5 further west. • Move the crosswalk across the Loop Road and the associated sidewalk to the west side of Driveway 6.
• Add “Keep Clear” pavement marking and “Do Not Block Intersection” signage at the Driveway 6 / Loop Road intersection.
• Relocate the fence and restrict landscaping height along the Loop Road to the west of the new parking garage.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
iv
• Add “Do Not Block Intersection” sign to southbound approach of Loop Road at Driveway 3. • Apply high visibility crosswalk marking across the drive aisles into and out of the proposed main hospital drop-off area.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 1

1. Introduction
Purpose
This study analyzes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Bed Tower Project (proposed Project) at the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus (KPRMC or Campus). This report is intended as supplemental information to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Inpatient Bed Tower Project (SEIR) (Dudek, July 2022).

Specifically, this report documents the proposed Project’s travel characteristics, traffic operations (i.e., level of service (LOS)) effects at nearby intersections, site access evaluation, and on-site circulation review.

Overview of Proposed Project
Project Location
The proposed Project would be located on the KPRMC Campus at 1600 Eureka Road in Roseville, CA.

Figure 1 provides the general location of the 49-acre Campus within the broader study area. The Campus is bordered by Lead Hill Boulevard on the north, Douglas Boulevard on the south, Eureka Road on the east, and Rocky Ridge Drive on the west, as shown in Figure 1. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located about one mile west of the Project site. The Project site is included within the Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) area. Figure 1 shows the Campus is surrounded by commercial and office uses.

Existing KPRMC Campus
A detailed summary of the existing KPRMC Campus is presented in Chapter 2 (Baseline Conditions).

Figure 2 shows the existing KPRMC Campus site plan and the five existing access points from the surrounding roadway network. For purposes of this study, the five access points are referred to as follows:
• Driveway 1: On Lead Hill Boulevard roughly centered on the north side of the Campus. • Driveway 2: On Lead Hill Boulevard about 275 feet west of Eureka Road. • Driveway 3: On Eureka Road roughly centered on the east side of the Campus. • Driveway 4: On Douglas Boulevard roughly centered on the south side of the Campus. • Driveway 5: On Rocky Ridge Drive roughly centered on the west side of the Campus.

Figure 2 shows the permissible turning movements at each driveway. Driveway 1 has a sign stating “Ambulance Only” and has inbound arrow pavement markings indicating the driveway was intended for ambulance entry into the Campus. However, the traffic counts collected at this driveway indicate that nonemergency vehicles use this driveway for both ingress to and egress from the Campus. Since there are no physical impediments (i.e., raised median, diverter islands, etc.), Figure 2 shows all movements (i.e., rightin, right-out, left-in, and left-out) as permissible.

Taylor Rd
Sunrise Ave
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Atlantic St
Lead Hill Blvd
Galleria Blvd
Harding Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Roseville P
kwy
Miners Ravine
N. Sunrise Ave Eureka Rd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Project Location
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus
Professional Office
Commercial Retail
Figure 1
80 Commercial
Commercial Office
Office
Office
Office
Commercial
!
!
!
Parking
Garage
MOB II
MOB I
WCC
CUP
Auxiliary
Main
Hospital
ED/RAD
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Lead Hill Blvd
Loop Road
Douglas Blvd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\AI\Fig0x_ProjectSitePlan.ai Existing KPRMC Campus
Figure 2
1 Existing Campus Driveway
Permitted Turning Movement F
1 2
3 4
5 F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
G
F
F
F F
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
4 Project Land Use & Access
Figure 3 shows the KPRMC Campus site plan with the proposed Project additions and changes to the Campus access and circulation. The proposed Project would consist of:
• A 278,000 square-foot, six-story Bed Tower building consisting of 138 beds (108 medical beds, 30 Intensive Care Unit beds), six additional operating rooms, 36 additional Emergency Department treatment bays, and an in-patient pharmacy.
• A new four-level plus rooftop parking garage with approximately 800 parking stalls. • Internal upgrades to the existing central utility plant (CUP) to support the new Bed Tower. • A new generator yard built on a paved pad across from the existing CUP and adjacent to the new garage.
• A new main hospital entrance and drop off area.
• Shifting and extending the emergency department (ED) drop off area slightly east of its existing location to accommodate a reconfigured surface parking lot. • Relocation of the internal Loop Road in the northwest quadrant of the Campus to accommodate the Bed Tower building and reconfiguration of surface parking lots. • A new driveway (referred to as Driveway 6 in this study) on Lead Hill Boulevard about 400 feet west of Driveway 1 and 450 feet east of Rocky Ridge Drive near the ED drop off area. • Closing Driveway 1 on Lead Hill Boulevard.

Figure 4 provides a side-by-side comparison of the existing KPRMC Campus site plan (i.e., Figure 2) with the proposed Campus site plan (i.e., Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that the proposed Bed Tower building would be built adjacent to the existing hospital in the northwest portion of the Campus in an area currently developed with a surface parking lot (shown as Parking Lot 6 in Figure 6). The new parking garage would be built near the Women and Children’s Center in the northeast portion of the Campus in an area currently developed with a surface parking lot (shown as Parking Lot 10 in Figure 6). The surface parking lots adjacent to the hospital in the northwest portion of the Campus would be reconfigured in response to the relocated Loop Road, new Bed Tower building, and to provide surface parking options near the new main hospital entrance and ED entrance.

New Inpatient Tower
Existing Hospital
Existing Hospital
Women and
Children’s
Center
MOB 1
MOB 2
Existing
Parking
Garage
CUP
Auxiliary New
Garage
New Generator
Yard
Lead Hill Boulevard
Eureka Road
Drive eg id RykcoR
Douglas Boulevard
Loop Road
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\AI\Fig0x_ProjectSitePlan.ai Proposed Project Site Plan
Figure 3
New Bed Tower
1 New Campus Driveway
1 Closed Campus Driveway
Existing Building 1 Existing Campus Driveway
New Building
New Driveway
Existing Driveway
to be closed
ED entrance and
drop off area
New main hospital entrance
and drop off area
Existing hospital entrance
and drop off area
6 1 2
3 4
5 N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\PDF Figure 4
Proposed Project Changes to KPRMC Campus
!
!
!
Parking
Garage
MOB II
MOB I
WCC
CUP
Auxiliary
Main
Hospital
ED/RAD
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Lead Hill Blvd
Loop Road
Douglas Blvd
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
G
F
F
F F
1 2
3 4
5 Existing Site Plan
New Inpatient Tower
Existing Hospital
Existing Hospital
Women and
Children’s
Center
MOB 1
MOB 2
Existing
Parking
Garage
CUP
Auxiliary New
Garage
New Generator
Yard
Lead Hill Boulevard
Eureka Road
Drive eg id RykcoR
Douglas Boulevard
Loop Road
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F F
F
F F
6 1 2
3 4
5 Proposed Site Plan
New Bed Tower
Permitted Turning Movement F
1 New Campus Driveway
1 Closed Campus Driveway
1 Existing Campus Driveway
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 7 Project Circulation
Figure 5 presents the vehicular and pedestrian circulation with the proposed Project. Driveway 5 on Rocky Ridge Drive would function as the main entry to the Campus, providing direct access to a new hospital drop off area fronting the new hospital entrance atrium and plaza. The existing main hospital entrance and drop off area would be repurposed as a secondary access.

The walkways in the northwest portion of the Campus would be reconfigured to accommodate the new Bed Tower building. These walkways would provide internal pedestrian circulation between the new hospital entrance and reconfigured surface parking lots to the north, west, and south of the new main hospital drop off. The walkways would also provide a continuous path along the north side of the Bed Tower building between the new main hospital entrance and ED entrance. A combination of new and existing pedestrian walkways would also connect the new main hospital drop off to Rocky Ridge Drive and the ED drop off to Lead Hill Boulevard.

Vehicular access to the new parking garage would primarily occur via Driveway 2 (on Lead Hill Boulevard) and Driveway 3 (on Eureka Road), which are directly north and south of the new parking garage, respectively.

2. Baseline Conditions
This chapter describes the environmental setting, which is the baseline scenario upon which Projectspecific impacts are evaluated. The environmental setting for transportation includes baseline descriptions for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities in the study area.

Generally, the baseline for this study represents transportation conditions in February 2022 when the notice of preparation (NOP) was released. In some cases, traffic data collected in May 2019 and February 2020 is used to represent baseline traffic levels. Traffic data from the City of Roseville traffic volume database indicate that traffic volumes in the study area were about seven to 14 percent lower in February 2022 than May 2019. The lower traffic volumes in February 2022 indicate that the traffic levels in the study area have not quite fully recovered from the effects of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. As shown in Figure 1, the area surrounding the KPRMC Campus has many professional office buildings. In February 2022, workers employed by these businesses may have chosen (or were required) to work remotely. Traffic volumes may rise as more workers resume their conventional commute travel and the public engages more frequently in in-person activities. Therefore, the analysis presented in this report uses the higher May 2019 and February 2020 traffic data to represent baseline conditions, where noted.

Existing KPRMC Campus
The KPRMC Campus is currently developed with seven buildings roughly totaling 1.5 million gross square feet inclusive of the parking garage and support buildings, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: KPRMC Campus – Existing Building Gross Floor Area by Land Use Land Use Building Floor Area
Hospital
Existing Main Hospital 350,579 BGSF
Women & Children’s Center 194,995 BGSF
Hospital Sub-Total 545,574 BGSF
Medical Office
Medical Office Building 1 110,282 BGSF
Medical Office Building 2 272,406 BGSF
Medical Office Sub-Total 382,688 BGSF
Hospital + Medical Office Sub-Total 928,262 BGSF
Support/Other Non-Medical Service
Douglas Parking Garage 563,577 BGSF
Auxiliary Building 4,970 BGSF
Fire Pump Building 392 BGSF
Support/Non-Medical Sub-Total 568,257 BGSF
Total KPRMC Campus 1,497,201 BGSF
Notes: BGSF = building gross square feet
Source: Kaiser Permanente, 2022.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
10 Table 1 shows of the roughly 1.5 million square feet, approximately 928,000 square feet are hospital and medical office space. All existing hospital and medical office building space is currently occupied.

Campus Baseline Parking Inventory
Figure 6 shows the Campus had 3,077 parking stalls during a parking inventory taken in May 2019.

Approximately half are in the Douglas parking garage on the south portion of the campus, with the remaining in surface parking lots mostly along the western and eastern portions of the Campus. As of February 2022, approximately 25 parking stalls in Lot 6B were temporarily occupied by screening tents due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including 14 ADA accessible stalls. To address this reduction in ADA accessible parking, 12 parking stalls in Lot 5 were converted to ADA accessible parking stalls.

Campus Baseline Trip Generation
Traffic counts at the Campus driveways were collected on May 14-15, 2019. Figure 7 shows the baseline AM and PM peak hour volumes at the five campus driveways based on these 2019 traffic counts. Table 2 presents the baseline KPRMC’s vehicle trip generation per the May 2019 traffic counts.

Table 2: Baseline Trip Generation (2019) – KPRMC Campus Observed Trip Generation2 Trip Generation Rate3
Time Period Land Use1 Total In Out Total In Out
Daily
928.3 KSF
19,898 9,949 9,949 21.44 50% 50%
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
(7:45 AM to 8:45 AM) 1,487 1,239 248 1.60 83% 17%
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
(4:30 PM to 5:30 PM) 1,593 365 1,228 1.72 23% 77%
Notes:

KSF = thousand square feet

1. Land Use is the baseline occupied square footage of hospital and medical office on the KPRMC campus (see Table 1).

2. Observed trip generation is the average of traffic counts collected at all Campus driveways on May 14-15, 2019.

3. Trip generation rate is calculated by dividing the observed trip generation by the occupied floor area (i.e., trips per KSF).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

As shown in Table 2, the KPRMC Campus generated approximately 19,900 vehicle trips per day, with approximately 1,500 vehicle trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (7:45 to 8:45 AM) and 1,600 vehicle trips occurring the weekday PM peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 PM) under baseline (2019) conditions. This is based on the average of the two days of traffic counts collected on May 14-15, 2019, and represents traffic levels reflecting the operating conditions of the KPRMC Campus during the May 2019 data collection period.
1 10
3 4A
5 8
7B 9
T
6A
6B
J
2B
4B
7A
2A
7C
G1
G3
G2
G5
G4
G6
N:\2017 Projects\3567_Kaiser_Eureka_Rd_Med_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig01_ParkingInventory.mxd Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Parking Areas Figure 6
Parking
Garage
MOB II
MOB I
WCC
Main
ED/RAD
Hospital
Douglas Blvd
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Rd
Lead Hill Blvd
Notes:1. Other parking includes spaces designated for electric vehicles, recreational vehicles, patient drop-off, or ambulances, or spaces restricted for Kaiser/emergency vehicles.

