Department of Conservation shows that there are no Williamson Act contracts within the City, and only one (on PFE Road) that is adjacent to the City. None of the land within the city is considered forest land by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
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 non-agricultural
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Prime Farmland are called out as protected farmland categories within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Neither the City nor the State has adopted quantified
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
significance thresholds related to impacts to protected farmland categories or to agricultural and forestry resources. For the purpose of this study, the significance thresholds are as stated in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as shown in a–e of the checklist above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–e) 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 proposed project will have no impact on agricultural resources.
III. Air Quality
The City of Roseville, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is within the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non- Attainment Area. Under the Clean Air Act, Placer County has been designated a "serious non-attainment" area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, “non- attainment” for the state ozone standard, and a "non- attainment" area for the federal and state PM 10 standard (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). Within Placer County, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated. 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
b) 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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
In responding to checklist items a– c, project-related air emissions would have a significant effect if they would result in concentrations that either violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation. To assist in making this determination, the PCAPCD adopted thresholds of significance, which were developed by considering both the health- based ambient air quality standards and the attainment strategies outlined in the State Implementation Plan. The PCAPCD -recommended significance threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO x) is 82 pounds daily during construction and 55 pounds daily
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
during operation, and for particulate matter (PM) is 82 pounds per day during both construction and operation.
For all other constituents, significance is determined based on the concentration-based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are also of public health concern, but no thresholds or standards are provided because they are considered to have no safe level of exposure. Analysis of TAC is based on the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective ( April 2005, California Air Resources Board), which lists TAC sources and recommended buffer distances from sensitive uses. For checklist item c, the PCAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) recommends that the same thresholds used for the project analysis be used for the cumulative impact analysis.
With regard to checklist item d, there are no quantified significance thresholds for exposure to objectionable odors or other emissions. Significance is determined after taking into account multiple factors, including screening distances from odor sources (as found in the PCAPCD CEQA Handbook), the direction and frequency of prevailing winds, the time of day when emissions are detectable/present, and the nature and intensity of the emission source.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) Analyses are not included for sulfur dioxide, lead, and other constituents because there are no mass emission thresholds; these are concentration -based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards which require substantial, point -source emissions (e.g. refineries, concrete plants, etc.) before exceedance will occur, and the SVAB is in attainment for these constituents. Likewise, carbon monoxide is not analyzed because the SVAB is in attainment for this constituent, and it requires high localized concentrations (called carbon monoxide “hot spots”) before the ambient air quality standard would be exceeded. “Hot spots” are typically associated with heavy traffic congestion occurring at high -volume roadway intersections. The General Plan EIR analysis of Citywide traffic indicated that more than 70% of signalized intersections would operate at level of service C or better —that is, they will not experience heavy traffic congestion. It further indicated that analyses of existing CO concentrations at the most congested intersections in Roseville show that CO levels are well below federal and state ambient air quality standards. The discussions below focus on emissions of ROG, NO
x, or PM. A project-level analysis has been prepared to determine whether the project will, on a singular level, exceed the established thresholds.
The PCACPD recommends that lead agencies use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to quantify a project’s construction and operational emissions for criteria air pollutants (NOX, ROG, and MP). The results are the compared to the significance thresholds established by the district, as detailed above. According to PCAPCD’s published screening table, general commercial projects smaller than 249,099 square feet will not result in NOX emissions that exceed 55 lbs/day. Typically, NOX emissions are substantially higher than ROG and PM10; therefore, it can be assumed that projects that do not exceed the NOX threshold will not exceed the ROG and PM10 thresholds and will not result in a significant impact related to operational emissions. The project site is partially developed with an existing commercial building (approximately 5,240 square feet), a parking lot, and associated site improvements. The proposed project will develop a medical office building approximately 7,300 square-feet in size with surface parking, landscaping, a trash enclosure, and lighting improvements. No off-site or frontage improvements or demolition activities are proposed with the Project. The proposed 7,300 square foot medical office building is well below PCAPCD’s modeled example. Given the Project’s small size and lack of demolition activity, the project is not expected to result in construction or operational emissions that would exceed the district’s thresholds for significance.
As discussed in the Transportation and Greenhouse Gases sections, the City developed analysis guidance and thresholds for vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) as part of the 2035 General Plan Update project approved in July 2020. The citywide VMT analysis was then used to model air quality and greenhouse gas impacts within the General Plan Update EIR. Consistent with the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the analysis found that local-serving non-residential uses led to reductions in citywide VMT, because adding a local -serving center into an existing residential area simply re -routes existing
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
travel from other – typically more distant – locations to a closer location. In other words, although a new medical office building will result in more trips arriving and departing from the project site, it will reduce the amount of travel (and therefore the amount of vehicle exhaust) in the City. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that future projects which were consistent with the General Plan and projects which the EIR evaluation found would not increase or would reduce VMT would be less than significant, and would not be required to analyze either VMT or other analyses such as air quality or greenhouse gases which rely on VMT.
The proposed project would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions during construction or operation. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (which is the SIP) or contribute substantially to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status for ozone. In addition, because the proposed project would not produce substantial emissions of criteria air pollutants, CO, or TACs, adjacent residents would not be exposed to significant levels of pollutant concentrations during construction or operation. Therefore , implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, and c onsistent with the analysis methodology outlined in the Significance Thresholds and Regulatory Setting section, cumulative impacts are less than significant.
With regard to TAC, there are hundreds of constituents which are considered toxic, but they are typically generated by stationary sources like gas stations, facilities using solvents, and heavy industrial operations. The proposed project is not a TAC-generating use, nor is it within the specified buffer area of a TAC-generating use, as established in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective. Impacts due to substantial pollutant concentrations are less than significant. e) Diesel fumes from construction equipment and delivery trucks are often found to be objectionable; however, construction is temporary and diesel emissions are minimal and regulated. Typical urban projects such as residences and retail businesses generally do not result in substantial objectionable odors when operated in compliance with City Ordinances (e.g. proper trash disposal and storage). The Project is a typical urban development that lacks any characteristics that would cause the generation of substantial unpleasant odors.
Thus, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. A review of the project surroundings indicates that there are no substantial odor-generating uses near the project site; the project location meets the recommended screening distances from odor-generators provided by the PCAPCD. Impacts related to odors are less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources
The project site currently contains a single, large office building, parking, and some open space grassy areas with several trees, including both native and non-native tree species. Cirby Creek occupies the northern portion
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
of the parcel, but the project area is separated from the riparian area by a walking path, tubular steel fence, and 10-foot sewer easement.
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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
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?
X
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
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
There is no ironclad definition of significance as it relates to biological resources. Thus, the significance of impacts to biological resources is defined by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, and relies on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies which relate to biological resources (as cited and described in the Discussion of Checklist Answers section). Thresholds for assessing the significance of environmental impacts are based on the CEQA Guideli nes checklist items a –f, above.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if:
The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species ; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; [or] substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species . . .
Various agencies regulate impacts to the habitats and animals addressed by the CEQA Guidelines checklist.
These include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration– Fisheries, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The primary regulations affecting biological resources are described in the sections below.
Checklist item a addresses impacts to special status species. A “special status” species is one which has been identified as having relative scarcity and/or declining populations. Special status species include those formally listed as threatened or endangered, those proposed for formal listing, candidates for federal listing, and those classified as species of special concern. Also included are those species considered to be “fully protected” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (California Fish and Wildlife), those granted “special animal” status for tracking and monitoring purposes, and those plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The primary regulatory protections for special status species are within the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Checklist item b addresses all “sensitive natural communities” and riparian (creekside) habitat that may be affected by local, state, or federal regulations/policies while checklist item c focuses specifically on one type of such a community: protected wetlands. Focusing first on wetlands, the 1987 Army Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual is used to determine whether an area meets the technical criteria for a wetland. A delineation verification by the Army Corps verifies the size and condition of the wetlands and other waters in question, and determines
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
the extent of government jurisdiction as it relates to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 401 of the State Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act protects all “navigable waters”, which are defined as traditional navigable waters that are or were used for commerce, or may be used for interstate commerce; tributaries of covered waters; and wetlands adjacent to covered waters, including tributaries. Non-navigable waters are called isolated wetlands, and are not subject to either the Federal or State Clean Water Act. Thus, isolated wetlands are not subject to federal wetland protection regulations. However, in addition to the Clean Water Act, the State also has jurisdiction over impacts to surface waters through the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), which does not require that waters be “navigable”. For this reason, isolated wetlands are regulated by the State of California pursuant to Porter-Cologne. The City of Roseville General Plan also provides protection for wetlands, including isolated wetlands, pursuant to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Federal, State and City regulations/policies all seek to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage, values, or function.
Aside from wetlands, checklist item b also addresses other “sensitive natural communities” and riparian habitat, which includes any habitats protected by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The City of Roseville General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes policies for the protection of riparian areas and floodplain areas; these are Vegetation and Wildlife section Policies 2 and 3. Policy 4 also directs preservation of additional area around stream corridors and floodplain if there is sensitive woodland, grassland, or other habitat which could be made part of a contiguous open space area. Other than wetlands, which were already discussed, US Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat protections generally result from species protections, and are thus addressed via checklist item a.
For checklist item d, there are no regulations specific to the protection of migratory corridors. This item is addressed by an analysis of the habitats present in the vicinity and analyzing the probable effects on access to those habitats which will result from a project.
The City of Roseville Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) requires protection of native oak trees, and compensation for oak tree removal. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City of Roseville Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) will prevent significant impacts related to loss of native oak trees, referenced by item e, above.
Regarding checklist item f, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans within the City of Roseville.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a-c) The Project is located on an undeveloped portion of a parcel, in an urban area of the City. The site is already developed with an existing commercial building. The site has been partially graded, paved with a parking area, and has landscaped areas and sidewalk installed. Cirby Creek and its associated riparian area are located along the northern portion of the subject parcel.
A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) was prepared by Greg Matuzak, Principal with Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC in March 2024. Mr. Matuzak is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) qualified biologist, and has prepared a reconnaissance -level biological resources survey and background research related to potential sensitive biological resources on the project site. The BRA is included as Attachment 2. The BRA contains a current review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and database information provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
According to the BRA, several federal and stated listed species have been documented within the Citrus Heights Topographic Quadrant where the project site is located. However, none of the species reviewed within the
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
databases were observed during the field survey, and the project area was found not to contain suitable habitat for any of the listed species that could potentially occur on the site. The BRA does note that the survey was completed in the wintertime, which could affect the presence of some species. Additionally, the BRA notes that Cirby Creek does have a low potential for some special status species to occur within the Project area, but given that the proposed disturbance within the Project area will be contained within the non- native annual grassland and previously disturbed areas outside of the creek and riparian zone. Site activity will occur over 50 feet from the creek, and will be separated by an existing fence and paved walking path. As a result, the BRA concludes that the project is unlikely to impact special status species, riparian area, or sensitive natural communities.
The BRA does not that the trees, shrubs, and grasslands within the subject parcel contain suitable habitat for nesting raptors. Several large trees are proposed for removal as a part of the project, including protected oak species. In order to ensure that there will be a less than significant impact on nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required. This will require the completion of a nesting bird survey if construction is to occur within the breeding season, between February 15
th and August 30th. This survey will be performed by a qualified biologist, and if protected species and nest are located, the affected trees will not be removed until the nest have successfully fledged.
The BRA also notes that the Project area is not located within an area containing Northern Volcanic Mudflow Vernal pool habitat mapped within the CNDDB. The report did not identify any wetlands within the Project area other than Cirby Creek in the northern section of the parcel. There is no Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) mapped for any species within the subject parcel, per the USFWS. The project will have a less than significant impact on wetlands.
d) The City includes an interconnected network of open space corridors and preserves located throughout the City, to ensure that the movement of wildlife is not substantially impeded as the City develops. The development of the project site will not negatively impact these existing and planned open space corridors, nor is the project site located in an area that has been designated by the City, United States Fish and Wildlife, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife as vital or important for the movement of wildlife or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) The project proposes the removal of seven (7) trees in total, including three (3) protected Valley oak trees of 36-inches diameter at breast height (DBH), 18-inches DBH, and 40-inches DBH. An additional three (3) Valley oaks will be removed, but they are under the size threshold of six (6) inches DBH to be protected by the City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance. One additional non- native tree is proposed for removal. All trees were determined to be in good health. The project is subject to the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and mitigation for these trees will be completed consistent with the Ordinance. A total of 94 inches will need to be mitigated, consistent with the Ordinance. This is partially accomplished through replacement plantings on site, including nine (9) Valley oaks and one (1) Interior Live oak, as well as 18 non -native trees. As proposed, the project is compliant with City policies and ordinances and impacts are less than significant. f) There are no Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Nesting Sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:
a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30th and February 15 th to avoid the breeding
season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
b) For Swainson’s hawk, if avoidance of tree removal outside the breeding season is not feasible, and a nest is present, the applicants would be required to obtain a 2081 permit from CDFG to mitigate for potential “take” under CESA. If no nesting is occurring, a take permit would not be required. c) Prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15
th and August 30th, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests or burrows are found, and the site is within 350-feet of potential construction activity, a highly visible temporary fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 350-feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area. d) Preconstruction and non-breeding season exclusion measures shall be developed in consultation with CDFG, and shall preclude burrowing owl occupation of the portions of the project site subject to disturbance such as grading. Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from burrows in construction areas by placing one-way doors in the burrows according to CDFG protocol. The one -way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation must be cleared with the one-way doors. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of the one -way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow.
e) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones) unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species. f) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30
th or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.
V. Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). Two large permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. The gold rush which began in 1848 marked another settlement period, and evidence of Roseville’s ranching and mining past are still found today. Historic features include rock walls, ditches, low terraces, and other remnants of settlement and activity. A majority of documented sites within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses.
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 an historic
resource pursuant to in
Section 15064.5?
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts to cultural resources is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a– e listed above. The Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources section of the City of Roseville General Plan also directs the proper evaluation of and, when feasible, protection of significant resources (Policies 1 and 2).
There are also various federal and State regulations regarding the treatment and protection of cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act and the Antiquities Act (which regulate items of significance in history), Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.9 of the California Public Resources Code (which regulates the treatment of human remains) and Section 21073 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (regarding Tribal Cultural Resources). The CEQA Guidelines also contains specific sections, other than the checklist items, related to the treatment of effects on historic resources.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2 (a), (b), and (c)). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5(a)(2)); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b and d) A Cultural Resources Inventory Survey was prepared for the project by Sean Michael Jensen, M.A., of Genesis Society on March 18, 2023. The survey included a search of the records at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The survey also included a pedestrian survey of the site to evaluate for previously unidentified cultural resources. The survey did not result is any relevant records, nor were any potential cultural resources identified in the pedestrian survey. No cultural resources are known to exist on the project site; however, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to cultural resources, should any be found on- site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume (Mitigation Measure CUL- 1).
With mitigation, project-specific impacts are less than significant. c) No paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to such resources, should any be found on- site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
resource before work can resume (Mitigation Measure CUL-2). With mitigation, project-specific impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 – Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary for the protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL- 2 -- Cease Work Until Review Conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.
VI. Energy
Would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy inefficiency?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
Established in 2002, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) currently requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales by served by renewable energy resources by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. The City published a Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan in June 2018, and continues to comply with the RPS reporting and requirements and standards. There are no numeric significance thresholds to define
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
“wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary” energy consumption, and therefore significance is based on CEQA Guidelines checklist items a and b, above, and by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, relying on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies which relate to energy. The analysis considers compliance with regulations and standards, project design as it relates to energy use (including transportation energy), whether the project will result in a substantial unplanned demand on the City’s energy resources, and whether the project will impede the ability of the City to meet the RPS standards.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a & b) According to a representative from Roseville Electric, a similar use in the City uses approximately 6,735 kWh per month. As stated in the thresholds of significance section, there is no stated numeric significance threshold to define “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary”; however, Roseville Electric has reviewed the proposed project and found that the Department has adequate capacity to serve the site. The project would consume energy both during project construction and during project operation.
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient, or which would be wasteful.
The completed project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This includes standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances, to name a few. The project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the project. The project was distributed to both PG&E and Rosevill e Electric for comments, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; energy supplies are available to serve the project.
The project is consistent with the existing land use designation of BP (Business Professional), as identified in the General Plan. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan included an assessment of energy impacts for the entire plan area. The analysis included consideration of transportation energy, and evaluated walkability, alternative transportation modes, and the degree to which the mix and location of uses would reduce vehicle miles traveled in the plan area. The EIR also included a citywide assessment of energy demand based on the existing and proposed land uses within the City and Specific Plan. Impacts related to energy consumption were found to be less than significant. The project is consistent with the existing land use designation, and therefore is consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and will not result in substantial unplanned, inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy; impacts are less than significant.
VII. Geology and Soils
As described in the Safety Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, there are three inactive faults (Volcano Hill, Linda Creek, and an unnamed fault) in the vicinity, but there are no known active seismic faults within Placer County. The last seismic event recorded in the South Placer area occurred in 1908, and is estimat ed to have been at least a 4.0 on the Richter Scale. Due to the geographic location and soil characteristics within the City, the General Plan indicates that soil liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence are not a significant risk in the area.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
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.)
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
X
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 direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geological
feature?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to geology and soils is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–f listed above. Regulations applicable to this topic include the Alquist-Priolo Act, which addresses earthquake safety in building permits, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which requires the state to gather and publish data on the location and risk of seismic faults. The Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources section of the City of Roseville General Plan also directs the proper evaluation of and, when feasible, protection of significant archeological resources, which for this evaluation will include paleontological resources (Policies 1 and 2). Section 50987.5 of the California Public Code Section is only applicable to public land; this section prohibits the excavation, removal, destruction, or defacement/injury to any vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other paleontological feature.
The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80) and Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07 -107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist item b. The Ordinance and standards include permit requirements for construction and development in erosion-prone areas and ensure that grading activities will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The use of septic tanks or alternative waste systems is not permitted in the City of Roseville, and therefore no analysis of criterion e is necessary.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides.
i–iii) According to United States Geological Service mapping and literature, active faults are largely considered to be those which have had movement within the last 10,000 years (within the Holocene or Historic time periods)
1 and there are no major active faults in Placer County. The California Geological Survey has prepared a map of the state which shows the earthquake shaking potential of areas throughout California based primarily on an area’s distance from known active faults. The map shows that the City lies in a relatively low - intensity ground- shaking zone. Commercial, institutional, and residential buildings as well as all related infrastructure are required, in conformance with Chapter 16, Structural Design Requirements , Division IV, Earthquake Design of the California Building Code, to lessen the exposure to potentially damaging vibrations
1 United States Geological Survey, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=active%20fault, Accessed January 2016
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
through seismic-resistant design. In compliance with the Code, all structures in the Project area would be well- built to withstand ground shaking from possible earthquakes in the region; impacts are 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 of the project site are not steep enough to present a hazard during development or upon completion of the project. In addition, measures would be incorporated during construction to shore minor slopes and prevent potential earth movement. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides are 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. The grading permit is 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 and improvement plans. Therefore, the impacts associated with disruption, displacement, and compaction of soils associated with the project are less than significant. c, d) A review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey for Placer County, accessed via the Web Soil Survey (
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/), indicates that the soils on the site are Xerofluvents, frequently flooded, which are listed as geologically unstable or sensitive. This is the only soil type mapped by USDA within the subject parcel. This soil type is found adjacent to stream channels (in this case Cirby Creek), and is subject to frequent flooding and channelization. It is generally not considered suitable for urban uses because of their flood hazard. However, it is noted that there are several other completed development projects in the area, including the former IHOP restaurant (now urgent care) building located on site, and the multifamily residential development on the adjacent parcel.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared by Ted Bibby, Project Geologist for NV5, on November 1, 2024 to evaluate the proposed project and determine whether the site is suitable for the proposed improvements.
The report relies on subsurface investigation, including excavation test pits, laboratory test results, and prior experience with subsurface conditions in the area. Soil types encountered in the exploratory trenches included ML, Silt with Gravel/Cobbles; SP, Poorly Graded Sand; and ML-CL, Sandy Silt/Clay (Hardpan). No groundwater seepage was encountered during the survey, though the report notes that this survey was conducted in September 2024 following a long period of dry weather. Laboratory testing showed that the soil samples from the site were non-expansive.
The report notes that the primary concerns are the floodplain that is located on site, and the fact that the site includes very stiff to hard fine- grained deposits within the location of the proposed improvements. The report includes recommendations for appropriate grading and fill to ensure that the development will not be impacted by potential groundwater seepage or other soil-related instability. Additionally, the project has been reviewed by City of Roseville Building and Engineering Divisions, and will be subject to additional permitting through the building permit and improvement plan processes. The project design, which will include appropriate engineering to compensate for the site geology, will ensure that project impacts are less than significant. f) No paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to such resources, should any be found on- site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. The project will not result in any new impacts beyond those already discussed and disclosed in the General Plan EIR; project-specific impacts are less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), and fluorinated gases. As explained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 2, global average temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s, and most of the warming of the past half century has been caused by human emissions. The City has taken proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which include the introduction of General Plan policies to reduce emissions, changes to City operations, and climate action initiatives.