2. Number of parking spaces occupied by shipping containers or construction equipment during the parking survey.

Parking Area
General ADA Employee Short-Term Motorcycle Other1 Total 1 58 45 0 20 0 0 1232A 75 0 0 0 0 0 75
2B 83 0 0 0 0 0 83
3 69 18 0 0 5 0 92
4A 0 0 156 0 0 0 156
4B 0 0 69 0 0 0 69
5 54 0 0 0 0 0 54
6A 109 0 5 0 0 0 114
6B 66 14 0 0 0 3 83
7A 0 0 59 0 0 0 59
7B 0 0 142 0 0 0 142
7C 0 0 71 0 0 0 71
8 6 15 0 5 4 1 31
9 55 4 0 0 0 0 59
10 109 0 160 0 11 5 285DG 1 161 0 60 0 0 10 231DG 2 171 14 86 0 0 1 272DG 3 153 14 85 0 4 7 263DG 4 158 15 105 0 0 0 278 DG 5 152 15 94 0 0 0 261DG 6 146 0 91 0 0 0 237J 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 T 0 1 23 0 0 0 24
Total 1,625 155 1,206 25 24 42 3,077
Parking Inventory by Space Type
Parking Location
Notes:1. Other parking includes spaces designated for electric vehicles, recreational vehicles, patient drop-off,ambulances, and spaces restricted for specific vehicles/personnel (e.g., security, maintenance, etc.).

Based on parking inventory taken in May 2019.As of February 2022, approximately 25 stalls in Lot 6B were temporarily occupied by screening tentsfor COVID-19, including the 14 ADA accessible stalls. As a result, 12 general parking stalls in Lot 5 wereconverted to ADA accessible parking stalls.

KPRMC Campus - Baseline (2019) Parking Inventory
!
!
!
Parking
Garage
MOB II
MOB I
WCC
CUP
Auxiliary
Main
Hospital
ED/RAD
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Lead Hill Blvd
Loop Road
Douglas Blvd
KPRMC Campus - Baseline (2019)
AM & PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes
Figure 7
287 (117) 287 (117)
52 (471) 52 (471)
274 (43) 274 (43)
F
F
F
95 (397) 95 (397) 338 (61) 338 (61) F F
61 (186) 61 (186)
179 (64) 179 (64)
84 (45) 84 (45)
F
F
F
5 (29) 3 (31) 3 (31) 21 (17)
36 (13)
G
F
F
21 (6) 35 (114) 35 (114) F F
AM (PM) Traffic Volume
F
Permitted Turning Movement
1 Existing Campus Driveway
1 2
3 4
5 Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 13 The KPRMC Campus consists of both hospital and medical office buildings. These two uses generate vehicle trips at different rates (i.e., medical office space generates more vehicle trips per thousand square feet of floor area compared to hospital space). Therefore, this analysis uses the observed baseline trip generation shown in Table 2, the mix of hospital and medical office space, and weighted average trip generation rates contained in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2021) to develop calibrated vehicle trip generation rates specific to the KPRMC Campus.

Table 3 presents these calibrated hospital and medical office vehicle trip generation rates. Appendix A provides the detailed calculation of these calibrated vehicle trip generation rates.

Table 3: KPRMC Campus Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Hospital 11.86 0.83 74% 26% 0.88 30% 70%
Medical Office 35.09 2.71 87% 13% 2.91 20% 80%
Notes:

Trip generation rates are presented in vehicle trips per thousand square feet (KSF).

Trip generation rates are calculated using the campus’s observed trip generation shown in Table 2, the existing mix of hospital and medical office space, and weighted average trip generation rates contained in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2021).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

These trip generation rates represent the travel behavior reflecting the operating conditions of the KPRMC during May 2019. Since these trip generation rates represent pre-COVID-19 pandemic travel behavior, actual trip generation rates of the Campus could be lower or higher in the future depending on what aspects of pandemic travel behavior remain long-term.

Roadway System
Figure 8 illustrates the existing roadway network in the study area including the roadway classifications, number of travel lanes, and posted speed limits. The following key roadways serve the Project site:
• Douglas Boulevard is an east-west major arterial connecting the City of Roseville and unincorporated community of Granite Bay. It extends from Vernon Street in Downtown Roseville on the west to the Folsom Lake State Park – Granite Bay Entrance on the east. Douglas Boulevard provides access to I-80 via an interchange about one mile west of the KPRMC Campus. East of I-80, Douglas Boulevard features three travel lanes in each direction, generally divided by a raised median. It has posted speed limits that range from 35 to 45 miles per hour (MPH) in the study area.
• Eureka Road is a major arterial connecting the City of Roseville and unincorporated community of Granite Bay. It begins at the I-80 / Eureka Road/Atlantic Street interchange, which is about one Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
14 mile northwest of the Campus, and extends easterly about 5.5 miles to Auburn Folsom Road in Granite Bay. Adjacent to the Campus, Eureka Road features three travel lanes in each direction divided by a raised landscaped median with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH. • Rocky Ridge Drive is a minor north-south arterial that extends from Cirby Way northerly to East Roseville Parkway. The roadway is about two miles long and features two travel lanes in each direction generally separated by a striped center two-way left-turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH.
• Lead Hill Boulevard is a minor east-west arterial that extends from Harding Boulevard easterly to East Roseville Parkway. The roadway is about 1.5 miles in length and features two travel lanes in each direction generally separated by a striped center two-way left-turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH.

Baseline Traffic Volumes
As described above, this study conservatively presents pre-pandemic traffic count data to represent baseline vehicle traffic conditions. Figure 9 presents the baseline (May 2019) daily traffic volumes on major roadways in the study area. This is presented for informational purposes only and is not used for roadway capacity or LOS analysis.

Refer to Chapter 6 (Traffic Operations Analysis) for an analysis of the baseline peak hour traffic operations (i.e., LOS) of key intersections in the study area.

Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Roseville Pky
Rocky Ridge Dr
Professional Dr
N. Sunrise Ave
Orvietto Dr
Sierra Gardens Dr
Eureka Rd
Santa Clara Dr
es Dr
Loretto Dr
Gerry Way
Way
Lava Ridge Ct
Strauch Dr
Stone Point Dr
D i R i M
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Existing Roadway Network
Figure 8
80 Minor Arterial (5 lanes)
Minor Arterial (4 lanes)
Major Arterial (7 lanes)
Major Arterial (6 lanes)
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Roadway Classifications (Number of Lanes) Medical Center Campus
123;
123:
123:
123:
123;
123:
123:
1239
1239
1239
Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Roseville Pky
Rocky Ridge Dr
Professional Dr
N. Sunrise Ave
Orvietto Dr
Sierra Gardens Dr
Eureka Rd
Santa Clara Dr
es Dr
Loretto Dr
Gerry Way
Way
Lava Ridge Ct
Strauch Dr
Stone Point Dr
D i R i M
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Baseline (2019) Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 9
80 Minor Arterial (5 lanes)
Minor Arterial (4 lanes)
Major Arterial (7 lanes)
Major Arterial (6 lanes)
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Roadway Classifications (Number of Lanes) Medical Center Campus
38,430
15,470 25,560
7,450
15,710
46,080 44,090
21,240
22,410
x,xxx Baseline (2019) Daily
Traffic Volumes
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 17 Transit System
Roseville Transit provides fixed-route local and commuter bus service, public dial-a-ride demandresponse bus service, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service in the City of Roseville.

Figure 10 shows the local fixed-route transit service in the immediate study area. Route L serves bus stops along the east, west, and south perimeters of the Campus, and operates Monday through Saturday on one-hour headways. Routes C and F serve bus stops that are a quarter mile walk from the southwest corner of the Campus. Routes C, F, and L have very low ridership according to the City of Roseville ShortRange Transit Plan (SRTP).

The Sierra Gardens Transfer Point is about a half-mile west of the KPRMC Campus, and serves Routes A, B, C, E, F, and L. The Sierra Gardens Transfer Point provides connections to multiple transit routes, which provide transit riders with access to multiple destinations in the city.

In addition to the transit facilities and services described above, there is an existing bus stop shelter on the south side of Lead Hill Boulevard about 200 feet east of the Rocky Ridge Drive near the northwest corner of the Campus. This bus shelter is not currently served by any fixed-route transit service. Similarly, an existing bus shelter pad (i.e., concrete pad without a bus shelter or signed bus stop) is located on the east side of Rocky Ridge Drive about 200 feet north of Driveway 5. This pad is not currently served by any fixed-route transit service.

South Placer Express/Rapid Link
Roseville Transit, working closely with the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Placer County, and the City of Lincoln has identified an opportunity to provide fixed-route bus service between downtown Lincoln, the Westfield Galleria at Roseville, Sutter Roseville Medical Center, KPRMC, and the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Watt/I-80 light rail station. This new regional service, called the South Placer Express in grant applications and branded as “Rapid Link” by Roseville Transit, will provide service with 30-minute headways from approximately 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM on weekdays. The route is scheduled to begin in 2023 as a three-year pilot program and includes the purchase of five grant funded electric buses. The schedule will be structured to provide transfer opportunities to Placer County Transit at the Westfield Galleria transit center and to SacRT light rail service at the Watt/I-80 light rail station.

The planned Rapid Link bus service would serve the KPRMC via an existing bus stop on westbound Douglas Boulevard west of Eureka Road and a new bus stop at the existing bus shelter pad on northbound Rocky Ridge Drive north of Driveway 5. Southbound buses from the Westfield Galleria and Sutter Roseville Medical Center would use the Douglas Boulevard stop while northbound buses from the Watt/I-80 light rail station would use the Rocky Ridge Drive stop.1 1 Information on Rapid Link provided by City of Roseville. Scofield, Ed. Email to Rob Hananouchi. June 2022.

Lead Hill Blvd
Eureka Rd
Lava Ridge Ct r D
e
gdi R
ykco
R
Professional Dr
Strauch Dr
Automall Dr
Hackamore Dr
Huntington Dr
y
anglewood Ln
St
Douglas Blvd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalk
Crosswalk
Bicycle Facilities
Class II Bike Lane
Figure 10
Kaiser Permanente
Rosevil l e Medical
Center Campus
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 19 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 11 displays the existing bicycle facilities located near the Project site. Class II bike lane facilities are present in both directions on all the arterial roadways in the Project vicinity. Rocky Ridge Drive, Lead Hill Boulevard, Eureka Road, Douglas Boulevard, and East Roseville Parkway all have Class II bike lanes, which provide bikeway connections to the immediate surrounding area. The Miners Ravine trail, a class I shared-use path, is located about one-half mile east of the Campus via Lead Hill Boulevard and provides connections to downtown Roseville, east Roseville, and Granite Bay.

Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 11 displays the existing pedestrian sidewalk facilities and marked crosswalks at major intersections near the Project site. As shown, sidewalks surround the entire perimeter of the Campus and include connections to an internal network of pedestrian walkways on the Campus. This existing pedestrian system provides access routes between KPRMC buildings and transit stops located along the perimeter of the Campus. Signalized intersections in the study area generally include marked crosswalks across most legs of the intersection with push-button and pedestrian signal heads to facilitate pedestrian crossings.

Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Roseville Pky
Rocky Ridge Dr
Professional Dr
N. Sunrise Ave
Olympu
Orvietto Dr
r Dsnedr a Garr ei S
Eureka Rd
Santa Clara Dr
Loretto Dr
erry Way
Lava Ridge Ct
Strauch Dr
Stone Point Dr
r Deni va Rsr eni M
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Existing Transit Network
Figure 11
80 Route E
Route L
Route F
Route C
Route B
Route A
City of Roseville Transit Routes
Bus Stop
Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus
Sierra Gardens
Transfer Point
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 21

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
The State of California has enacted several pieces of legislation that outline the state’s commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with state climate goals. The legislation with applicability to the analysis of the Project includes senate bill (SB) 743.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA guidelines to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), Public Resources Code (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.” Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
22 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 lead agencies have discretion to select those that are appropriate for the local land use and transportation context.

California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Highway System (SHS). Within the study area, the SHS consists of I-80 and SR 65. Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the SHS would need to be approved by Caltrans. As part of its responsibilities, Caltrans reviews local development projects subject to CEQA to assess potential impacts on the SHS based on the following technical guidance.
• Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (VMT TISG) • Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans Safety Impact Guidance) VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide
On May 20, 2020, Caltrans adopted the VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) (Caltrans 2020a). The TISG provides guidance on how Caltrans will review land use projects, with focus on VMT analysis and supporting state land use goals, state planning priorities, and GHG emission reduction goals; as well as identifying land use projects’ possible transportation impacts to the SHS and potential noncapacity increasing mitigation measures.

The TISG emphasizes that VMT analysis is Caltrans’ primary review focus and references the OPR Technical Advisory as a basis for the guidance in the TISG. Notably, the TISG recommends the use of the recommended thresholds in the Technical Advisory for land use projects. The TISG also references the Technical Advisory for screening thresholds that would identify projects and areas presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Caltrans supports streamlining for projects that meet these screening thresholds because they help achieve VMT reduction and mode shift goals.

Caltrans Safety Impact Guidance
In December 2020, Caltrans released the Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans 2020b). The Caltrans Safety Impact Guidance provides technical instructions on how to evaluate potential safety impacts on the SHS. This guidance largely focuses on the actions of Caltrans district staff in performing the analysis and providing relevant impact information to lead agencies. 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 Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 23 (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.

Local
City of Roseville 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 (2020) Circulation Element are relevant to this study.
• Policy CIRC2.1: Maintain a LOS “C” standard at a minimum of 70 percent of all signalized intersections and roadway segments in the City during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Exceptions to the LOS “C” standard may be considered where improvements required to achieve the standard would adversely affect pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access, and where feasible LOS improvements and travel-demand-reducing strategies have been exhausted. • 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.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
24 • 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.