Would the project:
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
In Assembly Bill 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act), signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of California in September 2006, the legislature found that climate change resulting from global warming was a threat to California, and directed that “the State Air Resources Board design emissions reduction measures to meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases . . .”. The target established in AB 32 was to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. CARB subsequently prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) for California, which was approved in 2008. The Scoping Plan provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions, and has been updated twice.
The current 2017 Scoping Plan updated the target year from 2020 to 2030, based on the targets established in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). SB 32 was signed by the Governor on September 8, 2016, to establish a reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Critically, the 2017 Scoping Plan also sets the path toward compliance with the 2050 target embodied within Executive Order S -3-05 as well. According to the 2017 Scoping Plan the statewide 2030 target is 260 million metric tons. The Scoping Plan recommends an efficiency target approach for local governments for 2030 and 2050 target years.
The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) recommends that thresholds of significance for GHG be related to statewide reduction goals and has adopted thresholds of significance which take into account the 2030 reduction target. The thresholds include a de minimis and a bright-line maximum threshold, as well as residential and non-residential efficiency thresholds. However, the City developed its own thresholds as part of the 2035 General Plan Update project approved in July 2020. The justification for the City’s thresholds is
2 http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html, Accessed January 2016
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
contained within the General Plan EIR. The thresholds were developed based on statewide emissions data adjusted for relevant local conditions and land uses. The significance thresholds are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: GHG Significance Thresholds
2020 2030 2035 2050
Per Capita Emissions Efficiency Targets
(MT CO2e/capita/yr) 7.21 4.00 3.22 1.19
Per Service Population Emissions
Efficiency Targets
(MT CO2e/SP/yr)
5.07 2.79 2.25 0.83
Projects which use these thresholds for environmental analysis should include a brief justification of the type of efficiency target and the target year selected. Per capita is most applicable to projects which only include residential uses, or in cases where re liable data to generate a service population estimate is unavailable. Projects should generally use the 2035 target year. Note that future projects consistent with the General Plan will not require further analysis, per the tiering provisions of CEQA.
Note: MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; Service Population (SP) = population + employment
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) Per the tiering provisions of CEQA, and as explicitly stated within the City’s adopted GHG significance thresholds in Table 1 above, a project which is consistent with the General Plan is not required to provide further analysis. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and therefore does not require GHG analysis.
Greenhouse gases are primarily emitted as a result of vehicle operation associated with trips to and from a project, and energy consumption from operation of the buildings.
Greenhouse gases from vehicles is assessed based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from a project, on a Citywide basis. Residential projects, destination centers (such as a regional mall), and major employers tend to increase VMT in a study area, either by adding new residents traveling in an area, or by encouraging longer trip lengths and drawing in trips from a broader regional area. However, non- residential projects and neighborhood-serving uses (e.g. neighborhood parks) tend to lower VMT in a study area because they do not generate new trips within the study area, they divert existing trips. These trips are diverted because the new use location is closer to home, on their way to another destination (e.g. work), or is otherwise more convenient.
The project proposes the construction of an approximately 7,300 square foot medical office building, which at this time is anticipated to be a dentist office. As discussed in the Transportation section of this Initial Study, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and will not create additional trips that have not already been evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
The City’s General Plan Update (GPU) EIR included an analysis of GHG emissions which would result from buildout of the City’s General Plan. The EIR concluded that the General Plan buildout would exceed the City’s threshold of 2.25 MT CO2e per service population and that the effect was cumulative considerable. Although mitigation measures were adopted as part of the General Plan, those measures would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, and impacts were considered significant and unavoidable. The proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions in the GPU EIR and does not require further analysis per the tiering provisions of CEQA. The project includes reasonable and feasible design measures to reduce emissions, including implementation of the latest Cal-Green and energy efficiency code requirements. The project complies with General Plan policy related to GHG and the project does not result in any new GHG impacts not previously analyzed in the GPU EIR; therefore, project-specific impacts are less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Thus, project-generated GHG em issions would not conflict with and are consistent with statewide goals for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. This impact is considered less than significant.
IX. 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 though
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 or excessive
noise for people residing
or working in the project
area?
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or
structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to hazardous materials is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–g listed above. A material is defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency.
The determination of significance based on the above criteria depends on the probable frequency and severity of consequences to people who might be exposed to the health hazard, and the degree to which Project design or existing regulations would reduce the frequency of or severity of exposure. As an example, products commonly used for household cleaning are classified as hazardous when transported in large quantities, but one would not conclude that the presence of small quantities of household cleaners at a home would pose a risk to a school located within ¼-mile.
Many federal and State agencies regulate hazards and hazardous substances, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA). The state has been granted primacy (primary responsibility for oversight) by the US EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations also have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce human health risks. California regulations pertaining to hazardous waste management are published in the California Code of Regulations (see 8 CCR, 22 CCR, and 23 CCR).
The project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private use airport. Therefore, no further discussion is provided for item e.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) Standard construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents. These are common household and commercial materials routinely used by both businesses and average members of the public. The materials only pose a hazard if they are improperly used, stored, or transported either through upset conditions (e.g. a vehicle accident) or mishandling. In addition to construction use, the operational project would result in the use of common hazardous materials as well, including bleach, solvents, and herbicides. Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol.
Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels. c) See response to Items (a) and (b) above. While development of the site will result in the use, handling, and transport of materials deemed to be hazardous, the materials in question are commonly used in both residential and commercial applications, and include materials such as bleach and herbicides. The project will not result in the use of any acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.53; therefore, no impact will occur.
E,f) This project is located within an area currently receiving City emergency services and development of the site has been anticipated and incorporated into emergency response plans. As such, the project will cause a less than significant impact to the City's Emergency Response or Management Plans. Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with all local, State and federal requirements for the handling of hazardous materials, which will ensure less-than-significant impacts. These will require the following programs:
• A Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) is required of uses that handle toxic and/or hazardous materials in quantities regulated by the California Health and Safety Code and/or the City. • Businesses that handle toxic or hazardous materials are required to complete a Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) pursuant to local, State, or federal requirements. g) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. The project site is in an urban area, and therefore would not expose people to any risk from wildland fire. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the City is located within the Pleasant Grove Creek Basin and the Dry Creek Basin. Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries drain most of the western and central areas of the City and Dry Creek and its tributaries drain the remainder of the City. Most major stream areas in the City are located within designated open space. Cirby Creek is located in the northern portion of the subject parcel.
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 or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality?
X
3 http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
X
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on
or off-site;
X
ii) substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on-
or off-site;
X
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
X
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
X
d) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
e) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiches zones, risk
release of pollutants due to
project innundation?
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to hydrology and water quality is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. For checklist item a, c (i), d, and e, the Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City of Roseville Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07 -107), Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Contr ol Ordinance (RMC Ch. 14.20), and Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 16- 152) will prevent significant impacts related to water quality or erosion. The standards require preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for construction activit ies and includes designs to control pollutants within post -construction urban water runoff. Likewise, it is indicated that the Drainage Fees for the Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove Watersheds (RMC Ch.4.48) and City of Roseville Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist items c (ii) and c (iii). The ordinance and standards require the collection of drainage fees to fund improvements that mitigate potential flooding impacts, and require the design of a water drainage system that will adequately convey anticipated stormwater flows without increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff. These same ordinances and standards prevent impacts related to groundwater (items a and d), because developers are required to treat and detain all stormwater onsite using stormwater swales and other methods which slow flows and preserve infiltration. Finally, it is indicated that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch. 9.80) will prevent significant impacts related to items c (iv) and e. The Ordinance includes standard requirements for all new construction, including regulation of development with the potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and prohibits development within flood hazard areas. Impacts from tsunamis and seiches were screened out of the analysis (item e) because the project is not located near a water body or other feature that would pose a risk of such an event.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a,c (i),d, e) The project will involve the disturbance of on-site soils and the construction of impervious surfaces, such as asphalt paving and buildings. Disturbing the soil can allow sediment to be mobilized by rain or wind, and cause displacement into waterways. To address this and other issues, the developer is required to receive approval of a grading permit and/or improvement plants prior to the start of construction. The permit or plans are required to incorporate mitigation measures for dust and erosion control. In addition, the City has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board which requires the City to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The City does this, in part, by means of the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, which require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the City’s Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Standards for New Development, the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, and Stormwater Quality Design Manual. For these reasons, impacts related to water quality are less than significant. b, d) The project does not involve the installation of groundwater wells. The City maintains wells to supplement surface water supplies during multiple dry years, but the effect of groundwater extraction on the aquifer was addressed in the City’s Urban Water Master Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and is thus consistent with the citywide evaluation of water supply. Project impacts related to groundwater extraction are less than significant. Furthermore, all permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which requires the use of bioswales and other onsite detention and infiltration methods. These standards ensure that stormwater will continue to infiltrate into the groundwater aquifer. c (ii and iii)) The project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. The project includes adequate and appropriate facilities to ensure no net increase in the amount or rate of stormwater runoff from the site, and which will adequately convey stormwater flows.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
c (iv) and e) The project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. The project is not located within either the Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain or the City’s Regulatory Floodplain (defined as the floodplain which will result from full buildout of the City).
Therefore, the project will not impede or redirect flood flows, nor will it be inundated. The proposed project is located within an area of flat topography and is not near a waterbody or other feature which could cause a seiche or tsunami. There would be no impact with regard to these criteria.
XI. Land Use and Planning
The Project is located in a Planned Development (PD52) zone district as well as partially in the FW (Floodway) zone district, and is not located within a specific plan area. The land use designation is BP (Business Professional) and OS/FP (Open Space/ Floodplain). High density residential uses are located to the east (senior living complex) and west of Sunrise Av. (condominium complex). Office buildings are located to the north of Cirby Creek, and a drive-thru kiosk is located to the south of the site.
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) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to land use is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a and b listed above. Consistency with applicable City General Plan policies, Improvement Standards, and design standards is already required and part of the City’s processing of permits and plans, so these requirements do not appear as mitigation measures.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project area has been master planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community. The Project will be constructed on an undeveloped portion of an infill parcel within the city. The project will not physically divide an established community.
b) The proposed project is a medical office, which is consistent with the underlying business professional designation for the site under the PD52 zone district. The project is subject to the Design Review process, and is also requesting a Flood Encroachment Permit and Tree Permit to address development within the FW (Floodway) zone district and the removal of three (3) protected oak trees. Obtaining these permits is consistent with the policies intended for resource protection, and the analyses specifically pertaining to floodway development and tree removal are discussed in this initial study. No conflicts with any policies adopted to mitigate an environmental effect have been identified.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
XII. Mineral Resources
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ’s) based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) was historically responsible for the classification and designation of areas containing—or potentially containing—significant mineral resources, though that responsibility now lies with the California Geological Survey (CGS). CDMG published Open File Report 95-10, which provides the mineral classification map for Placer County. A detailed evaluation of mineral resources has not been conducted within the City limits, but MRZ’s have been identified. There are four broad MRZ categories (MRZ-1 through MRZ-4), and only MRZ-2 represents an area of known significant mineral resources. The City of Roseville General Plan EIR included Exhibit 4.1-3, depicting the location of MRZ’s in the City limits. There is only one small MRZ-2 designation area, located at the far eastern edge of the City.
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to mineral resources is based directly on the CE QA Guidelines checklist items a and b listed above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–b) The project site is not in the area of the City known to include any mineral resources that would be of local, regional, or statewide importance; therefore, the project has no impacts on mineral resources.
XIII. Noise
The Project is located on the east side of Sunrise Av., which is not identified as a transportation noise source in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. However, the project site is located within approximately a 0.3 miles of Highway 80, which is identified as a transportation noise source in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. In the existing and future conditions, the 70 db Ldn noise contour line covers the entire project site (City of Roseville General Plan 2035 Noise Element, Figures IX -1 and IX-2). Other uses in the vicinity include other offices and residential, which generate low outdoor noise. The nearest sensitive receptor is the senior living facility immediately to the east of the project site.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Would the project result in:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
ground borne vibration of
ground borne noise levels?
X
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?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
Standards for transportation noise and non -transportation noise affecting existing or proposed land uses are established within the City of Roseville General Plan Noise Element, and these standards are used as the thresholds to determine the significance of impacts related to items a and c. The significance of other noise impacts is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items b and c listed above. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City Noise Regulation (RMC Ch. 9.24) will prevent significant non-transportation noise as it relates to items a and b. The Ordinance establishes noise exposure standards that protect noise- sensitive receptors from a variety of noise sources, including non- transportation/fixed noise, amplified sound, industrial noise, and events on public property. The project is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport and there are also no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, item c has been ruled out from further analysis.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project is a medical office facility, which is not considered to be a noise-generating use. The project will not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of City standards; therefore, impacts are less than significant. b) Surrounding uses may experience short -term increases in groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, and airborne noise levels during construction. However, these increases would only occur for a short period of time. When conducted during daytime hours, construction activities are exempt from Noise Ordinance
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
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 impact is less than significant.
XIV. Population and Housing
The project site is located within the Infill area of the City and has a land use designation of BP (Business Professional). The City of Roseville General Plan Table II -4 identifies the total number of residential units and population anticipated as a result of buildout of the City, and the Specific Plan likewise includes unit allocations and population projections for the Plan Area. Would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, though
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to population and housing is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a and b listed above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The CEQA Guidelines identify several ways in which a project could have growth -inducing impacts (Public Resources Code Section 15126.2), either directly or indirectly. Growth-inducement may be the result of fostering economic growth, fostering population growth, providing new housing, or removing barriers to growth.
Growth inducement may be detrimental, beneficial, or of no impact or significance under CEQA. An impact is only deemed to occur when it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be shown that the growth will significantly affect the environment in some other way. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the site. Therefore, while the project in question will induce some level of growth, this growth was anticipated for the site when it was designated for Business Professional land uses in the Planned Development Ordiance. Therefore, the impact of the project is less than significant. b) The project site is partially developed with an existing office building and associated parking. No housing exists on the project site, and there would be no impact with respect to these criteria.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
XV. Public Services
Fire protection, police protection, park services, and library services are provided by the City. The project is located within the Roseville Elementary School and Roseville Joint Union High School Districts. 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 government 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 of the following 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) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to public services is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above. The EIR for the Specific Plan addressed the level of public services which would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community. Development Agreements and other conditions have been adopted in all proposed growth areas of the City which identify the physical facilities needed to serve growth, and the funding needed to provide for the construction and operation of those facilities and services; the project is consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition, the project has been routed to the various public service agencies, both internal and external, to ensure that the project meets the agencies’ design standards (where applicable) and to provide an opportunity to recommend appropriate conditions of approval.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) Existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay a fire service construction tax, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the Fire Department. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
b) Pursuant to the Development Agreement for the project area, the developer is required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District, which provides funding for police services. Sales taxes and property taxes resulting from the development will add revenue to the General Fund, which also serves to fund police services. Existin g codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
c) The applicant for this project is required to pay school impact fees at a rate determined by the local school districts. School fees will be collected prior to the issuance of building permits, consistent with City requirements.
School sites have already been designated as part of the Specific Plan process. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts. d) Pursuant to the Development Agreement for the project area, the developer will be required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District, which provides funding for park services. Future park and recreation sites
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
and facilities have already been identified as part of the Specific Plan process. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts. e) Pursuant to the Development Agreement for the project area, the developer will be required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District, which provides funding for the library system and other such facilities and services. In addition, the City charges fees to end- users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.
XVI. Recreation
The project includes the development of a medical office, located on a parcel with a land use designation of BP and OS/FP. The nearest park to the project site is Eastwood Park, approximately 0.3 miles away.
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
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to recreation services is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–b listed above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The General Plan EIR addressed the level of park services —including new construction, maintenance, and operations—which would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community. Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, the project would not cause any unforeseen or new impacts related to the use of existing or proposed parks and recreational facilities. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts. b) Park sites and other recreational facilities were identified within the General Plan EIR. The project will not cause any unforeseen or new impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
XVII. Transportation
The subject parcel is adjacent to Sunrise Bl., which is already improved with existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter.
Ingress and egress will occur via an existing drive aisle that serves the medical office building, as well as the senior apartment complex.
Would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
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)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The City has adopted the following plans, ordinances, or policies applicable to checklist item a: Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Short -Range Transit Plan, and General Plan Circulation Element. The project is evaluated for consistency with these plans and the policies contained within them. For checklist item b, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes a detailed process for evaluating the significance of transportation impacts. In accordance with this section, the analysis must focus on the generation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT); effects on automobile delay cannot be considered a significant impact . The City developed analysis guidance and thresholds as part of the 2035 General Plan Update project approved in July 2020. The detailed evaluation and justification is contained within the General Plan EIR.
Future projects consistent with the General Plan will not require further VMT analysis, pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA. For projects which are inconsistent, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) allows lead agencies discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies the discretion to select their own thresholds and allow for differences in thresholds based on context.
Quantitative analysis would not be required if it can be demonstrated that the project would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the General Plan EIR. Examples of such projects include:
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
• L ocal-serving retail and other local-serving development, which generally reduces existing trip distances by providing services in closer proximity to residential areas, and therefore reduce VMT. • Multi-family residences, which generally have fewer trips per household than single-family residences, and therefore also produce less VMT per unit.
• Infill projects in developed areas generally have shorter trips, reduced vehicle trips, and therefore less VMT.
• Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and electric vehicle transportation projects. • Residential projects in low per-capita household VMT areas and office projects in low per-worker VMT areas (85 percent or less than the regional average) as shown on maps maintained by SACOG or within low VMT areas as shown within Table 4.3-8 of the General Plan EIR.
When quantitative analysis is required, the threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita may be used for projects not within the scope of the General Plan EIR, provided the cumulative context of the 2035 General Plan has not changed substantially. Since approval of the 2035 General Plan, the City has not annexed new land, substantially changed roadway network assumptions, or made any other changes to the 2035 assumptions which would require an update to the City’s VMT thresholds contained within the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita remains appropriate.
Given the proposed use and location of the project, no qualitative analysis was required as the development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Further evaluation is provided below in item b.
Impacts with regard to items c and d are assessed based on the expert judgment of the City Engineer and City Fire Department, as based upon facts and consistency with the City’s Design and Construction Standards.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The City of Roseville has adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Short -Range Transit Plan. The project was reviewed for consistency with these documents. The project is located in an area planned for commercial and office type uses. Sunrise Bl. is already improved with sidewalks, curb, and gutter.
This road serves the subject parcel. The proposed project will be constructed consistent with the existing roadway system and in compliance with the requirements of the Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Short Range Transit Plan.
b) The proposed project is a small, approximately 7,300 square-foot office building, which is anticipated to be a dentist office. It is located on a partially developed parcel that has an existing office building and parking area. The use will serve the local community, and is an infill project surrounded by developed area. As the project is consistent with the General Plan land use and will likely reduce VMT as a local-serving, infill development, no qualitative analysis was prepared. Impacts are less than significant. c, d) The project has been reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City projects require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards. Compliance with existing regulations ensure that impacts are less than significant.
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). Two large
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller tribal cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. A majority of documented sites within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) is a federally recognized Tribe comprised of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The UAIC has indicated that "the Tribe has deep spiritual, cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes. The Tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. It is the Tribe’s goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generations." 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:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
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)?
X
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.
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
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 of 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.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) A Cultural Resources Inventory Survey was prepared for the project by Sean Michael Jensen, M.A., of Genesis Society on March 18, 2023. The survey included a search of the records at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The survey also included a pedestrian survey of the site to evaluate for previously unidentified cultural resources. The survey did not result is any relevant records or documented sites in the area, nor were any potential tribal cultural resources identified in the pedestrian survey. Notice of the proposed project was mailed to the tribes which had requested such notice pursuant to AB52. No requests for consultation were received. However, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to any previously undiscovered resources, should any be found on- site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume.
With mitigation, project-specific impacts are less than significant. b) Notice of the proposed project was mailed to tribes which had requested such notice pursuant to AB 52.
A request for consultation was not received. As discussed in item a, above, no resources are known to occur in the area. However, standard mitigation measures apply which are designed to reduce impacts to resources, should any be found on -site. The measure requires an immediate cessation of work, and contact with the appropriate agencies to address the resource before work can resume. With mitigation, project-specific impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Post-Review Discovery Procedures If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100- foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archeologist or project archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor, or, in the absence of either, contact the consulting tribe(s) and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) if the find is a tribal cultural resource.