Northeast Roseville Specific Plan
The KPRMC Campus is located within the NERSP, which was originally adopted by the City on April 8, 1987 and has been amended multiple times since its original adoption, with the latest amendment occurring on September 18, 2013. The NERSP establishes goals, policies, and implementation measures for the provision, phasing, and financing of land use, community services, roadways, and infrastructure.

The following transportation policies and implementation measures applicable to the proposed Project:
• The Medical Campus Component of the Specific Plan states that “[d]evelopment within the Medical Campus land use shall comply with the City of Roseville TSM Ordinance. A TSM Plan shall be submitted for the review, and approval of the Transportation Commission, concurrent with the submittal of any development plans.” A description of the City of Roseville TSM Ordinance is provided under Section 3.6.3, “Regulatory Setting,” of this SEIR. • The Circulation Component of the Specific Plan includes the following policy and implementation measures:
ń Plan Policy 2: Provide for alternatives to the automobile as the means around and through the site.

Implementation:

Ł Long-term and short-term bicycle parking will be required for all non-residential developments consistent with the California Green Building Code.

Ł Designated parking spaces for Clean Air/Carpool/EV will be required for all nonresidential developments consistent with the California Green Building Code. vii. require that all development comply with and implement the City of Roseville TSM ordinance.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 25 City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards
The City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (City of Roseville 2021a) provide for coordinated and standardized development of City facilities, including roadways. The Design and Construction Standards apply to, regulate, and guide preparation of traffic and VMT impact studies, the design and preparation of plans, and the construction of streets, highways, alleys, drainage, traffic signals, site access, bus shelter pads, and related public improvements. All public roadway infrastructure improvements must be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, Caltrans’ Standard Specifications (Caltrans 2018), and the latest edition of the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transitions Plan (City of Roseville 2009).

The Design and Construction Standards includes an updated Section 4 titled “VMT Impact Standards,” which outline the City’s guidelines for preparing Traffic Impact Studies and VMT Impact Studies.

Section 4-4 describes the types of Traffic Impact Studies required of proposed projects in the City, including when Short-Term Traffic Studies are sufficient and when Long-Term Traffic Studies are warranted. Specifically, a Short-Term Traffic Study is sufficient when “the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan, therefore the project’s long term impact is already accounted for via the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which was derived from the City-wide traffic model.” Conversely, a Long-Term Traffic Study is generally required when a proposed project’s land use “is not consistent with the assumptions of the City’s travel demand forecasting model, with regard to intensity of development and/or type of use.”
Section 4-7 states that the purpose of VMT impact studies is to “provide the necessary information to allow an assessment of the potential VMT effects associated with proposed projects as they relate to circulation policies established by the City. VMT impact studies are also used to identify appropriate mitigation and/or recommendations where practicable to offset project impacts.” Section 4-9 describes the methodology for conducting a VMT impact study. This includes whether a project may qualify for screening from additional VMT analysis, or whether a full VMT analysis with comparison to the appropriate threshold is required. The City’s guidelines note that a project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it complies with one or more of nine criteria, which include:

1. Within the scope of a prior CEQA analysis; including analysis performed for the General Plan

2. Small projects (generating 110 trips or less per day)

3. Projects near transit stations (within 0.5 miles of an existing major transit stop)

4. Affordable residential development

5. Redevelopment projects (if leads to a net overall decrease when compared to the existing land use)

6. Local-serving retail projects (less than 50,000 square feet)

7. Other local-serving development (improves destination proximity at the discretion of the City)

8. Development in low VMT areas (defined as a project in a TAZ that meets the City’s thresholds)

9. Transportation projects not generating new VMT
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
26 Because the City’s 2035 General Plan Update assumes a larger buildout of the Medical Center, the Project meets the first screening criterion. Please see Chapter 5 (Impact Assessment) for additional information regarding the Project’s VMT impacts.

The City’s Design Standards also set forth the requirements for project site access and driveway locations (Section 5); traffic signals, signs, and striping (Section 6); street design, including street classes and widths, rights-of-way, pavement engineering, curb and gutters, sidewalks, pedestrian walks and bike paths, intersections, sight distances, and driveway standards (Section 7); traffic noise barriers (Section 12); and bikeway design standards (Section 13).

The Construction Standards regulate construction-area traffic control (Section 12); set forth the developer’s and contractor’s responsibilities (Section 21); specify the details for construction of street improvements including barricades, bikeways, bridges, bollards, curb, curb and gutter, driveways, pavement, curb ramps, sidewalk, survey monuments and tunnels (Section 71); application of traffic stripes and pavement markings (Section 84); installation of pavement markers (Section 85); and installation of traffic signals (Section 86).

Transportation Systems Management Ordinance
The City has a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program, the purpose of which is to develop an integrated and cooperative approach between the City and the business community to promote alternative transportation options, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality in the Roseville area.

The TSM program applies to businesses or common work locations (such as office building/complex, commercial/retail center, or industrial building/park) with 50 or more employees. The City’s TSM requirements are located in Chapter 11.33 of the Roseville Municipal Code.

The goals and intent of the TSM program are to:
• Reduce total vehicle emissions in the City by reducing the number of vehicular trips that might otherwise be generated by home-to-work commuting.
• Reduce peak-hour traffic circulation in the City by reducing both the number of vehicular trips and the vehicular miles traveled that might otherwise be generated by home-to-work commuting by a minimum of 20%.
• Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation network in the City. • Promote an integrated and cooperative approach between the City and the business community to promote alternative transportation opportunities and improve the air quality in Roseville. • Cooperate and coordinate with other cities, counties, communities, and regional agencies in these endeavors.

Typical measures included in a TSM include the provision of bicycle lockers and on-site showering facilities, workplace ride-share programs, and employee education and incentive programs to use alternative transportation.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 27 The NERSP specifically states that “[d]evelopment within the Medical Campus land use shall comply with the City of Roseville TSM Ordinance. A TSM Plan shall be submitted for the review, and approval of the Transportation Commission, concurrent with the submittal of any development plans.” The Project is subject to the City’s TSM ordinance requirements. Kaiser has a TSM plan already in place that would be amended to include the proposed Project. These requirements would reduce the number of vehicle trips and VMT that might otherwise be generated by the Project.

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 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, and 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 function as mitigation for those projects consistent with the general plan. The fee program is funding improvements identified and required as part of the 2035 General Plan EIR and the payment of fees reflects individual projects’ fair share contribution towards these improvements. This Project would be subject to City traffic impact fee programs, which would represent its fair share contribution towards these improvements.

City of Roseville Short-Range Transit Plan 2018-2025
The City of Roseville 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.

This study references the SRTP to identify baseline transit data and potential planned transit improvements in the study area. Within the study area, the SRTP recommends revising Routes C, G, F, E, and L. The SRTP notes that ridership on Routes C, G, F, and E, as well as Route L east of Eureka Road is low. To this end, the plan recommends two potential strategies for further consideration:
• Modify Routes C, G, F, E, and L to eliminate unproductive segments and provide one-hour headways minimum. Figures 23 and 32 in the SRTP show examples for how this could be accomplished. Under both of these examples, the recommended local fixed-route service would continue to serve the Campus and the bus stops along the Campus’s perimeter. • Eliminate Routes C, G, F, and E; modify Route L, and replace with transportation network company (TNC) or microtransit service. Figure 24 in the SRTP shows an example for how Route L would be modified and supplemented with TNC service. In this example, Route L would continue to serve Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
28 the Campus and the bus stops along the Campus’s perimeter. The microtransit service or TNC subsidy would be provided in areas of the city previously served by Routes C, G, F, E, and L.

Note that in August 2022, Routes E and G were combined and branded as Route E. This included changes to Route E to provide more direct service between the Galleria Mall and Sierra College campus and eliminate service on Sierra College Boulevard between Rocklin Road and Douglas Boulevard. This is consistent with the SRTP recommendation to eliminate unproductive segments.

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.

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 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. • 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.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 29

4. Project Travel Characteristics
This chapter describes the forecasted travel characteristics of the proposed Project.

Project Description
As presented in Chapter 1 (Introduction), the Project proposes a 278,000 square foot Bed Tower building, a new four-level plus rooftop parking garage with approximately 800 parking stalls, and supporting utility upgrades. As support facilities, the new parking garage, new generator yard, and supporting utility upgrades to the existing CUP are not expected to independently generate new trips. Instead, the change in Campus trip generation is driven by the additional hospital space created by the Bed Tower building.

Parking
As shown in Figure 4, the Project would result in the following changes to parking areas on the Campus:
• The surface parking lot to the northwest of the existing main hospital (Lot 6) would be replaced by the proposed Bed Tower Building.
• The surface parking lot at the northeast portion of the campus (Lot 10) would be mostly replaced by the proposed new parking garage (a small surface lot adjacent to the new parking garage would remain).
• The surface parking lots in the northwest portion of the KPRMC Campus (Lots 3, 5, and 7) would be reconfigured to accommodate the relocated Loop Road, proposed Bed Tower Building, and new hospital drop off area.

Figure 12 presents the forecasted parking supply with the Project’s proposed changes to Campus parking. Note that the parking supply for the new parking garage and reconfigured surface parking lots are estimates based on the site plan and data provided by the project applicant.

As shown in Figure 12, the total campus parking supply is anticipated to increase from 3,077 spaces to 3,263 spaces with the Project, a net increase of 186 parking stalls. Table 4 shows the detailed change in parking supply in the west and northeast portions of the Campus with the Project.

N:\2017 Projects\3567_Kaiser_Eureka_Rd_Med_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig01_ParkingInventory.mxd Figure 12
Parking Area
New Inpatient Tower
Existing Hospital
Existing Hospital
Women and
Children’s
Center
MOB 1
MOB 2
ExistingParkingGarage
CUP
Auxiliary
New
Garage
New GeneratorYard
Lead Hill Boulevard
Eureka Road
Drive
e
g
d
i
R
yk
c
o
R
Douglas Boulevard
Loop Road
KPRMC Campus - With Project Parking Supply
New Bed Tower
New
Garage
ExistParkinGarage
n
xisting
ing
ist x
9 8
7 5
3 4A
1 2A
2B
T
10 New
Garage
4B
G1
G4
G6
G5
G3
G2
Parking
Garage
Notes:1. Other parking includes spaces designated for electric vehicles, recreational vehicles, patient drop-off,ambulances, and spaces restricted for specific vehicles/personnel (e.g., security, maintenance, etc.).

Parking supply for Lots 3, 5, 7, and 10 based on site plan provided by project applicant.Parking space type for New Garage based on review of ground level floor plan and Fehr & Peers estimate assuming no change to existing parking stall designations in other parking lots.

General ADA Employee Short-Term Motorcycle Other1 Total Parking Location 1 58 45 0 20 0 0 123
2A 75 0 0 0 0 0 752B 83 0 0 0 0 0 833 78 15 0 0 0 0 934A 0 0 156 0 0 0 156 4B 0 0 69 0 0 0 695 98 22 0 0 0 0 1207 35 0 0 0 0 0 358 6 15 0 5 4 1 319 55 4 0 0 0 0 5910 33 0 0 0 0 5 38DG 1 161 0 60 0 0 10 231DG 2 171 14 86 0 0 1 272DG 3 153 14 85 0 4 7 263DG 4 158 15 105 0 0 0 278 DG 5 152 15 94 0 0 0 261DG 6 146 0 91 0 0 0 237New Garage 272 20 450 0 10 48 800 J 0 0 0 0 0 15 15
T 0 1 23 0 0 0 24
Total 1,734 180 1,219 25 18 87 3,263
Parking Inventory by Space Type
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 31 Table 4: Proposed Change in Campus Parking Supply
Parking Location Baseline (2019) With Project Net Change West Campus
3 92 93 +1
4A 156 156 0
4B 69 69 0
5 54 120 +66
6A 114 0 -114
6B 83 0 -83
7A 59 0 -59
7B 142 0 -142
7C 71 35 -36
West Campus Sub-Total 840 473 -367
Northeast Campus
10 285 38 -247
New Parking Garage 0 800 +800
Northeast Campus Sub-Total 285 838 +553
Campus Total 3,077 3,263 +186
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Table 4 shows that the total number of parking stalls in the west portion of the Campus would decrease from 840 to 473, while the number of parking stalls in the northeast portion of the Campus would increase from 285 to 838, largely attributable to the new parking garage. Most of the decrease in the west portion of the Campus is due to the loss of existing staff spaces in Parking Lot 7A-7C. The remaining surface parking lots on the west portion of the Campus with the Project (i.e., Parking Lots 3, 5, and 7) would be designated for patients and visitors given their proximity to the new main hospital entrance and ED entrance. Meanwhile, the new parking garage would provide staff parking that compensates for lost staff parking in Lot 7.