All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and consulting tribes and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.
The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource.
The type of discovery, as described below will determine the subsequent actions. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.
Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative. No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation of this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors.
Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non- tribal resources. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no -work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American M ost Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641).
Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
The project site is located within a developed area of the City of Roseville, and will be served by the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
X
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?
X
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?
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to utilities and service systems is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–e listed above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The project will be required to construct any utilities infrastructure necessary to serve the project, as well as pay fees which fund the operation of the facilities and the construction of major infrastructure. The construction impacts related to building the major infrastructure were disclosed in the General Plan EIR , and appropriate mitigation was adopted. Minor additional infrastructure will be constructed within the project site to tie the project into the major systems, but these facilities will be constructed in locations where site development is already occurring as part of the overall project; there are no additional substantial impacts specific or particular to the minor infrastructure improvements.
b) The City of Roseville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted June 2021, estimates water demand and supply for the City through the year 2045 , based on existing land use designations and population projections. In addition, the General Plan EIR estimates water demand and supply for ultimate General Plan buildout. The project is consistent with existing land use designations, and is therefore consistent with the assumptions of the UWMP and General Plan EIR. The UWMP indicates that existing water supply sources are sufficient to meet all normal years, and during single- dry and in certain multiple- dry years, water supply deficit may occur. The UWMP estimates a near-term (2025) demand of 51,585 acre-feet per year (AFY), and a long- term, buildout (2045) demand of 62,547 AFY. In normal years, supply exceeds demand by approximately 13,000 AFY in the near-term and by approximately 8,000 AFY at buildout. The UWMP establishes some water supply deficit during dry year scenarios, ranging from approximately 1,500 AFY to 5,000 AFY depending on the scenario, but establishes that mandatory water conservation measures and the use of groundwater to offset reductions in surface water supplies are sufficient to offset the deficit. The project, which is consistent with existing land use designations, would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements. c) The proposed project would be served by the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (DCWWTP). The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality and quantity of effluent discharged from the City’s wastewater treatment f acilities. The DCWWTP has the capacity to treat 18 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently treating 7.0
4 mgd OR 8.9 mgd. The project is consistent with existing land use designations, which is how infrastructure capacity is planned. Therefore, the volume of wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the facility; the proposed project will not contribute to an exceedance of applicable wastewater treatment requirements. The impact would be less than significant. d, e) The Western Placer Waste Management Authority is the regional agency handling recycling and waste disposal for Roseville and surrounding areas. The regional waste facilities include a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL). Currently, the WRSL is permitted to accept up to 1,900 tons of municipal solid waste per day. According to the solid waste analysis of the General Plan EIR, under
4 Dave Samuelson, City of Roseville Environmental Utilities, Personal communication, July 6, 2016.
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
current projected development conditions the WRSL has a projected lifespan extending through 2058. There is sufficient existing capacity to serve the proposed project. Though the project will contribute incrementally to an eventual need to find other means of waste disposal, this impact of City buildout has already been disclosed and mitigation applied as part of each Specific Plan the City has approved. All residences and business in the City pay fees for solid waste collection, a portion of which is collected to fund eventual solid waste disposal expansion.
The project will not result in any new impacts associated with major infrastructure. Environmental Utilities staff has reviewed the project for consistency with policies, codes, and regulations related to waste disposal and waste reduction regulations and policies and has found that the project design is in compliance.
XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to wildfire is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–d listed above. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE m aintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–d) C hecklist 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.
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
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
community, substantially
reduce the number or
restrict the range of an
endangered, threatened or
rare species, or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
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
X
INITIAL STUDY
December 3, 2024
INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 - Sunrise Office Center– 705 Sunrise Av.
File # PL24-0812
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Significance Criteria and Regulatory Setting:
The significance of impacts related to mandatory findings of significance is based directly on the CEQA Guidelines checklist items a–c listed above.
Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. The cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the General Plan EIR, and mitigation measures have already been incorporated. With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in this chapter, and permit conditions, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species. 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.
Last Revised March 2019
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 with mitigation the impacts are less than significant. As demonstrated in the initial study checklist, there are no “project specific significant effects which ar e peculiar to the project or site” that cannot be reduced to less than significant effects through mitigation (CEQA Section 15183) and therefore an EIR is not required. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing initial study:
[ X ] I find that the proposed project COULD, but with mitigation agreed to by the applicant, clearly will not have a significant effect on the environment and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared.
Initial Study Prepared by:
Shelby Maples
____________________________________________
Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services – Planning Division Attachments:
1. IHOP Initial Study
2. Biological Resource Assessment, Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC
3. Geotechnical Engineering Report, NV5
IS ATTACHMENT 1
Biological Resources Assessment
APN: 470-010-043 in City of Roseville, Placer County, CA Prepared for:
Hamzah Alkordy (Applicant)
901 Sunrise Avenue, Suite A1
Roseville, CA 95661
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by:
Greg Matuzak, Principal
Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Nevada City, CA 95959
Email: [email protected]
March 2024
IS ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1.0
2.0 Regulatory Overview and Definitions ............................................................................. 2.0
3.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 3.0
4.0 Results.................................................................................................................................. 4.0
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 5.0
Appendices
Appendix A Parcel Report
Appendix B Site Plans (with and without mapped trees)
Appendix C Plants and Wildlife Observed During the Site Survey Appendix D National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Figure
Appendix E USDA Soils Figure
Appendix F Photo Log
Appendix G Special-Status Species Tables
Appendix H USFWS IPaC Species List and CNDDB/CNPS Species Lists
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Greg Matuzak, a biologist on the Placer County Planning Department’s Biological Resources Consultants List and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) qualified biologist, conducted a reconnaissance-level biological resources survey and required background research related to potential sensitive biological resources as part of the proposed Sunrise Avenue Development Project (Project) in order to develop this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). Additionally, Greg Matuzak has previously developed several biological resources assessments, CEQA documents, and state and federal permitting applications and consultations for projects within Placer County and for the City of Roseville. In addition, potential CDFW, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction within the Project area was assessed as well as specific City of Roseville ordinances covering sensitive biological resources.
No previous BRA reports specifically covering the subject parcel (Project area) are known to exist, so this BRA has been developed based on background research, including database searches for biological resources and a review of previous biological resources assessment reports developed within the greater Project area, and the results of a reconnaissance-level biological resources survey of the Project area to identify any sensitive biological resources within the Project area. This includes an assessment of special-status plants or wildlife species and any sensitive habitats such as wetlands, riparian habitat, stream zones, and protected tree and oak resources within the Project area.
The Project area is located within The City of Roseville approximately 0.5 miles directly south along Sunrise Avenue from the Interstate 80 (I-80) and Douglas Boulevard crossing. The Project area is located at 701 Sunrise Avenue and currently contains a single large office building, parking, and some open space grassy areas with several trees, both native and non-native. The Project area includes the following subject parcel: a 2.63-acre parcel (APN: 470-010-043). See attachments in Appendix A and Appendix B for a Parcel Report and Site Plan). In total, the subject parcel comprises a total of 2.63 acres with a newly developed area that is approximately 0.63 (Project area and also named Study Area as part of this BRA).
The proposed Project includes the development of 86 parking spaces, including 5 ADA spots, 62 standards spots, 2 compact spots, and 17 EV spots. Additionally, the proposed Project includes the expansion of parking (with the totals outlined above and within the Site Plan attached in Appendix B) as well as the construction of a second building within the subject parcel. The new building would be 8,000 square feet. The existing building within the subject parcel is 4,968 square feet and contains an existing trash enclosure, deck, and a ramp.
The subject parcel includes a walking path along the southern side of Cirby Creek, which is located adjacent to the north of the subject parcel and Project area.
The existing path along the southern side of Cirby Creek will be maintained as well as the existing 10-foot sewer easement. Therefore, the proposed additional parking and new building construction will not encroach into Cirby Creek or impact any existing riparian vegetation along the southern side of the creek.
The Project area is located at approximately 130 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). However, the subject parcel ranges between approximately 125 feet above MSL in the northern section of the subject parcel where Cirby Creek runs from east to west and 135 feet above MSL along the entrance into the parcel along the southern edge of the Project area. Therefore, general drainage within the Project area is from south to north with the low spot being the channel of Cirby Creek.
See Appendix C for a list of plant and wildlife species observed within the Project area during the site surveys conducted as part of the development of this BRA and see Appendix D for a map showing the results of a search of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) covering the Project area. The NWI data identifies a single aquatic feature within the Project area and that is Cirby Creek along the northern section of the subject parcel. Additionally, Appendix E contains a USDA Soils Map, Appendix F contains a Photo Log of the subject parcel, and Appendix H contains the USFWS, CDFW, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) species lists covering the Project area. Appendix G includes assessment tables for special-status species with potential to occur within the subject parcel.
The purpose of this BRA is to identify the location and extent of sensitive biological resources within the Project area, including special-status plant and wildlife species, and the presence of drainage and wetland features that could potentially meet the Corps’ criteria as a “waters of the United States,” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and streams that could be under the jurisdiction of the California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600 et. seq. This BRA also satisfies the City of Roseville General Plan and Ordinance requirements for sensitive biological resources.
2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS
Federal Regulations
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the United States include wetlands and lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated solid conditions (33 CFR 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3). Project proponents must obtain a permit from the Corps for all discharges of fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed action.
The proposed Project does not include the placement of fill or dredge within any “waters of the U.S.” including wetlands. There is a single creek (Cirby Creek) that runs east to west within the northern section of the Project area. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not be subject to additional reporting and/or permitting as required for compliance with the CWA unless fill and dredge material were placed within any such federally regulated aquatic resources.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
CWA Section 401 compliance is required for any project requiring a federal action (i.e. Corps permit or federal funding) with construction that could have an impact to surface water quality. Project proponents must obtain a permit from the local Regional Water Quality Control Board for all discharges of fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed action. The proposed Project does not include the placement of fill or dredge within any “waters of the U.S.” including wetlands.
The proposed Project does not include the placement of fill or dredge within any “waters of the U.S.” including wetlands. There is a single creek (Cirby Creek) that runs east to west within the northern section of the Project area. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not be subject to additional reporting and/or permitting as required for compliance with the CWA unless fill and dredge material were placed within any such federally regulated aquatic resources.