Trip Generation
This study calculates the Project’s vehicle trip generation using the vehicle trip generation rates that are calibrated to the KPRMC Campus (see Table 3). Table 5 presents the Project’s estimated weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation, as well as the KPRMC Campus’s total vehicle trip generation with the proposed Project.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
32 Table 5: Project Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Proposed Project
Bed Tower Building (Hospital)1 3,297 230 170 60 245 74 171 KPRMC Campus Baseline
Existing KPRMC Campus2 19,898 1,487 1,239 248 1,593 365 1,228 Campus: Baseline Plus Project 23,195 1,717 1,409 308 1,838 439 1,399 Notes:

1. Vehicle trip generation estimate for the proposed 278,000 gross square-foot Bed Tower building calculated using the Campus specific trip generation rate for hospital presented in Table 3.

2. Baseline vehicle trip generation of the Campus based on counts collected on May 14-15, 2019, as shown in Table 2.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

As shown, the proposed Project would generate approximately 3,300 daily vehicle trips, with 230 vehicle trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (7:45 to 8:45 AM) and 245 vehicle trips occurring the weekday PM peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 PM). This would result in a total of 23,195 daily vehicle trips, 1,717 AM peak hour vehicle trips, and 1,838 PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by the entire Campus.

Trip Distribution
This study estimates the distribution of Project trips using the following data:
• Baseline (2019) turning movement counts at the KPRMC Campus driveways and signalized intersections at the Campus perimeter.
• Select zone analysis of the travel analysis zone (TAZ) representing the KPRMC Campus in the City of Roseville travel forecasting model.
• Google Maps recommended travel routes during the AM and PM peak hour between the Campus and major gateways to/from the study area (i.e., I-80 east and west; Douglas Boulevard to the east and west; Eureka Road to the southeast; Atlantic Street to the northwest; etc.).

In addition to the above factors, the distribution of vehicle trips to the KPRMC Campus is influenced by where drivers park on the Campus and permitted turning movements at Campus driveways. With the loss of staff parking in Lot 7 and addition of the new garage (see Table 4), many staff who park on the west portion of the Campus would likely shift to parking in the new parking garage. This would reduce staff vehicle trips to the west side of the Campus and increase vehicle trips to the northeast portion of the Campus.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 33 The expanded capacity of the hospital via the proposed Bed Tower Building would also generate more member/patient and visitor trips to the hospital drop-off and patient/visitor serving parking areas on the west side of the Campus. Overall, the net effect on vehicle trips to/from the Campus and surrounding City roadways is expected to be as follows:
• Minimal net change in vehicle trips to the west side of the Campus. The additional patient/visitor trips generated by the Bed Tower building would be offset by reductions in staff vehicle trips as they shift their travel routes to the new parking garage. • An increase in trips to the northeast quadrant of the Campus reflecting the new parking supply provided by the new parking garage.

Therefore, this analysis assigns net new trips generated by the Project to the new parking garage, which generally results in an increase in trips using Driveway 2 on Lead Hill Boulevard and Driveway 3 on Eureka Road, and negligible changes to trips to other Campus driveways.

Figure 13 presents the Project daily trip distribution, while Figure 14 illustrates the Project trip distribution during the weekday AM peak hour and Figure 15 illustrates the Project trip distribution during the weekday PM peak hour.

Given the right-turn only restrictions at the Lead Hill Boulevard and Eureka Road driveways, traveling west on Lead Hill Boulevard requires relatively circuitous routes for Project trips leaving the Campus. Therefore, only a small percentage of Project trips (5 percent or less) are likely to head west on Lead Hill Boulevard.

Instead, most outbound Project trips are expected to use Douglas Boulevard (i.e., heading west towards I-80 and Downtown Roseville) or Eureka Road (i.e., heading northwest towards Atlantic Street or Galleria Boulevard) as an alternate route to Lead Hill Boulevard.

Taylor Rd
evAesir nuS
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Secret Ravine Pky
Atlantic St
Lead Hill Blvd
dvl B air ell a G
Harding Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Rosev
ille P
kwy
Miners Ravine
N. Sunrise Ave Eureka Rd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Project Trip Distribution - Daily
Figure 13
80 Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus
22%
Project Trip Distribution Percentage
Eure
ak Rd
Eureka R
38% d
E
2%
35%
5%
35%
5%
Douglas Blvd
18%
10%
e r D
d
12%
E
12%
Sun
1%
\RS22 42 41 K 22_ S 42 41_Ka
5%
A i
d_Tower\Graphics\GIS\M _ p
S
18%
d
6%
St
6%
Taylor RdTaylor Rd
10%
Rd
14%
36%
%
3%
Taylor Rd
evAesir nuS
Eureka Rd
Secret Ravine Pky
Rocky Ridge Dr
Atlantic St
Lead Hill Blvd
dvl B air ell a G
Harding Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Rosev
ille P
kwy
Miners Ravine
N. Sunrise Ave Eureka Rd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Project Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour
Figure 14
80 Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus
42%
38%
14%
12%
1%
1%
12%
9%
10% 12%
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
14%
18% 16%
12%
5% 5% 10%
10%
14% 5%
7%
15%
11%
9%
5%
5%
36%
40%
2%
2%
10% 12%
3%
4%
5%
Taylor Rd
evAesir nuS
Eureka Rd
Secret Ravine Pky
Atlantic St
Lead Hill Blvd
dvl B air ell a G
Harding Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Rosev
ille P
kwy
Miners Ravine
N. Sunrise Ave Eureka Rd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour
Figure 15
80 Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus
Rocky Ridge Dr
42%
40%
5%
5%
12%
12%
1%
1%
13%
10%
10% 10%
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
14%
16% 16%
5%
5%
10%
5% 9%
6%
9%
14%
6%
6%
8%
14%
10%
8%
36%
39%
4%
3%
10% 10%
2%
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 37

5. Impact Assessment
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. This chapter begins with presenting the significance criteria used to evaluate Project impacts to the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems, and then assesses whether the Project would result in a significant impact based on these criteria. The information in this chapter is consistent with the transportation impact analysis contained in the SEIR for the Project (Dudek, July 2022).

Significance Criteria
The significance criteria are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and various City of Roseville published plans described in Chapter 3 (Regulatory Setting).

Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if development of the proposed Project would do any of the following:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). • Substantial increase in hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Potential to cause inadequate emergency access.

These questions alone do not identify specific measurable thresholds to determine impact significance. To supplement the questions, additional information is provided below to define how the City of Roseville determines impact significance.

Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System The Project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would do any of the following. • Physically disrupt an existing transit service/facility, bicycle facility, or pedestrian facility within the City of Roseville.
• Interfere with implementation of a planned transit service/facility, bicycle facility, or pedestrian facility within the City of Roseville as identified in the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan, City of Roseville Short-Range Transit Plan, City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan, or City of Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
38 Conflict or be Inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the criteria for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts. For land use projects, this section states that “[v]ehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” The Project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would:
• Not qualify for screening per the screening criteria outlined in Section 4-9-A of the City of Roseville VMT Impact Standards.
• Exceed the applicable VMT threshold identified in Section 4-10 of the City of Roseville VMT Impact Standards.

Per Section 4-10 of the City of Roseville VMT Impact Standards, the applicable VMT threshold for a nonresidential project is 15 percent below baseline VMT per service population; or a net overall decrease in total City VMT when compared to baseline VMT.

Increase in Hazards Because of a Geometric Feature or Incompatible Uses The Project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would result in a geometric design feature that is inconsistent with applicable design standards of the City of Roseville, as presented in the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards.

Potential to Cause Inadequate Emergency Access
The Project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would result in roadway and transportation facilities that impede access for emergency response vehicles.

Impact Assessment
Impact 1: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing transit service/facility or interfere with implementation of a planned transit service/facility.

The study area is served by three local fixed-route bus routes operated by Roseville Transit. As described under Impacts 2 and 3 below, the KPRMC Campus provides adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to access existing bus stops and local fixed-route bus service. The proposed Project would not disrupt these existing bus transit services, nor would it disrupt access to existing transit facilities.

The proposed Project would result in additional employment and capacity for serving patients in the areas served by existing transit, consistent with General Plan policy CIRC 4.1. This would potentially result in additional transit ridership demand. The SRTP indicates that the local fixed-route buses that serve the study area have very low ridership. Therefore, these routes would have capacity to accommodate Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 39 additional riders generated by the Project. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not conflict with policies related to transit in the City’s General Plan and NERSP.

With regard to planned transit service and facilities, the SRTP recommends modifying the local fixed-route bus service in the study area (see Chapter 3 (Regulatory Setting) for details). In summary, the SRTP recommends eliminating unproductive segments of existing fixed-route service, provide one-hour headways minimum, and replace the unproductive service with transportation network company (TNC) or microtransit service. On September 7, 2022, the Roseville City Council approved a contract for the implementation of microtransit service. Details of the microtransit service implementation will be determined in the coming months, but would likely provide comparable service to the existing dial-a-ride demand response service without immediate changes to local fixed-route bus service. Roseville Transit is in the process of conducting a comprehensive operational analysis. However, the ultimate modifications to local fixed-route bus service have not been determined.

The proposed Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard is about 200 feet east of an existing unused bus shelter.

This location is consistent with adopted City design standards as the driveway is more than 240 feet from the Rocky Ridge Drive intersection and is not within a bus turnout or the straight portion of an acceleration lane (see Design & Construction Standard Details ST-46, ST-48, and ST-49; and Design Standards section 5-3). Therefore, Driveway 6 would not interfere with future use of the bus shelter, if needed to support future fixed-route bus service.

The planned Rapid Link bus service described in Chapter 2 (Baseline Conditions) would serve an existing bus stop on westbound Douglas Boulevard as well as a new bus stop on northbound Rocky Ridge Drive about 200 feet north of Driveway 5. The Project would not result in any changes to the Campus frontage or existing transit facilities along Douglas Boulevard or Rocky Ridge Drive, nor would it result in a substantial increase in trips to Driveway 4 or Driveway 5 such that it would interfere with the implementation of this future bus service. Based on the known planned changes to transit service, the Project would not interfere with the implementation of planned transit services or facilities.

In summary, the proposed Project would not disrupt an existing transit facility or interfere with implementation of a planned transit service or facility. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 2: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing bicycle facility or interfere with implementation of planned bicycle facilities.

A continuous set of on-street and/or off-street bicycle facilities are present to connect the Campus with the surrounding area. A bicyclist can ride in existing class II bike lanes on Lead Hill Boulevard, Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
40 Eureka Road, Douglas Boulevard, or Rocky Ridge Drive to travel to or from the Campus. The Miners Ravine Trail (Class I shared-use path) is about a half-mile east of the Campus via Lead Hill Boulevard and provides connections to Downtown Roseville, east Roseville, and Granite Bay.

The proposed Project would not disrupt these existing bicycle facilities. These bikeways provide defined bicycle facilities for bicyclists to use to travel between the Project site and the surrounding area. The Project would be consistent with applicable policies, plans, and programs contained in the City’s General Plan and Bikeway Master Plan.

The planned bicycle network identified in the City’s 2035 General Plan and City’s Bikeway Master Plan is largely built out in the study area. Specifically, the class II on-street bike lanes on the surrounding arterial streets (i.e., Lead Hill Boulevard, Douglas Boulevard, Eureka Road, and Rocky Ridge Drive) identified in the General Plan and Bikeway Master Plan exist today. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with implementation of planned bicycle facilities.

In summary, the proposed Project would not disrupt an existing bicycle facility or interfere with implementation of a planned bicycle facility. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3: The proposed Project would not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility, or conflict with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies regarding pedestrian facilities.

Continuous pedestrian facilities are present or proposed on the KPRMC Campus for medical staff, visitors, or patients to use to walk between major destinations on the Campus (e.g., medical office buildings, main hospital, Women & Children’s Center, parking garages, and surface parking lots). Furthermore, pedestrian facilities are present that connect the major destinations on the Campus to public sidewalks on the surrounding roadways. This includes sidewalks connecting to existing commercial services and bus stops along Eureka Road, Lead Hill Boulevard, Rocky Ridge Drive, and Douglas Boulevard. This is consistent with relevant policies in the City’s 2035 General Plan and City’s Pedestrian Master Plan, such as Policy CIRC6.1.

Existing sidewalks surround the entire perimeter of the Campus along adjacent local streets. The proposed Project would not cause changes to these existing sidewalks, with one exception. The proposed new driveway (Driveway 6) would require modifying the sidewalk along the south side of Lead Hill Boulevard to comply with ADA requirements based on the existing slope. The existing sloped sidewalk would need to extend further west to ensure the sidewalk grade does not exceed the maximum allowed slope per ADA requirements. This modification would replace the existing sidewalk and would result in a continuous walkway along Lead Hill Boulevard as exists currently. Although the Project would modify the existing Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 41 sidewalk to comply with ADA regulations, it would not eliminate or permanently disrupt the existing sidewalk facility or pedestrian network.

Sidewalks would continue to surround the perimeter of the Campus with the addition of the Project. The City’s Pedestrian Master Plan does not identify any additional planned pedestrian facilities in the study area beyond what exists under baseline conditions. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with implementation of planned pedestrian facilities.

In summary, the proposed Project would not significantly disrupt an existing pedestrian facility or interfere with implementation of a planned pedestrian facility. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 4: The proposed Project would qualify for screening per the screening criteria outlined in Section 4-9-A of the City of Roseville VMT Impact Standards.

Section 4-9-A of the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards states that a project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it complies with one of nine criteria. Based on a review of these criteria, the project would meet the first criterion, “Within Scope of Prior CEQA Analysis.” Specifically, the Project meets this criterion because the City’s 2035 General Plan Update EIR assumed growth of the KPRMC Campus which adequately covers the proposed Project.