Endangered Species Act of 1973
For the Project area, consultation with the USFWS would be necessary if a proposed action may affect suitable habitat for a federally listed species. This consultation would proceed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if a federal action is part of the proposed action or through Section 10 of the ESA if no such nexus were available (USFWS, 1973). Within the CNDDB Citrus Heights Quad where the Project is located, there are known locations of three federally protected species listed under the ESA, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, steelhead – Central Valley DPS, and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Additionally, the western pond turtle is a proposed for listing as Threatened under the ESA and has also been previously identified within the Citrus Heights Quad where the subject parcel is located (CDFW 2024).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BAGEPA) (16 USC Section 668) protect certain species of birds from direct “take” (i.e. harm or harassment as described above). The MBTA protects migrant bird species from take through setting hunting limits and seasons and protecting occupied nests and eggs (USFWS, 1918). BAGEPA prohibits the take or commerce of any part of the bald or golden eagles (USFWS, 1940). The USFWS administers both Acts and reviews actions that may affect species protected under each Act.
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over plant and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under section 2080 of the CDFW Code. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits take of state- listed threatened and endangered species. The state Act differs from the federal Act in that it does not include habitat destruction in its definition of take. The CDFW defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CDFW may authorize take under the CESA through Sections 2081 agreements. If the results of a biological survey indicate that a state-listed species would be affected by the project, the CDFW would issue an Agreement under Section 2081 of the CDFW Code and would establish a Memorandum of Understanding for the protection of state-listed species.
CDFW maintains lists for Candidate-Endangered Species and Candidate- Threatened Species. Two CESA listed species (Swainson’s hawk and bank swallow - both listed as Threatened under CESA) have been previously identified within the Citrus Heights Quad where the subject parcel is located (CDFW 2024).
Streambed Alteration Agreements: CDFG Code Section 1600 et seq.
CDFW has jurisdictional authority over wetland resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes under Sections 1600–1616. CDFW has the authority to regulate all work under the jurisdiction of the State of California that would substantially divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or use material from a streambed.
In practice, CDFW marks its jurisdictional limit at the top of the stream or lake bank, or the outer edge of the riparian vegetation (where present) and extends its jurisdiction to the edge of the 100-year floodplain. The Project area contains Cirby Creek along its northern section and the creek along with its associated riparian habitat would be protected by CDFW within the Project area.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act & Section 1601 – Section 1607 of CDFG Code These acts and codes pertain to projects with potential impacts to water quality or waterways. The Project area contains potential waters of the State as defined by the State Water Resources Board (State Board 2014). Besides Cirby Creek located within the Project area, there are no other aquatic resources that would be subject to a report of waste discharge.
California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800:
Nesting Migratory Bird and Raptors
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the CDFG Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Implementation of the take provisions requires that project-related disturbance within active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (approximately March 1 – August 31). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g. killing or abandonment of eggs or young), or the loss of habitat upon which birds are dependent, is considered "taking", and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment (LCC 2013). Such taking would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (e.g. MBTA above).
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15380 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria. This section was included in the guidelines to deal primarily with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on, for example a “candidate species” that has not yet been listed by the USFWS or CDFW. CEQA, therefore, enables an agency to protect a species from significant project impacts until the respective government agencies have had an opportunity to list the species as protected, if warranted (CNRA 2012).
Plants appearing on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) are considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria. Ranks include: 1A) plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere, 1B) plant rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, 2A) plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere, and 2B) plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. Impacts to these species would therefore be considered “significant” requiring mitigation.
State Oak Woodland Regulations
State laws that regulate protection of oak woodlands include Professional Forester’s Law (PFL) and CEQA according to Public Resources Code Section 21083.4.
Oak woodlands are defined as areas having 10% oak canopy cover or greater. “Oaks” are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.4 as a native tree species in the genus Quercus, that is 5 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater. The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (SB 1334) provides funding for the conservation and protection of oak woodlands in California. Oak woodland habitats are protected under both the State and the Placer County General Plan.
Local Regulations and Policies
City of Roseville General Plan
The City of Roseville’s General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element outlines specific goals, policies, and implementation measures pertaining to the protection of vegetation and wildlife (City of Roseville 2004). The three primary goals are:
Goal 1: Preserve, protect, and enhance a significant system of interconnected natural habitat areas, including creek and riparian corridors, oak woodlands, wetlands, and adjacent grassland areas.
Goal 2: Maintain healthy and well-managed habitat areas in conjunction with one-another, maximizing the potential for compatible open space, recreation, and visual experiences.
Goal 3: Protect special-status species and other species that are sensitive to human activities.
City of Roseville Tree Ordinance
The City of Roseville regulates the removal of or the impact to protected trees under Chapter 19.66 of the Roseville Municipal Code. Protected trees are defined as any native oak tree, valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), or hybrid of these species, with a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six inches at breast height (DBH), which is at 54” above grade. No work that might impact the tree, including grading, trenching, or irrigation, is allowed within the protected zone of a protected tree, defined as the dripline radius plus one foot, without a tree permit. No permit is required for the removal of a protected tree under the following situations:
1. Trees damaged by thunderstorm, windstorm, flood, earthquake, fire or other natural cause and determined by a peace officer, fire fighter, public utility official, civil defense official or city code enforcement officer, acting in his or her official capacity, to present a danger to persons or property. Upon discovery of a condition justifying removal, the officer or official making the determination shall immediately provide written notification of the condition and action taken to the planning director.
2. When removal is determined to be necessary by fire department personnel actively engaged in fighting a fire.
3. When compliance would interfere with activities of a public utility necessary to comply with applicable safety regulations and/or necessary to repair or avoid the interruptions of services provided by such a utility. Unless there is an imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare, the Planning Director shall be notified prior to the removal by a public utility of a protected tree.
4. The Planning Director may allow removal of a protected tree which has been certified by an arborist to be a dead tree. An arborist-certified dead tree may be removed without any replacement or mitigation requirements.
5. A protected tree located on property developed with a single-family or two-family dwelling which has been granted occupancy.
6. When a protected living tree presents a hazard to health and safety or structures due to its structural condition and location, the tree may be removed without any replacement or mitigation requirements. The hazardous condition of the tree must be determined by an arborist. The Planning Director must review the arborist’s determination and consider the location of the protected tree prior to approving removal.
3.0 METHODS
In order to evaluate the Project area for the presence of sensitive biological resources, baseline information from databases and reporting for similar projects in the City of Roseville and Placer County was collected and reviewed prior to conducting a reconnaissance-level biological resources survey within the subject parcel. The database searches, background research, and reconnaissance-level biological resources survey characterized the baseline conditions of the subject parcel. Based on the baseline conditions of the subject parcel and specifically, the proposed Project area, an assessment was implemented to determine if any special-status plant or wildlife species have the potential to use the subject parcel and Project area at any time during their life cycle.
The baseline conditions also identified the presence of sensitive habitat or communities, if they were identified within the subject parcel or within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. The general assessment was conducted for the entirety of the Project area.
Sensitive Biological Resources
The following information was used to identify potential special-status plant and wildlife species within the region surrounding the Project area that could be found to use the Project area:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database records for special-status species previously identified within the Citrus Heights Quad where the Project area is located (CDFW, 2024);
• California Native Plant Society’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California known to occur within the Citrus Heights Quad where the Project area is located (CNPS, 2024);
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) for endangered, threatened, and proposed listed species for the subject parcel (USFWS, 2024);
• National Wetland Inventory (NWI, 2024);
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soils Mapper (USDA, 2024);
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Hydric Soils List for Placer County (NRCS, 2024); and
• City of Roseville General Plan 2035 (adopted by the City of Roseville City Council on August 5, 2020).
Reconnaissance-level Biological Resources Field Survey
A reconnaissance-level biological survey was conducted on foot of the Project area and within the entirety of the subject parcel by Greg Matuzak, a CDFW and USFWS Qualified Biologist. Greg Matuzak has developed several assessments of biological resources within the City of Roseville and Placer County in the past. The site visit and reconnaissance-level biological survey was conducted on February 29th, 2024.
The purpose of the survey was to identify sensitive habitat and vegetation types within the proposed Project area and to identify protected trees that would be subject to the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance and permitting requirements.
Additionally, the site visit and survey were implemented to determine the potential for any special-status plant and wildlife species identified within the desktop analysis and background research to occur within the Project area. The site visit and survey were conducted during the winter; therefore, the survey was not considered comprehensive in nature for all plants that may occur within the Project area. However, as detailed within this BRA, the proposed areas of disturbance within the subject parcel do not contain suitable habitat for any potential special-status plant species given the developed, landscaped, and overall impacted nature of the Project area.
An assessment of the existing trees and protected oak resources was also conducted during the site survey. A photo log of the Project area and a list of plant and wildlife species observed during the field surveys was compiled (see Appendix C and Appendix F respectively). Attached in Appendix D is an NWI figure and Appendix E includes a USDA Soils Map for the Project area.
4.0 RESULTS
Environmental Setting
The Project area lies approximately 0.5 miles south of the I-80 and Douglas Boulevard crossing and is located along Sunrise Avenue. The Sunrise Avenue area where the proposed Project is located is within an area mapped as Urban and Built Up Land per the definition and mapping under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The Project area is located at approximately 130 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). However, the subject parcel ranges between approximately 125 feet above MSL in the northern section of the subject parcel where Cirby Creek runs from east to west and 135 feet above MSL along the entrance into the parcel along the southern edge of the Project area.
Therefore, general drainage within the Project area is from south to north with the low spot being the channel of Cirby Creek. The NWI data identifies a single aquatic feature within the Project area and that is Cirby Creek. Northern Volcanic Mudflow Vernal Pool habitat mapped within the CNDDB for the Citrus Heights Topo Quad (CDFW 2024) is not mapped or located within the Project area. Vernal pools and other potential wetlands were lacking within the Project area.
Plant Communities
Plant communities have been classified based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CDFW also manages the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), which is a database inventory of the previously identified locations of rare and endangered plants, wildlife, and natural communities in California. A list of plants and wildlife documented during the field surveys is attached in Appendix C to this BRA.
Given the field survey was conducted during the late spring when most plants and vegetation would be identifiable, the plant and vegetation community survey was comprehensive in nature.
Non-Native Annual Grassland
The majority of the undeveloped areas within the Project area outside of the Cirby Creek stream and riparian zone are comprised of non-native annual grassland.
The grassland is characterized primarily by an assemblage of non-native grasses and herbaceous species. Dominant vegetation present within the annual grassland within the Study Area includes wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), long- beaked filaree (Erodium botrys), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), dove’s foot geranium (Geranium molle), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and winter vetch (Vicia villosa). Scattered interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) and Valley oak (Quercus lobata) are mixed into the non-native grassland areas.