The City of Roseville adopted its General Plan 2035 and certified the corresponding EIR in August 2020 (City of Roseville 2020). The General Plan EIR explicitly states that “future projects consistent with the General Plan will not require further VMT analysis, pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA.” This is in reference to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a): “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” Further, the General Plan EIR states that “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 or less than what was assumed in this General Plan EIR.” The transportation impact analysis for the General Plan EIR used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The KPRMC Campus is located within its own travel analysis zone (TAZ), TAZ 256, in the Roseville travel forecasting model. Table 6 presents the land use inputs for TAZ 256 (i.e., the KPRMC Campus) in the 2035 Roseville travel forecasting model and compares these General Plan EIR land use inputs to the Project’s proposed gross floor area totals.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
42 Table 6: Roseville 2035 General Plan EIR: Travel Forecasting Model Inputs for KPRMC Land Use
Roseville 2035 General Plan EIR
Travel Forecasting Model – TAZ 256 KPRMC Campus with Project Hospital 962,000 SF 823,574 SF
Medical Office 434,000 SF 382,688 SF
General Office 362,000 SF -
Total 1,758,000 SF 1,206,262 SF
Notes:

SF = square feet
Source: Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final EIR, 2020. Kaiser Permanente, 2022.

Table 6 shows that the land use assumed for the General Plan EIR traffic analysis is greater than the total land use for the KPRMC Campus with the Project. Since the 2035 General Plan EIR traffic analysis assumed more development, it can reasonably be determined that the Project would generate less daily VMT than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Section 4-9-A of the City’s Design Standards, the Project would qualify for screening from additional VMT analysis, as the Project’s VMT impact was considered in the General Plan EIR. This assessment is further supported by the analysis presented in Appendix B.

Impact 5: The proposed Project would not result in a geometric design feature that is inconsistent with applicable design standards.

The Project proposes closing existing Driveway 1 and adding Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard.

Driveway 1 is about 150 feet west of a business park driveway on the north side of Lead Hill Boulevard.

This driveway offset is inconsistent with City of Roseville Design & Construction Standard Detail ST-47 (“Minimum Driveway or Street Offset on Minor Arterial”). The proposed Driveway 6 location is consistent with City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards and Details (see Section 5-3 and Detail ST-46).

Driveway 6 would allow right-in, right-out, and left-in access, but prohibit left-turn egress by extending the existing raised median on Lead Hill Boulevard. The extended median would create mirrored left-turn pockets (westbound into Driveway 6 and eastbound into the business park) that are consistent with City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards section 5-6 (“Left Turn Deceleration/Acceleration Lanes for Driveways”).

Other than the changes described above, the Project would not change the design of adjacent local roadways. Since the Project’s proposed changes are consistent with the City’s design standards and the Project would not result in a geometric design feature that is inconsistent with the City’s design standards this impact would be less than significant.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 43 Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 6: The proposed Project would not result in roadway and transportation facilities that impede access for emergency response vehicles.

The Project would close Driveway 1 and add Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard, which would be consistent with City design standards as described in Impact 5 above. Driveway 6 is forecasted to serve a similar level of traffic demand with the Project as Driveway 1 under baseline conditions (see weekday peak hour traffic volumes in Figure 7 and Figure 20). Driveway 6 would be approximately the same distance to the emergency department ambulance bays as the existing Driveway 1. In summary, ambulances traveling to KPRMC would have about the same travel distance and mix with a similar level of traffic demand.

Therefore, the Project would not impede ambulance access with the closure of Driveway 1 and addition of Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard.

The City of Roseville Fire Department Station No. 4 is located about one-half mile south of the Campus at 1900 Eureka Road, while City of Roseville Fire Department Station No. 6 is located about one mile north of the campus at 1430 East Roseville Parkway. The proposed Project would not result in changes to the roadway or transportation facilities that would block the access of fire department vehicles as they travel from either of these stations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
44 6. Traffic Operations Analysis
This chapter presents an analysis of the potential effects of the Project with respect to traffic operations (i.e., vehicle delay and LOS) at signalized intersections within the vicinity of the Project site.

Study Area and Periods
This study analyzes traffic conditions at the following ten study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours (see Figure 16).

1. Atlantic Street / I-80 Westbound On-Ramp

2. Eureka Road / Taylor Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps

3. Eureka Road / Rocky Ridge Drive

4. Lead Hill Boulevard / Rocky Ridge Drive

5. Lead Hill Boulevard / Eureka Road

6. Douglas Boulevard / I-80 Westbound Ramps

7. Douglas Boulevard / I-80 Eastbound Ramps

8. Douglas Boulevard / Rocky Ridge Drive

9. Douglas Boulevard / Eureka Road

10. Douglas Boulevard / East Roseville Parkway
These intersections were selected for analysis in consultation with City of Roseville staff and consider the Project’s size, location, and generation and spatial distribution of vehicle trips.

Taylor Rd
Sunrise Ave
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Atlantic St
Lead Hill Blvd
Galleria Blvd
Harding Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E.

Roseville Pkwy
Miners Ravine
N. Sunrise Ave
Eureka Rd

N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Study Intersections
Figure 16
80 Study Intersections
Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
46 Study Scenarios
Per the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards, a Short-Term Traffic Study is sufficient when “the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan, therefore the project’s long-term impact is already accounted for via the City’s Capital Improvement Program which was derived from the City-wide traffic model.”
As described in Impact 4 in the Impact Assessment section, the proposed Kaiser Bed Tower Project is covered by the 2035 General Plan EIR and accounted for the City-wide traffic model. A trip generation analysis of the proposed Kaiser Bed Tower Project demonstrates that the Project generates fewer trips than the development assumed in the City’s travel forecasting model (see Appendix C). Pursuant to Section 4-4 of the City’s Design Standards, a Short-Term Traffic Study is sufficient to analyze the traffic effects of the proposed Project and a future scenario need not be analyzed.

Therefore, this study analyzes traffic conditions for the following scenarios:
• Baseline (2020) Conditions: represents pre-pandemic traffic conditions in February 2020.

Specifically, this study reports the existing (2020) traffic analysis results from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (Fehr & Peers, 2021) for consistency. • Baseline Plus Project: represents baseline (2020) conditions plus the proposed Kaiser Bed Tower Project.

Analysis Methodology
Motorized vehicle LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists and is an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. Typical factors that affect motorized vehicle LOS include speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver. The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM) documents empirical LOS criteria and methods of calculation (Transportation Research Board, 2016). The HCM defines six levels of service ranging from LOS A (representing free-flow vehicular traffic conditions with little to no congestion) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic demand exceeds capacity resulting in long queues and delays). The LOS definitions and calculations contained in the HCM are the prevailing measurement standard used throughout the United States and are used in this study. Motorized vehicle LOS definitions for signalized intersections are discussed below.

Signalized Intersections
The LOS at signalized intersections is based on the average control delay (i.e., delay resulting from initial deceleration, queue move-up time, time stopped on an intersection approach, and final acceleration) experienced per vehicle traveling through the intersection. Table 7 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 47 Table 7: Level of Service Definitions – Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description Average Control Delay1
A
Volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or cycle length is very short. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and travel through the intersection without stopping. < 10.0
B Volume-to-capacity ratio is low, progression is highly favorable, and/or cycle lengths are short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Progression is favorable or cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
Volume-to-capacity ratio is higher and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E Volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. > 55.0 to 80.0 F Volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. > 80.0 Notes:

1. Average control delay presented in seconds per vehicle.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. Transportation Research Board, 2016.

This study analyzes traffic operations at study intersections using the Synchro 11 traffic operations software program. Synchro 11 software applies the methodologies presented in the HCM 6th Edition, and considers peak hour traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, signal coordination, and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations to calculate average control delay and LOS. Per City standards, the traffic operations analysis applies a 1.0 peak hour factor (PHF) for all movements at study intersections for all analysis scenarios.2
The study also uses the SimTraffic micro-simulation module of the Synchro 11 software to analyze weekday PM peak hour operations at intersections 1 through 3 (i.e., Eureka Road corridor from I-80 to Rocky Ridge Drive) and 6 through 10 (i.e., Douglas Boulevard corridor). SimTraffic accounts for interactions between intersections, queue spillback, vehicle platooning, etc. SimTraffic also produces more accurate estimates of vehicular queuing (when compared to more deterministic methods). 2 The PHF measures the degree of peaking within the peak hour. A PHF of 1.0 represents uniform flow across all four 15-minute periods, while a PHF of 0.25 indicates all travel occurred during a single 15-minute window.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
48 Traffic Operations Performance Criteria
The City of Roseville General Plan Circulation Element Policy CIRC2.1 requires that the City maintain a LOS C standard at a minimum of 70 percent of all signalized intersections and roadway segments in the City during the AM and PM peak hours.

The Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (Housing Element TIS) (Fehr & Peers, 2021) shows that 88 percent (AM peak hour) and 83 percent (PM peak hour) of signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better under existing (2020) conditions. The Housing Element TIS also forecasts 80 percent (AM peak hour) and 73 percent (PM peak hour) of signalized intersections in the City would operate at LOS C or better under cumulative conditions. These results indicate that traffic operations at signalized intersections in the City meet the minimum 70 percent requirement identified in Policy CIRC2.1 of the Roseville General Plan under both baseline (2020) and cumulative conditions.

The study intersections analyzed in this study are among the intersections the Housing Element TIS show as operating at LOS D or worse under existing (2020) conditions, as shown below:

2. Eureka Road / Taylor Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps (LOS D during the PM peak hour)

3. Eureka Road / Rocky Ridge Drive (LOS D during the AM peak hour)

5. Eureka Road / Lead Hill Boulevard (LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours)

6. Douglas Boulevard / I-80 Westbound Ramps (LOS D during the PM peak hour)

8. Douglas Boulevard / Rocky Ridge Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour)

9. Douglas Boulevard / Eureka Road (LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours)

10. Douglas Boulevard / East Roseville Parkway (LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours) These seven intersections are also forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse under cumulative conditions in the Housing Element TIS. However, as noted above, the results in the Housing Element TIS demonstrate that traffic operations at signalized intersections in the City overall meet the minimum 70 percent requirement identified in Policy CIRC2.1 of the Roseville General Plan both under baseline (2020) and cumulative conditions. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that these LOS D or worse operations are expected with (and therefore, consistent with) the Roseville General Plan.

Baseline Conditions
This study presents traffic analysis results that reflect pre-COVID-19 pandemic traffic conditions to represent baseline (2020) conditions. Specifically, this study reports the existing (2020) traffic analysis results from the Housing Element TIS. These results are based on AM and PM peak period turning movement count data obtained from the City of Roseville traffic count database for mid-week days of February 20, 25, and 26, 2020.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 49 Figure 17 presents the baseline (2020) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, lane configurations, and traffic controls at each study intersection.

Table 8 presents the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the study intersections under baseline (2020) conditions (refer to Appendix D for detailed calculations). This table shows seven of the 10 study intersections operate at LOS D or worse during the weekday AM and/or PM peak hours under baseline conditions.

Table 8: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Baseline (2020) Conditions Peak
Hour
Baseline Conditions
Intersection Traffic Control Delay1 LOS2

1. Atlantic St. / I-80 Westbound On-Ramp Signal
AM 5.7 A 3
PM 10.2 B

2. Eureka Rd. / Taylor Rd./I-80 Eastbound Ramps Signal
AM 24.7 C 3
PM 54.0 D

3. Eureka Rd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 40.7 D
PM 31.4 C

4. Lead Hill Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 17.4 B
PM 27.7 C

5. Lead Hill Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 36.6 D
PM 40.9 D

6. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal
AM 21.2 C
PM 42.0 D

7. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Eastbound Ramps Signal
AM 6.4 A 3
PM 9.1 A

8. Douglas Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 22.5 C
PM 43.1 D

9. Douglas Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 40.4 D
PM 40.2 D

10. Douglas Blvd. / E. Roseville Pkwy. Signal
AM 39.8 D
PM 48.2 D
Notes:

BOLD indicates LOS D or worse operations.

1. Average control delay for signalized intersections is the weighted average for all movements.

2. LOS = level of service calculated per the thresholds presented in Table 7.

3. Intersection analyzed using the HCM 2000 methodology due to unique intersection configurations that are incompatible with the HCM 6th Edition and HCM 2010 methodology.

Source: Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update, Fehr & Peers, 2021. ! !
!
! !
!6 !7 !8 !9 !
4 5
3 2
1 10
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí acccf acc ccf
aaccf
aacc
accf
aaccf
aaccf
cccf cc
aacccf
accf
aaf
accfcccf
aaccf
accf
accf
acccf
aacccf
accf
accf
abf
acccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
iccf
acccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccf
accf
ccef
f
ff
Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd
Eureka Rd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd I-80 EB Ramps
Lead Hill Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
Douglas Blvd
Atlantic St Atlantic St
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr Eureka RoadRocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Taylor Rd
Rocky Ridge Drive
I-80 EB Ramps
I-80 WB Ramps
E Roseville Pkwy
1,214 (700)
155 (410)226 (360)
8 (29)
146 (204)604 (648)978 (390)
0 (1)
309 (545)375 (568)
67 (83)
124 (230)
603 (1,217)
53 (70)
362 (393)392 (610)
28 (31)
138 (196)598 (570)
54 (55)
211 (308)
594 (626)323 (166)
214 (200)548 (513)316 (228)418 (260)
68 (142)341 (695)159 (211)
161 (152)556 (565)635 (524)159 (126)573 (758)712 (736)
83 (166)211 (297)49 (70)
96 (81)232 (482)257 (310)
70 (146)397 (537)10 (18)
52 (44)1,388 (914)181 (104)
134 (191)
1,241 (1,037)
116 (183)
1,547 (1,537)
94 (173)
1,340 (1,341)
948 (813)
297 (297)
220 (210)
1,645 (1,050)
297 (253)
238 (191)
1,387 (1,173)
304 (418)
205 (229)
1,447 (1,351)
147 (141)
113 (118)
1,707 (963)
314 (340)
66 (67)
224 (278)
298 (332)
31 (102)
107 (190)
103 (181)
327 (617)
1,060 (1,395)
45 (80)
106 (188)
1,183 (1,551)
144 (357)
21 (50)
558 (1,405)
34 (67)
4 (23)
145 (350)
35 (124)
42 (160)
101 (190)
53 (60)
156 (250)
1,413 (2,496)
645 (808)
1,294 (1,544)
48 (123)
789 (1,298)
1,042 (1,458)
504 (1,664)
459 (412)
99 (364)
304 (760)
585 (1,390)

3. Rocky Ridge Dr/Eureka Rd 5. Eureka Rd/Lead Hill Blvd

9. Eureka Road/Douglas Blvd

1. I-80 WB Ramps/Atlantic St

6. I-80 WB Ramps/Douglas Blvd 7. I-80 EB Ramps/Douglas Blvd

4. Rocky Ridge Dr/Lead Hill Blvd

8. Rocky Ridge Drive/Douglas Blvd 10. E Roseville Pkwy/Douglas Blvd

2. Atlantic St/Taylor Rd/I-80 EB Ramps/Eureka Rd
\\Fpsa03.fpainc.local\Data\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\PHTVs\Fig17_Peak_Hour_Volumes_Lane_Config_Baseline_Conditions.mxd Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Baseline (2020) Conditions
Figure 17
! Study Intersection
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume èéëìí Traffic Signal
Turn Lane a
1 §¨¦80
Douglas Blvd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Sunrise Ave
N. Sunrise Ave
Atlantic St
Galleria Blvd
E. Roseville Pkwy
Eureka Rd
Lead Hill Blvd
Miners Ravine
Harding Blvd
"
"
1,242 (967) c
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 51 Baseline Plus Project Conditions
New vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project are assigned to the study intersections and Campus driveways in accordance with the project travel characteristics presented in Chapter 4 (Project Travel Characteristics). Specifically, the trips generated by the Project (see Table 6) are assigned to the roadway network according to the trip distribution presented in Figure 12 (weekday daily), Figure 13 (weekday AM peak hour), and Figure 14 (weekday PM peak hour). The net increase in trips to the Campus generated by the Project are assigned to the new parking garage, which generally results in an increase in trips using the Lead Hill Boulevard and Eureka Road driveways (Driveways 2 and 3). The project trip assignment also considers the permitted turn movements (i.e., right-turn only restrictions) at the Campus driveways.

The net increase in Project trips are added to the baseline (2020) traffic volumes to yield baseline plus project forecasts. Figure 17 presents the baseline plus project daily traffic forecasts on major roadways in the study area. These daily traffic volumes are presented for informational purposes only and not used for a roadway capacity or LOS analysis.

Figure 18 presents the weekday AM and PM peak hour project trip assignment at each study intersection.

These Project trips are added to the baseline (2020) turning movement volumes (see Figure 16) to yield the baseline plus project weekday AM and PM peak hour forecasts at study intersections (see Figure 19).

Figure 20 presents the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasts at the Campus driveways under baseline plus project conditions.

Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd
E. Roseville Pky
Rocky Ridge Dr
Professional Dr
N. Sunrise Ave
Orvietto Dr
Sierra Gardens Dr
Eureka Rd
Santa Clara Dr
es Dr
Loretto Dr
Gerry Way
Way
Lava Ridge Ct
Strauch Dr
Stone Point Dr
D i R i M
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.aprx Baseline Plus Project Daily Traffic Forecasts
Figure 18
80 Kaiser Permanente Roseville
Medical Center Campus
38,430
39,680
46,080
46,670
15,710
15,880
15,470
15,570
44,090
44,420
22,410
22,810
7,450
7,620
21,240
21,640
Baseline (2019) Daily Traffic Volumes
Baseline Plus Project Daily
Traffic Forecasts
x,xxx
x,xxx
25,560
26,710
! !
!
! !
!6 !7 !8 !9 !
4 5
3 2
1 10
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí acccf acc ccf
aaccf
aacc
accf
aaccf
aaccf
cccf cc
aacccf
accf
aaf
accfcccf
aaccf
accf
accf
acccf
aacccf
accf
accf
abf
acccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
acccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccf
accf
ccef
f
ff
Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd
Eureka Rd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd I-80 EB Ramps
Lead Hill Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
Douglas Blvd
Atlantic St Atlantic St
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr Eureka RoadRocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Taylor Rd
Rocky Ridge Drive
I-80 EB Ramps
I-80 WB Ramps
E Roseville Pkwy
24 (10)
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
17 (7)
1 (2)0 (0)
13 (6)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
24 (9)
0 (0)5 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
10 (5)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
17 (46)7 (21)7 (17)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)15 (6)
0 (0)0 (0)10 (4)
0 (0)61 (27)0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (4)
0 (0)
7 (17)
0 (0)
9 (4)
12 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
36 (16)
0 (0)
29 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (4)
19 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
61 (27)
10 (4)
0 (0)
7 (4)
0 (0)
23 (68)
3 (9)
12 (33)
17 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (27)
7 (22)
0 (0)
23 (68)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (4)
0 (0)
10 (26)
0 (0)
17 (7)
0 (0)
3 (7)
3 (9)
3 (10)
3 (10)
7 (17)
9 (24)
6 (20)

3. Rocky Ridge Dr/Eureka Rd 5. Eureka Rd/Lead Hill Blvd

9. Eureka Road/Douglas Blvd

1. I-80 WB Ramps/Atlantic St

6. I-80 WB Ramps/Douglas Blvd 7. I-80 EB Ramps/Douglas Blvd

4. Rocky Ridge Dr/Lead Hill Blvd

8. Rocky Ridge Drive/Douglas Blvd 10. E Roseville Pkwy/Douglas Blvd

2. Atlantic St/Taylor Rd/I-80 EB Ramps/Eureka Rd
\\Fpsa03.fpainc.local\Data\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\PHTVs\Fig19_Weekday_AM_PM_Peak_Hour_Project_Trip_Assignment.mxd Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 19
! Study Intersection
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume èéëìí Traffic Signal
Turn Lane a
1 Douglas Blvd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Sunrise Ave
N. Sunrise Ave
Atlantic St
Galleria Blvd
E. Roseville Pkwy
Eureka Rd
Lead Hill Blvd
Miners Ravine
Harding Blvd
"
c
17 (7)
"
§¨¦80
! !
!
! !
!6 !7 !8 !9 !
4 5
3 2
1 10
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí acccf acc ccf
aaccf
aacc
accf
aaccf
aaccf
cccf cc
aacccf
accf
aaf
accfcccf
aaccf
accf
accf
acccf
aacccf
accf
accf
abf
acccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
iccf
acccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccf
accf
ccef
f
ff
Lead Hill Blvd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd
Eureka Rd
Douglas Blvd Douglas Blvd I-80 EB Ramps
Lead Hill Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
Douglas Blvd
Atlantic St Atlantic St
Eureka Rd
Rocky Ridge Dr Eureka RoadRocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Taylor Rd
Rocky Ridge Drive
I-80 EB Ramps
I-80 WB Ramps
E Roseville Pkwy
1,238 (710)
155 (410)226 (360)
8 (29)
146 (204)604 (648)995 (397)
0 (1)
310 (547)375 (568)
80 (89)
124 (230)
603 (1,217)
53 (70)
362 (393)416 (619)
28 (31)
138 (196)598 (570)
54 (55)
211 (308)
599 (628)333 (171)
214 (200)548 (513)316 (228)
418 (260)
68 (142)341 (695)159 (211)
178 (198)563 (586)642 (541)159 (126)573 (758)712 (736)
83 (166)211 (297)49 (70)
96 (81)232 (482)272 (316)
70 (146)397 (537)20 (22)
52 (44)1,449 (941)181 (104)
134 (191)
1,250 (1,041)
116 (183)
1,554 (1,554)
94 (173)
1,349 (1,345)
960 (819)
297 (297)
220 (210)
1,681 (1,066)
297 (253)
267 (204)
1,387 (1,173)
304 (418)
213 (233)
1,466 (1,359)
147 (141)
113 (118)
1,768 (990)
324 (344)
66 (67)
231 (282)
298 (332)
54 (170)
110 (199)
115 (214)
344 (624)
1,060 (1,395)
45 (80)
106 (188)
1,194 (1,578)
151 (379)
21 (50)
581 (1,473)
34 (67)
4 (23)
146 (355)
35 (124)
42 (160)
101 (190)
62 (64)
156 (250)
1,423 (2,522)
645 (808)
1,311 (1,551)
48 (123)
796 (1,315)
1,045 (1,467)
507 (1,674)
462 (422)
106 (381)
313 (784)
591 (1,410)

3. Rocky Ridge Dr/Eureka Rd 5. Eureka Rd/Lead Hill Blvd

9. Eureka Road/Douglas Blvd

1. I-80 WB Ramps/Atlantic St

6. I-80 WB Ramps/Douglas Blvd 7. I-80 EB Ramps/Douglas Blvd

4. Rocky Ridge Dr/Lead Hill Blvd

8. Rocky Ridge Drive/Douglas Blvd 10. E Roseville Pkwy/Douglas Blvd

2. Atlantic St/Taylor Rd/I-80 EB Ramps/Eureka Rd
N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\PHTVs\Fig20_Peak_Hour_Volumes_Baseline_Plus_Project.mxd Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
Figure 20
! Study Intersection
Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Campus AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume èéëìí Traffic Signal
Turn Lane a
1 §¨¦80
Douglas Blvd
Rocky Ridge Dr
Eureka Rd
Sunrise Ave
N. Sunrise Ave
Atlantic St
Galleria Blvd
E. Roseville Pkwy
Eureka Rd
Lead Hill Blvd
Miners Ravine
Harding Blvd
"
"
c
1,259 (974)
New Inpatient Tower
Existing Hospital
Existing Hospital
Women and
Children’s
Center
MOB 1
MOB 2
Existing
Parking
Garage
CUP
Auxiliary New
Garage
New Generator
Yard
Lead Hill Boulevard
Eureka Road
Drive eg id RykcoR
Douglas Boulevard
Loop Road
KPRMC Campus - Baseline Plus Project Driveway Forecasts Figure 21
AM (PM) Traffic Volume
F
Permitted Turning Movement
1 New Campus Driveway
1 Closed Campus Driveway
1 Existing Campus Driveway
53 (473)
287 (118)
274 (43)
F
F
F
96 (400)
338 (61) F F
250 (95)
80 (237)
154 (74)
F
F
F
9 (66) 29 (21)
36 (13) F F
F
43 (16) 73 (224) F F
6 1 2
3 4
5 New Bed Tower
Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
56 Table 9 presents the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the study intersections under baseline plus project conditions (refer to Appendix E for detailed calculations). This table shows seven of the 10 study intersections operate continue to operate at LOS D or worse during the weekday AM and/or PM peak hours. However, none of the intersections degrade from their baseline LOS.

Table 9: Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Baseline Plus Project Conditions Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Baseline (2020)
Conditions
Baseline Plus
Project
Intersection Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2

1. Atlantic St. / I-80 Westbound On-Ramp Signal
AM 5.7 A 3 5.8 A 3
PM 10.2 B 9.4 A

2. Eureka Rd. / Taylor Rd./I-80 Eastbound Ramps Signal
AM 24.7 C 3 25.3 C 3
PM 54.0 D 51.2 D

3. Eureka Rd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 40.7 D 42.5 D
PM 31.4 C 31.3 C

4. Lead Hill Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 17.4 B 17.6 B
PM 27.7 C 28.0 C

5. Lead Hill Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 36.6 D 37.1 D
PM 40.9 D 41.5 D

6. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal
AM 21.2 C 21.2 C
PM 42.0 D 44.5 D

7. Douglas Blvd. / I-80 Eastbound Ramps Signal
AM 6.4 A 3 6.5 A 3
PM 9.1 A 9.7 A

8. Douglas Blvd. / Rocky Ridge Dr. Signal
AM 22.5 C 22.6 C
PM 43.1 D 40.1 D

9. Douglas Blvd. / Eureka Rd. Signal
AM 40.4 D 41.0 D
PM 40.2 D 44.8 D

10. Douglas Blvd. / E. Roseville Pkwy. Signal
AM 39.8 D 39.9 D
PM 48.2 D 48.1 D
Notes:

BOLD indicates LOS D or worse operations.