Disturbed and Developed
Disturbed/developed areas occur throughout much of the Study Area and is comprised of the existing office building, existing parking areas, existing path, landscaped areas, and the enclosed trash area. This habitat type does not provide suitable habitat for any sensitive or otherwise special-status species.
Cirby Creek and Associated Riparian Habitat
Cirby Creek is a single thread channel with perennial flow in a southeast to northwestern direction before discharging into Dry Creek just east of Riverside Drive. The channel bottom within the subject parcel varies from gravel and sand and is unvegetated. Below the OHWM of the creek, no emergent wetland vegetation was observed given the lack of benches and the incised, urbanized nature of the creek within the Project area.
Both sides of the creek contain relatively steep banks and are dominated with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and red willow (Salix laevigata) with some clusters of dock (Rumex sp.) mixed in. Iris leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides) and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata) were also identified within the riparian zone to Cirby Creek. Within the upland areas along the top of both banks are thick clusters of both interior live oak and Valley oak trees, though these trees associated with Cirby Creek are small to medium in stature.
Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat will not be impacted by the proposed Project. Project related disturbance will be maintained a minimum of 50 feet to the south of the southern edge of Cirby Creek and 15 feet from the southern edge of its associated riparian habitat.
Protected Trees
Protected trees are defined under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance as any native oak tree, valley oak, interior live oak, blue oak, or hybrid of these species, with a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six inches at breast height (DBH), which is at 54” above grade. During the February 29, 2024 site survey, Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC conducted a tree inventory and has also developed an Arborist Report for the Project area within the subject parcel. The tree inventory and Arborist Report focused on the proposed areas of disturbance within the subject parcel/Project area.
A total of three (3) trees with a DBH of six inches or greater were mapped within the Project area (see Appendix B with the Site Plan containing the mapped trees and DBH within the Project area). Several other small non-oak trees and small oak trees within the Project area were also mapped within the Project area; however, given they are not protected under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance, they would not be included in any required Tree Removal Permit and compensatory mitigation for impacts to such protected trees. Each of the trees meeting the definition of a protected tree by the City of Roseville is a valley oak and all three trees will be removed as part of the proposed additional parking areas. See the attached Site Plan in Appendix B with the required X through the three valley oak trees requiring removal. The DBH of those trees is 36”, 40”, and 18”. In total, DBH of 94” of protected trees will be removed and compensatory mitigation under the City of Roseville Tree Mitigation Program.
Soils
Xerofluvents, frequently flooded
This is the only soil type mapped by USDA within the subject parcel and overall Project area. This soil type is found adjacent to stream channels (in this case Cirby Creek) and consist of narrow stringers of somewhat poorly drained recent alluvium.
Areas containing this soil type are subject to frequent flooding and channelization and therefore, are not considered suited for urban uses because of their flood hazard.
However, within the Project area the surrounding development and urbanization would suggest that the City of Roseville maintains Cirby Creek such that flooding is limited and the stream is regularly maintained by the City. A USDA Soils map is attached in Appendix E.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Special status species were considered for this BRA based on a current review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and database information provided by the CDFW, CNPS, and USFWS (see Appendix H for attachments containing the results of the database searches). Per the tables below, several federal and state listed species have been documented within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad where the Project is located. The results of the USFWS IPaC contain additional potential federally protected species that may have the potential to occur within the Project area. Therefore, the tables attached in Appendix G include the following information:
• Table 1 includes a review of potential species that could occur within the Project area that are listed under the federal and/or state Endangered Species Act; and
• Table 2 includes a review of potential other special-status species that could occur within the Project area that are listed under the CNDDB and CNPS species lists.
However, none of the species reviewed within the databases were observed during the field survey and the Project area does not contain suitable habitat for any of these species given the lack of suitable habitat for these species within the Project area. However, as described within Table 1 and Table 2 (attached within Appendix G), Cirby Creek does have a low potential for some special-status species to occur within the Project area, but given the proposed disturbance within the Project area will be contained within the open non-native annual grassland and disturbed areas outside of the creek and riparian zone, the proposed Project would have no potential to impact any special-status species.
Additionally, the Project area is not located within an area containing Northern Volcanic Mudflow Vernal Pool habitat mapped within the CNDDB (CDFW 2024). Vernal pools and other potential wetlands were lacking within the Project area except for Cirby Creek located within the northern section of the subject parcel. There is no Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) mapped for any species within the subject parcel (USFWS, 2024). The table below includes a description of each special-status species that has previously been identified within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad and/or identified within the USFWS IPaC list for the subject parcel (see Appendix H for database results).
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed, the subject parcel comprises a total of 2.63 acres with a newly developed area that is approximately 0.63 acres of ruderal and non-native annual grassland. None of the areas of habitat that meet the definition of disturbed or developed areas or Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat will be impacted by the proposed Project. Sensitive habitats identified within the Study Area include Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat; however, disturbance will be maintained a minimum of 50 feet to the south of the southern edge of Cirby Creek and 15 feet from the southern edge of its associated riparian habitat.
The proposed Project disturbance will be maintained to the south of the existing fence line along the southern edge of Cirby Creek and its riparian habitat and also will be maintained south of the existing pedestrian path located along the southern side of the fence line. There will be no direct or indirect impacts to Cirby Creek or its associated riparian zone from the development and implementation of the proposed Project.
Known or potential biological constraints within the Study Area include the following:
• Potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds and other birds of prey;
• Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat; and
• Protected oak trees.
Recommendations
Based on site specific field survey, the Project area does contain large individual oak trees and a well-developed riparian habitat zone adjacent to Cirby Creek. These large trees and habitat could provide nesting habitat for birds protected under MBTA and by CDFW, including raptor species. However, no special- status plant or wildlife species were documented during the site visit and the biological resources survey conducted as part of the development of this BRA.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have little potential to impact special-status species except for the presence of nesting protected birds, if present during vegetation removal and other proposed disturbance within the Project area.
Additional impacts could include tree and sensitive oak resource removal given the presence of 3 mapped protected valley oak trees within the proposed area of new parking within the subject parcel. Therefore, mitigation for impacts to and the loss of such sensitive and protected trees and oak resources would be required for the proposed Project under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance.
Impacts to Sensitive Habitats, Including Protected Aquatic Habitats The Project area contains Cirby Creek, which would meet the criteria as a “waters of the U.S.” defined by the Corps for being jurisdictional and regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). However, the proposed Project will remain a minimum of 50 feet south of the ordinary high water mark along the southern edge of Cirby Creek and therefore, no impacts to the creek are expected from the development and implementation of the Project. Cirby Creek does not contain associated wetlands but does contain a well-developed riparian habitat zone. The proposed development and implementation of the proposed disturbance will remain a minimum of 15 feet from the southern edge of the riparian zone. Between the proposed disturbance and the existing riparian habitat zone is an existing 10-foot sewer easement, an existing pedestrian pathway, and a fence along the southern edge of Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat zone.
Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat zone would also be regulated as a stream by CDFW. Given the proposed disturbance will remain outside of Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat zone, CWA and CDFW permitting for impacts to the sensitive aquatic habitat within the northern section of the subject parcel will not be required.
Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status plant species were not identified during the field survey implemented as part of the development of this BRA. However, minimal suitable habitat for the Sanford’s arrowhead is present within Cirby Creek and its assopciated banks. However, given that the species was not documented during the site visit and field survey and Cirby Creek and its associated banks will not be disturbed by the proposed Project, the species would not be impacted by the development or implementation of the proposed Project.
Given the site visit and reconnaissance-level biological resources survey was conducted as part of the development of this BRA identified the entirety of the proposed area of disturbance to include ruderal and disturbed non-native annual grassland habitat, the Project would not have an impact on special-status plant species. Therefore, no mitigation is recommended for special-status plant species.
Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species
Given that some of the special-status fish and wildlife species previously recorded within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad where the proposed Project area is located and within the USFWS IPaC report associate with aquatic resources (western spadefoot, western pond turtle, great blue heron, Pacific lamprey, and steelhead) those species would not be impacted by the proposed Project given such aquatic habitats would not be impacted by the proposed Project. The proposed disturbance within the subject parcel will remain a minimum of 50 feet from Cirby Creek that flows through the northern section of the subject parcel. Therefore, there is a very low potential for special-status fish and wildlife species to occur within the Project area and the impact to such species is considered less than significant.
Impacts to Protected Nesting Bird Species
The trees, shrubs, and grasslands within the subject parcel contain suitable habitat for nesting raptors and MBTA and CDFW protected nesting bird species. The breeding season for most protected birds in the vicinity of the Project area is generally from February 15th to August 31st. Vegetation clearing or tree removal outside of the breeding season for such bird species would not require the implementation of any avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. However, construction or development activities during the breeding season could disturb or remove occupied nests of migratory birds and other songbirds and would require the implementation of a pre-construction survey within 250 feet of the disturbance area within the subject parcel for nesting migratory birds prior to development. For raptors, binoculars should be used to survey up to 500 feet from the disturbance area to search for active raptor nesting or reproductive behavior.
If nests are found and considered to be active, the project biologist should establish buffer zones to prohibit construction activities and minimize nest disturbance until the young have successfully fledged. Buffer width will depend on the species in question, surrounding existing disturbances, and specific site characteristics, but may range from 20 feet for some songbirds to 250 feet for most raptors. If active nests are found within any trees slated for removal, then an appropriate buffer should be established around the trees and the trees should not be removed until a biologist determines that the nestlings have successfully fledged. In addition, a pre- construction worker awareness training should be conducted alerting workers to the presence of and protections for the active avian nests.
If construction activities begin during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), a survey and training would not be required, and no further studies or surveys would be necessary.
With the implementation of such measures any potential impact to protected MBTA or CDFW protected bird species would be sufficiently minimized to a level of less than significant.
Impacts to Protected Trees
A total of 3 trees with a DBH of six inches or greater were mapped within the Project area (see Appendix B with the Site Plan containing the mapped trees and DBH within the Project area). Several other small non-oak trees and small oak trees within the Project area were also mapped within the Project area; however, given they are not protected under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance, they would not be included in any required Tree Removal Permit and compensatory mitigation for impacts to such protected trees.
Each of the trees meeting the definition of a protected tree by the City of Roseville is a valley oak and all three trees will be removed as part of the proposed additional parking areas. See the attached Site Plan in Appendix B with the required X through the three valley oak trees requiring removal. The DBH of those trees is 36”, 40”, and 18”. In total, DBH of 94” of protected trees will be removed and compensatory mitigation under the City of Roseville Tree Mitigation Program. The applicant has stated that the proposed tree mitigation would include required planting within the subject parcel in order to fully compensate for the loss of 94” of DBH of protect trees.