1. Average control delay for signalized intersections is the weighted average for all movements.

2. LOS = level of service calculated per the thresholds presented in Table 7.

3. Intersection analyzed using the HCM 2000 methodology due to unique intersection configurations that are incompatible with the HCM 6th Edition and HCM 2010 methodology.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 57 The results presented in Table 9 show delay decreasing slightly at a couple study intersections during the PM peak hour. This slight decrease is likely the result of adding traffic to movements that experience less delay than the overall intersection average (i.e., resulting in a slight decrease in the weighted average), and variation that occurs when averaging the results of multiple microsimulation model runs.

Overall, the results presented in Table 9 show the addition of Project trips is not expected to degrade traffic operations at any study intersection. All study intersections that operate at an acceptable LOS C or better continue to operate acceptably with the Project. Similarly, all study intersections that operate at LOS D or worse do not degrade to a worse LOS grade with the addition of Project trips. Therefore, the Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on traffic operations at signalized intersections in the study area.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
58 7. Project Access and Circulation
This chapter presents an evaluation of the Campus access points and on-site Campus circulation.

Specifically, this study evaluates the following:
• Estimate maximum vehicle queue lengths for outbound movements at Campus driveways. • Estimate maximum vehicle queue lengths for left-turn ingress movements at Campus driveways. • Evaluate proposed Campus access changes on Lead Hill Boulevard. • Review of internal Campus circulation.

Driveway Throat Depth Evaluation
This study analyzes outbound vehicle queues to assess whether the Campus driveways provide adequate storage (i.e., driveway throat depth) to accommodate weekday AM and PM peak hour demand. Table 10 presents the maximum outbound vehicle queues at the Campus driveways under baseline and baseline plus project conditions (refer to Appendix F for technical calculations). Note that baseline conditions results are based on Campus driveway counts collected in May 2019, consistent with traffic data presented in Figure 7 and Table 2.

Table 10: Maximum Outbound Vehicle Queues at Campus Driveways Throat
Depth1
Peak
Hour
Maximum Vehicle Queue Length2
Driveway Baseline (2019) Conditions Baseline Plus Project Driveway 1 (Lead Hill Boulevard
(center)) 35 feet
AM 25 feet Driveway Closed with
PM 75 feet Project
Driveway 2 (Lead Hill Boulevard
(east)) 125 feet
AM 50 feet 75 feet
PM 100 feet 150 feet
Driveway 3 (Eureka Road) 150 feet
AM 75 feet 75 feet
PM 150 feet 175 feet
Driveway 4 (Douglas Boulevard) 110 feet
AM 100 feet 100 feet
PM 275 feet 275 feet
Driveway 6 (Lead Hill Boulevard
(proposed – west)) 35 feet
AM
Driveway Does Not Exist
25 feet
PM 75 feet
Notes:

1. Driveway throat depths estimated based on aerial imagery and Campus site plan provided by the project applicant.

2. Maximum queue based on Exhibit 4-2 “Minimum Required Throat Depth for Right-Turn Only Movements (Unsignalized Project Driveways)” from the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (see Appendix F). Queue length in feet estimated assuming each vehicle occupies on average 25 feet of space.

BOLD indicates maximum vehicle queue exceeds the driveway throat depth.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 59 This analysis applies the nomograph shown as Exhibit 4-2 (“Minimum Required Throat Depth for RightTurn Only Movements (Unsignalized Project Driveways)”) from the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards. Note that inbound vehicle queues are not evaluated since inbound movements do not yield at the Loop Road and field observations indicate minimal vehicle queues for entering traffic.

Similarly, Driveway 5 on Rocky Ridge Drive is not evaluated since: (1) the outbound right-turn is a channelized free movement; (2) field observations indicate the driveway provides adequate storage for the occasional outbound queue when vehicles yield to northbound traffic on Rocky Ridge Drive; and (3) the driveway would experience a minimal increase in trips with the Project (one additional AM peak hour trip and two additional PM peak hour trips).

The following is recommended based on the results in Table 10 (see Figure 25):
• Add “Keep Clear” pavement markings and “Do Not Block Intersection” signage (CAMUTCD R10-7) at the Loop Road intersection with Driveway 6 (i.e., new driveway on Lead Hill Boulevard).3 • Add “Do Not Block Intersection” signage (CAMUTCD R10-7) to the southbound stop sign on the Loop Road at the intersection with Driveway 3 (i.e., Eureka Road driveway).4 Table 10 shows that the maximum vehicle queue at Driveway 4 extends beyond the Loop Road intersection during the weekday PM peak hour. However, the Project does not add to this maximum queue and improvements to reduce vehicle queues are infeasible;5 therefore, no changes are
recommended.

Table 10 shows that maximum vehicle queue length is 25 feet more than the provided throat depth at Driveways 2 and 3 under baseline plus project conditions. Field observations at these driveways show that the maximum queue occurs infrequently, and that vehicle queues are often a “rolling queue” as vehicles find gaps on the adjacent roadway. Therefore, these maximum queues are unlikely to greatly impact circulation on the Loop Road or inbound movements onto the Campus. When maximum queue events occur, the queue would shorten relatively quickly as vehicles depart the driveway onto the major roadway.

Left-Turn Ingress Movements
This study analyzes the maximum left-turn ingress vehicle queues to assess the adequacy of left-turn storage to accommodate weekday AM and PM peak hour demand. Table 11 presents the maximum vehicle queues for left-turn ingress movements under baseline and baseline plus project conditions (refer to Appendix F for technical calculations). All left-turn ingress movements occur at unsignalized locations where the left-turns yield to on-coming traffic. Therefore, this study estimates the maximum vehicle 3 Relocation of the Loop Road to increase throat depth is not feasible due to the proximity of existing parking. 4 This signage is only recommended for this approach because southbound motorists queuing in the intersection could potentially block the flow of inbound traffic. This would not occur on northbound approach. 5 Relocation of the Loop Road to increase throat depth is not feasible due to the proximity of the existing parking garage and MOB II. Reconfiguring Driveway 4 to provide free right-turn movements for outbound trips is infeasible since it would create a potentially hazardous weaving section between Driveway 4 and Rocky Ridge Drive on Douglas Boulevard.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
60 queues for these left-turns using the Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections (ITE Journal, November 2001) methodology. Note that baseline conditions results are based on Campus driveway counts collected in May 2019, consistent with traffic data presented in Figure 7 and Table 2.

Table 11: Maximum Vehicle Queues – Left-Turn Ingress at Campus Driveways Storage1
Peak
Hour
Maximum Vehicle Queue Length2
Movement/Driveway Baseline (2019) Conditions Baseline Plus Project Westbound left-turn at Driveway 1
(Lead Hill Boulevard) 125 feet3 AM 75 feet Driveway Closed with PM 50 feet Project
Northbound left-turn at Driveway 3
(Eureka Road) 200 feet
AM 100 feet 150 feet
PM 100 feet 100 feet
Southbound left-turn at Driveway 5
(Rocky Ridge Drive) 225 feet4 AM 200 feet 225 feet
PM 100 feet 100 feet
Westbound left-turn at proposed
Driveway 6 (Lead Hill Boulevard) 225 feet
AM
Driveway Does Not Exist
75 feet
PM 50 feet
Notes:

1. Left-turn pocket storage estimated based on aerial imagery and Campus site plan provided by the project applicant. Represents the striped left-turn length (i.e., excludes taper).

2. Maximum queue based on Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections (ITE Journal, November 2001) methodology. See Appendix F for calculations.

3. Left-turn occurs from a center two-way left-turn lane with no marked left-turn pocket. The storage (125 feet) represents the distance between the Lead Hill Boulevard (center) driveway and the adjacent driveway to the business park on the north side of Lead Hill Boulevard.

4. Left-turn occurs from a striped left-turn lane within a center two-way left-turn lane. The storage (225 feet) represents the striped left-turn lane length, although approximately 200 feet of additional storage (i.e., 425 feet total) is available within the center twoway left-turn lane before a raised median prevents entry into the center two-way left-turn lane.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Table 11 shows the left-turn pockets analyzed for this study provide adequate storage to accommodate the maximum vehicle queues during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under both baseline (2019) and baseline plus project conditions.

Lead Hill Boulevard Access Evaluation
The Project’s proposed closure of Driveway 1 and addition of Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard would address several issues:
• Driveway 1 is currently located on the south of Lead Hill Boulevard about 150 feet west of an existing business park driveway on the north side of the street. This “offset” is inconsistent with City design standards, as described in Impact 5 (see above).

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 61 • The Project would eliminate Driveway 1 and construct Driveway 6 on Lead Hill Boulevard. The proposed location of Driveway 6 is consistent with City design standards, as described in Impact 1 and Impact 5 above.
• Since Driveway 1 currently permits all movements (see Figure 2), it would have experienced in a notable increase in traffic demand given its proximity to the new parking garage if it remained in its current configuration, particularly for left-turn ingress and egress movements. This would have increased potential left-turn ingress conflicts in the existing center two-way left-turn lane given the proximity to the business park driveway.
• Driveway 1’s short throat depth (see Table 10) would have resulted in vehicle queues that would potentially block inbound traffic and hinder circulation on the internal Loop Road. • Driveway 6 is located further from the new parking garage and prohibits outbound left-turns. This results in lower traffic demand, which is particularly important given the driveway’s short throat depth necessitated by the proximity of the internal Loop Road and need to maintain nearby parking.

In addition to the Project’s proposed changes, this study recommends the following off-site modifications to Lead Hill Boulevard (see Figure 22):

1. Widen and extend the existing raised median in the eastbound left-turn pocket approaching Eureka Road as shown on Figure 22.

2. Add a “No U-turn” sign (CAMUTCD R3-4) facing westbound traffic in the widened median.

3. Configure westbound left-turn pocket at Driveway 6 with raised medians as shown on Figure 22 to prevent outbound trips from the business park driveway on the north side of Lead Hill Boulevard from using it.

Recommendations 1 and 2 above address potential inappropriate vehicle movements at Driveway 2.

Although Driveway 2 is designed for right-in/right-out access, the traffic counts show occasional drivers making left-turn ingress and egress movements. Drivers can conceivably make these left-turn movements since the raised median on Lead Hill Boulevard is narrow and ends approximately 50 feet west of Driveway 2 where it transitions into a center two-way left-turn lane. With the addition of the new parking garage, potential demand to make these left-turn movements may increase. Recommendations 1 and 2 would discourage and reduce the occurrence of these left-turn movements.

Similarly, drivers leaving the business park driveway opposite Driveway 6 may be inclined to cleverly maneuver into the new westbound left-turn pocket. Recommendation 3 above is intended to discourage this movement.
rx N:\2022 Projects\4142.00_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\Graphics\GIS\MXD\RS22_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower\RS21_4142_Kaiser_RMC_Bed_Tower.ap Lead Hill Boulevard
Recommendations
Figure 22
New Inpatient Tower
Existing Hospital
Women and
Children’s
Center
CUP
Auxiliary
New
Garage
New GeneratorYard
Lead Hill Boulevard
Eureka Road Loop Road
New Bed Tower
Rocky Ridge Drive
Left-turn pocket should bedesigned to block use byoutbound trips from business park driveway.

Add No U-turn sign facingwestbound vehicles.

Vertical curvature on Lead HillBlvd. may affect driver’s abilityto see vehicles in new left-turnpocket. See sight distanceevaluation in Figures 23 and 24.

Widen and extend the raised medianto prevent westbound mid-blockU-turns and outbound left-turns fromKaiser driveway.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 63 Sight Distance Evaluation
Lead Hill Boulevard features a crest vertical curve along the Campus’s frontage, which may affect a westbound driver’s sight lines of vehicles waiting in the proposed westbound left-turn pocket at Driveway 6. Therefore, this study conducts a stopping sight distance evaluation using guidance from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)), also known as the “AASHTO Green Book.” The stopping sight distance analysis considers following data and guidance from Section 3.2 of the AASHTO Green Book:
• The City of Roseville Engineering and Traffic Survey of Lead Hill Boulevard identifies an 85th percentile speed of 44.9 MPH for this roadway segment. Therefore, this stopping sight distance analysis uses a design speed of 45 MPH (i.e., 5 MPH above the posted 40 MPH speed limit), which correlates to a stopping sight distance of 360 feet per Table 3-1 of the AASHTO Green Book. • The height of the driver’s eye is considered to be 3.5 feet above the road surface, per section

3.2.6.1 of the AASHTO Green Book.
• The height of object is considered to be 2.0 feet above the road surface, per section 3.2.6.2 of the AASHTO Green Book.

The degree of slope on Lead Hill Boulevard progressively increases as it travels west from its high point near Driveway 1 towards the proposed Driveway 6. Based on an iterative review of placement of driver eye and subject vehicle along Lead Hill Boulevard, a single vehicle queued in the proposed westbound leftturn pocket represented a “worst-case” scenario for driver sight lines. Figure 23 presents the stopping sight distance analysis for a single vehicle queue in the westbound left-turn pocket.

This study also evaluates stopping sight distance for the forecasted maximum three vehicle queue in the proposed westbound left-turn pocket. Figure 24 presents the stopping sight distance analysis for this condition.

Figure 23 and Figure 24 indicate that the driver sightline (shown in black) would remain above the pavement (shown in red) for the entirety of the sightline. Therefore, the proposed placement and design of Driveway 6 would provide adequate stopping sight distance per the AASHTO Green Book standards.

Motorists waiting in the westbound left-turn lane at Driveway 6 would have an adequate sightline of oncoming eastbound traffic due to the considerable drop in grade immediately west of the driveway. The Lead Hill Boulevard / Rocky Ridge Drive intersection’s elevation is about 10 feet below that of the westbound left-turn into Driveway 6.

LEAD HILL BOULEVARD

LOOP ROAD

PROJECT
DRIVEWAY Single Queued
Vehicle = 25'
Stopping Sight Distance (45 MPH) = 360'
235'
230'
225'
220' 220'
225'
375' 350' 325' 300' 275' 250' 225' 200' 175' 150' 125' 100' 75' 50' 25' 0' Object Height = 2' 45 MPH) = 360' ght Distance ( Stopping Si Driver Eye Height = 3.5'
Road Surface Elevation

1RWHWKDWWKH*UDGHLVOHVVWKDQ>¨@

Stopping Sight Distance
Lead Hill Boulevard - Westbound 25' Queue
Figure 23
N.T.S.

CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

Stopping Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curve
Stopping Sight Distance Calculated Per 'The Green Book, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets' AASHTO 2018, 7th Edition, Chapter 3.2 Sight Distance Notes:

1. Topographic Map of Lead Hill Boulevard and Site Plan Base Mapping Provided by BKF Engineers, August 2022

2. On-Site Measurements Have Not Been Performed to Confirm this Finding.

Maximum Queue of 3 Vehicles = 75'
Stopping Sight Distance (45 MPH) = 360'

LEAD HILL BOULEVARD

LOOP ROAD

PROJECT

DRIVEWAY
235'
230'
225'
220' 220'
225'
375' 350' 325' 300' 275' 250' 225' 200' 175' 150' 125' 100' 75' 50' 25' 0' Object Height = 2' ance (45 MPH) = 360' Stopping Sight Dist Driver Eye Height = 3.5' Road Surface Elevation

1RWHWKDWWKH*UDGHLVOHVVWKDQ>¨@

Stopping Sight Distance
Lead Hill Boulevard - Westbound 75' Queue
Figure 24
N.T.S.

CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

1. Topographic Map of Lead Hill Boulevard and Site Plan Base Mapping Provided by BKF Engineers, August 2022

2. On-Site Measurements Have Not Been Performed to Confirm this Finding.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
66 Campus Circulation Evaluation
Figure 4 shows the Project’s proposed changes to Campus circulation, including the relocation of the Loop Road, a new main hospital entrance and drop off area, and new or relocated pedestrian crossings.

Figure 5 shows the vehicular and pedestrian circulation with the proposed Project.

Vehicular Circulation
The Loop Road would continue to provide vehicular circulation around the perimeter of the KPRMC Campus. The Loop Road would provide direct access to most parking areas on the Campus, including the reconfigured surface parking lots in the northwest portion of the Campus and the new parking garage.

Existing parking access points along the Loop Road are either side-street or all-way stop-controlled.

Therefore, this study recommends that the new or modified access points along the Loop Road also be stop-controlled at locations shown in Figure 25.

Pedestrian Circulation
The Project proposes sidewalks along the inside of the relocated Loop Road in the northwest quadrant of the Campus. Figure 3 and Figure 5 show crosswalks across the Loop Road connecting to surface parking lots, adjacent roadways, and Project components, such as the generator yard and new parking garage.

An existing crosswalk across the Loop Road near the ED drop off provides a pedestrian facility between the Campus and Lead Hill Boulevard. The Project site plan shows this crosswalk would remain at its current location, which is approximately 40 feet (less than two car lengths) east of the proposed new driveway, Driveway 6 (measured from edge of curb return to the center of the crosswalk). Given the location’s proximity to the new driveway, westbound vehicle queues approaching Driveway 6 would periodically block the crosswalk, and eastbound vehicles yielding to a crossing pedestrian could block inbound traffic from Driveway 6. Therefore, this study recommends moving the crosswalk to the west side of Driveway 6, as described in the Recommendations below.

Recommendations
This study recommends several enhancements or modifications to facilitate on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation. Figure 25 illustrates these recommendations on the Campus site plan. These recommendations include:
• Relocate the northeast drive aisle opening to Parking Lot 5 further west. The current location is very close to the proposed Driveway 6 and entrance to the ED drop off area. This leaves minimal throat depth for eastbound vehicles queued on the Loop Road. Relocating this access provides more throat depth on the Loop Road and shifts vehicle movements into and out of Parking Lot 5 further from Driveway 6.
• Move the crosswalk across the Loop Road and the associated sidewalk to the west side of Driveway 6. This would address the awkward spacing and queuing issues described above Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study 67 creating a more intuitive intersection design at Driveway 6. It would also provide a more logical pedestrian circulation pattern that is on the outside of the ED drop-off roadway. • Add “Keep Clear” pavement marking and “Do Not Block Intersection” signage at the Driveway 6 / Loop Road intersection. Due to Driveway 6’s short driveway throat, a two-vehicle queue would extend partially onto the Loop Road, and the occasional three-vehicle maximum queue would potentially block both inbound movements and circulation on the Loop Road.

Therefore, this study recommends “Keep Clear” pavement markings and “Do Not Block Intersection” signage (CAMUTCD R10-7).
• Relocate the fence and restrict landscaping height along the Loop Road to the west of the new parking garage. The proposed northern access to the new garage would occur at the existing northern drive aisle to Parking Lot 10. A field review of this location shows the existing fence and landscaping along the east side of the Loop Road interferes with driver’s sightline of approaching vehicles on the Loop Road from the south – see image taken from this location below (note that the parked vehicles in the image would be replaced with landscaping with the Project).

Image: Existing access to Lot 10 at Loop Road looking south. Approximate location of the proposed northern access to new garage at the Loop Road.

Although the fence is relatively short (approximately two feet tall), the descending grade of the Loop Road positions the intersection several feet below approaching vehicles. During a field visit to the location, the combination of the fence, horizontal curvature, and descending grade made approaching passenger cars on the Loop Road visible for less than one second.

Kaiser Bed Tower Project – Draft Transportation Impact Study October 2022
68 Therefore, this study recommends moving the fence outside the driver’s sight triangle and restricting landscape material height such that drivers can adequately see approaching vehicles on the Loop Road. Figure 25 illustrates the area to the west of the new parking garage where landscape material should have a restricted height. The fence should also be relocated outside this area.
• Add “Do Not Block Intersection” sign to southbound approach of Loop Road at Driveway 3.

A southbound left-turning vehicle from the Loop Road would have the potential to inhibit ingress movements if it blocks the intersection when moving to enter the back of vehicle queue.

Therefore, this study recommends “Do Not Block Intersection” signage (CAMUTCD R10-7) be placed on the southbound approach.
• Apply high visibility crosswalk marking across the drive aisles into and out of the proposed main hospital drop-off area. The Project site plan does not show any crosswalk markings at the drive aisles into and out of the proposed new main hospital drop-off area. This study recommends high visibility crosswalk markings at these locations given the potential pedestrian demand between the new main hospital entrance and adjacent surface parking lots, and the number of vehicles entering and exiting the drop-off area.

Move pedestrian walkway/
crosswalk between ED and
Relocate access to surface Lead Hill Blvd. further west. parking lot further west to
provide more throat depth on
Loop Road at driveway.

See Lead Hill Blvd.
recommendations in Figure 22.

Relocate the fence along Loop
Road to outside the driver’s
sight triangle and restrict
landscaping height so drivers
can see approaching vehicles
on Loop Road.

Add "Do Not Block
Intersection" sign to
southbound approach.

Add "Keep Clear" pavement
marking and “Do Not Block
Intersection” signage.

SP TO
SP TO Existing Stop Sign
New Stop Sign
Appendix A:

Campus Trip Generation Data
Appendix B:

Consistency with Roseville General
Plan EIR Assessment
Appendix C:

City Travel Forecasting Model
Trip Generation Evaluation
Appendix D:

Technical Calculations –
Baseline Conditions
Appendix E:

Technical Calculations –
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
Appendix F:

Technical Calculations –
Queuing Analysis
PC ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3 – Draft Supplemental EIR is located online at:
http://roseville.ca.us/environmentaldocuments
under Environmental Documents & Public Notices  Current Private Development Projects  Kaiser Roseville Inpatient Bed Tower Project LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

EASEMENT AND SETBACK LINE

BUILDING OVERHANG

NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE

PARKING STALLS
## A

NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE

VAN PARKING STALLS
## AV
NUMBER OF UNIVERSAL STALLS ## U
## M NUMBER OF MOTORCYCLE STALLS

PARKING CALCULATIONS

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
SEE G0.00 FOR DETAILED CALCULATION

TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
3278
3303
TYPE

ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESIBLE STALL (A)

UNIVERSTALL STALL (U)

MOTORCYCLE (M)

AMBULANCE (AMB)

RV (RV)

CLEAN AIR/VANPOOL/EV (EV)

DIMENSIONS
9' X 18'
9' X 18'
4' X 10'
14' X 24'
9' X 23'

STALL COUNT
56 [122 (E)]
884 [2063 (E)]
10 [8 (E)]
0 [16 (E)]
0 [5 (E)]
129 [10(E)]
## RV NUMBER OF RV STALLS
## AMB NUMBER OF AMBULANCE STALLS

NUMBER OF CLEAN AIR/VANPOOL/EV
STALLS
## EV
0 Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:
60' 120' 180' 240'
Graphic Scale: 1 inch = 60 feet

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-08-16 5:16:20 PM
As indicated

OVERALL SITE PLAN
08/19/22
L1.01
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
FH
FH
FH
FH
F
H
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB UB
UB UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
UB
CB UB

PARKINGNO

PARKINGNO
NO

PARK NI G
NO

PARK NI G

NOPARKING

NOPARKING EV CHARGING ONLY

CLEAN A R/ I VANPOOL EV /

CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV

EV CHARGING ONLY

NOPARKING

CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN A R/ I VANPOOL EV /

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT
DO
NOT
ENTER

BUS ONLY

LOADING
ZONE
ONLY

OTS P OTS P
STOP
POTS
TS PO
STOP
OTS P
PED
XING
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
SLOW
WOLS
STOP
TS PO
TS PO

COMPA C T

COMPA C T
OTS P

XING PED GNI X DEP

NEW BED TOWER
ENTRY

SERVICE

LOOP ROAD
156 U
69 U
50 A
8 AV
1470 U
4 M
10 EV
39 A 6 AV 78 U
54 U
83 U
75 U
1 2
U
5 RV
13 A
2 AV
11 U
4 M
1 AMB
2 A
2 AV
55 U
15 AMB
NEW
GARAGE
GARAGE

HOSPITAL
ED

WOMEN &

CHILDREN
MOB 2
MOB 1
CUP
NEW

GENERATOR
YARD

AUXILIARY
22 A
98 U
1 A
34 U
18 A
42 U
33 EV
21 U
15 A
689 U
10 M
96 EV
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETRETR

ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR ETRETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR

ETR ETR ETR ETR ETRETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR
ETRETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR ETR ETR
ETR
ETRETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR

ETR ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
ETR
1 1" = 60'-0"

OVERALL PLAN

PC EXHIBIT F
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:26 AM

PHASING KEY PLAN
08/19/22
G1.01
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19

PC EXHIBIT G
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:29 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 1

MAKE READY
G1.02
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
08/19/22
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:31 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 1, 2,

2.1 & 2.2-1 MAKE READY
PHASE 1 & 2
08/19/22
G1.03
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:34 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 1, 2,

2.1, 2.2-2, 2.3 & 5 MAKE
READY PHASE 1& 2
08/19/22
G1.04
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:36 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 1, 2,

2.2-3, 3 & 4 MAKE READY
08/19/22
G1.05
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:39 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 2, 3,
4 & 6 MAKE READY
08/19/22
G1.06
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
MPP STAGE 1 2022-02-07
1 MPP STAGE 1 RESPONSE 2022-03-22
MPP STAGE 2 2022-05-25
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
3 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:41 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 2, 3 &
4 TOWER
08/19/22
G1.07
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
1 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

KAISER PERMANENTE

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN INC

KAISER PERMANENTE

ROSEVILLE MEDICAL
CENTER

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INPATIENT BED TOWER
1600 EUREKA RD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Kaiser Project # CAP015954
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
Professional Seals
Project
Facility
Date:

Agency Approval
No. Revision Description YYYY-MM-DD
Scale:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
HOK Project # 17.04047.00
2022-10-21 9:53:44 AM
PHASING PLAN - AREA 2 & 3
TOWER
08/19/22
G1.08
One Bush Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
t +1 415 243 0555 f +1 415 882 7763
1 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2022-06-30
2 MPP STAGE 2 RESPONSE 2 2022-08-19
Original drawing is 42 x 30. Do not scale contents of this drawing.

BKF ENGINEERS
980 9th St, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Civil Engineering
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc.

NATIONAL FACILITIES SERVICES
POST OFFICE BOX 12916
OAKLAND, CA 94604

Roseville City CouncilDecember 7, 2022

Roseville City Council
December 7, 2022