Conclusion
Given the site conditions of the Project area containing ruderal, disturbed, non-native annual grassland within an otherwise urban and built environment, there are habitat types of little value for special-status wildlife and plant species previously recorded within the vicinity of the Project area. However, given the presence of Cirby Creek within the northern section of the subject parcel, the creek shall be avoided as well as its associated riparian habitat zone to ensure no impacts occur to such protected sensitive habitats.
Special-status plant species have a very low potential to occur within the Project area given no such species were documented during the field survey and also given the potential presence of suitable habitat for the Sanford’s arrowhead is located along the edges of Cirby Creek that will be avoided. The ruderal and developed nature of the Project area rules out the presence of most, if any, potential species except for common wildlife.
Given the reconnaissance-level biological resources survey did identify the large oak trees and riparian habitat as potential suitable nesting habitat for protected bird species, the implementation of a pre-construction survey for protected nesting bird species would sufficiently avoid a significant impact to such species protected under the MBTA and by CDFW. Lastly, the applicant will apply for a Tree Removal Permit and will fully mitigate for the removal of the 3 valley oak trees within the Project area that meet the definition of a protected tree.
References
Burt, William Henry. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America north of Mexico. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980.
Calflora. Information on California Plant for Education, Research and Conservation. [web application]. 2024.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1987. Five-Year Status Report:
California Black Rail. Non-Game Bird and Mammal Section, Wildlife Management Division, Department of Fish and Game. California.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. Special - 898 Taxa. California Natural Diversity Database, The Natural Resources Agency, Biogeographic Branch, Department of Fish and Game. California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Search for Special-Status Species within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad. California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Threatened and Endangered Species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California.
CaliforniaHerps.com (CaliforniaHerps). 2024. A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in California. CaliforniaHerps.com. California.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2000. A Manual of California Vegetation. [web based version]. California Native Plant Society. Information Center for the Environment, University of California Davis.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Search for Special-Status Plant Species within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad. California Native Plant Society. California.
City of Roseville General Plan 2035. 2020. City of Roseville General Plan (Updated).
Adopted by the City of Roseville City Council on August 5, 2020.
Jennings, M.R.; Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Inland Fisheries Division, California Department of Fish and Game.
Rancho Cordova, California.
Jepson Herbarium, The. (Jespson eFlora). 2024. The Jepson Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, California.
Legislative Counsel of California (LCC). 2004. Senate Bill 1334- Oak Woodlands Conservation Act. Official California Legislative Information. California.
Legislative Counsel of California (LCC). 2013. California Law: California Fish and Game Code. Official California Legislative Information. California.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California bird species of special concern:
a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.
Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Spautz, H., Nur, N., Stralberg, D. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus): Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report: PSW-GTR-191.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 1918.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1940. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Endangered Species Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Determination of Endangered Status for Four Plants and Threatened Status for One Plant From the Central Sierran Foothills of California. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Federal Register. October 18, 1996.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) for the Subject Parcel in the City of Roseville and Placer County. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. National Wetland Inventory (NWI).
Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer Jr., W.F., Mayer, K.E., White, M. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife, Vol. I-III. Updated 2000. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
Appendix A
Parcel Report
Property Report
07/21/2023Asessor's Parcel Number: 470-010-043-000
PD52
FW
PD52
*Primary Zoning
BP
OS/FP
CC
*Primary Landuse
Infill
*Primary Planning Area
*The Zoning and Land Use designations provided in this property report are limited to the primary designations associated with this parcel, and are not necessarily the only applicable designations for this property. Please refer to the map display or an official Zoning and/or Land Use map to determine any subordinate designation applicable to this parcel. Visit http://www.roseville.ca.us/zonlu11 for detailed landuse and zoning code information.
*Primary Parcel Number
229
305
183
Situs Address
Location
Characteristics
MEADOW OAKSNeighborhood Association:
Elementary School District:
High School District:
ROSEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Secondary Addresses
General Planning
ROSEVILLE, CA
701 SUNRISE AV
95661
Lot Area (Sq Ft):
Lot Area (Acres):
Lot Perimeter (Ft):
Developed Bldg (Sq Ft):
Undeveloped Bldg (Sq Ft):
Potential Bldg (Sq Ft):
Developed Buildings:
Developed Units:
Undeveloped Units:
Potential Units:
114,673
2.63 1,391
4,700
1 Existing Use:
Existing Use Class:
RESTAURANT
COMMERCIAL
Project Stage: COMPLETED
Subdivision:
Subdivision Code:
302 Number:
Lot Number: A
Redevelopment Area:
Redevelopment Dist:
Disclaimer: This document was prepared for general inquiries only. The City of Roseville gains access from multi-jurisdictional databases and is not liable for errors or omissions that might occur. Official information concerning specific parcels should be obtained from recorded or adopted City documents.
Appendix B
Site Plan With and Without Trees
Appendix C
Plants and Wildlife Observed
Plants Observed in the Study Area on February 29th, 2024
Family Scientific Name Common Name Native or Invasive
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm I
Asteraceae Centromadia fitchii Spikeweed N
Fabaceae Trifolium hirtum Rose clover I
Fabaceae Vicia villosa ssp. varia Winter vetch I
Fagaceae Quercus lobata Valley oak N
Fagaceae Quercus wislizeni Interior live oak N
Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Big heron bill I
Geraniaceae Geranium molle Dove's foot geranium I
Juncaceae Juncus xiphioides Iris leaved rush N
Lythraceae Lagerstroemia sp. Crepe myrtle I
Montiaceae Claytonia perfoliata Miner s lettuce N
Onagraceae Epilobium sp. Willowherb N
Poaceae Avena fatua Wild oat I
Poaceae Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass I
Poaceae Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome I
Poaceae Elymus caput‐medusae Medusa head I
Poaceae Festuca perennis Italian rye grass I
Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass I
Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly dock I
Rosaceae Prunus dulcis Almond I
Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry I
Rubiaceae Galium sp. Bedstraw N
Salicaceae Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood N Salicaceae Salix laevigata Red willow N
Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Woolly mullein I
Themidaceae Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's spear N
Vitaceae Vitis californica California grape N
Wildlife Observed in the Study Area on February 29th, 2024
Scientific Name Common Name
Aphelocoma californica California Scrub‐Jay
Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn Woodpecker
Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Appendix D
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
Appendix E
USDA Soils Map
Soil Map—Placer County, California, Western Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/14/2024
4288800 4288820 4288840 4288860 4288880 4288900 4288920 4288940 4288960 4288980 4288800 4288820 4288840 4288860 4288880 4288900 4288920 4288940 4288960 4288980 650190 650210 650230 650250 650270 650290 650310
650190 650210 650230 650250 650270 650290 650310
38° 44' 12'' N
121° 16' 19'' W
38° 44' 12'' N
121° 16' 13'' W
38° 44' 6'' N
121° 16' 19'' W
38° 44' 6'' N
121° 16' 13'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
Meters
Map Scale: 1:920 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Placer County, California, Western Part Survey Area Data: V
ersion 15, Aug 31, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 23, 2022—Apr 24, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Placer County, California, Western Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/14/2024
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 194 Xerofluvents, frequently
flooded
3.6 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 3.6 100.0%
Soil Map—Placer County, California, Western Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/14/2024
Appendix F
Photo Log
Photos of the February 29th, 2024 Field Survey of the Project Area
Photo 1: Entrance into the eastern section of the Project area with the subject parcel located to the right of the access road within the photo.
Photo 2: Northeastern corner of the subject parcel with an existing sewer line that contains a 10-foot easement. Cirby Creek is located on other side of the fence.
Photo 3: Cirby Creek located along the northern section of the Project area. Subject parcel includes the northern bank of the creek. Creek flows east to west.
Photo 4: From northeastern corner of the Project area looking west along Cirby Creek to the right. Existing path runs along southern edge of creek riparian corridor in photo.
Photo 5: Project disturbance area includes grassy area and two oak trees in distance where additional parking will be located. Path and riparian zone to be avoided.
Photo 6: Project disturbance area includes grassy area and three oak trees in the photo.
Existing path and riparian zone of Cirby Creek to the right to be completely avoided.
Photo 7: Southeastern section of the subject parcel where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area within the photo. Existing building in distance.
Photo 8: Photo looking west within the subject parcel where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area. Existing building and parking area in photo.
Photo 9: Photo looking northwest where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area. New parking area will be to the right within the photo.
Photo 10: Looking north along eastern edge of the Project area where existing access and parking are located. In the distance 3 oak trees to be removed for new parking.
Photo 11: Looking west along the access road into the subject parcel off of Sunrise Avenue in the distance. Proposed new building to the right of the hedge.
Photo 12: Looking northwest into the location of the proposed new 8,000 square foot building. Existing building, parking, and trash enclosure in the photo to remain.
Photo 13: Looking north along the eastern section of the subject parcel where proposed new 8,000 square foot building and additional parking will be located.
Photo 14: Looking northeast into the location of the proposed new parking area within the large grassy area. The large oak tree in the distance is proposed to be removed.
Photo 15: Looking east from northwest corner of the parcel. Path, Cirby Creek, and associated riparian vegetation to be avoided. Two oak trees to the right to be removed.
Photo 16: Frontage along Sunrise Ave. Existing building, parking, landscaping, and trees to be avoided. Three oak trees are proposed to be removed from new parking areas.
Appendix G
Special-Status Species Tables
Regulatory Status Legend
FE = Federal endangered CE = California state endangered 1A = plants presumed extinct in California
1B = plants rare, threatened, or
endangered in California and
elsewhere
2 = plants rare, threatened, or
endangered in California, but
common elsewhere
3 = plants about which we need
more information
4 = plants of limited distribution
FT = Federal threatened CT = California state threatened FC = Federal candidate CCE = California candidate endangered PT = Federal proposed threatened CCT = California candidate threatened FPD = Federal proposed for
delisting
CFP = California fully protected
CD = California delisted
FD = Federal delisted
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
CSC = California Species of Special
Concern
CSA = California Special Animals List
CR = California state rare
Table1. Federal and State Endangered Species Previously Identified within the Citrus Heights Topo Quad and within the USFWS IPac
Special-Status Species Regulatory
Status
Habitat Requirements Identification/
Survey Period
Potential for Occurrence
Invertebrates
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT; --; --; -- Sole hosts are elderberry (Sambucus sp.) shrubs usually associated with riparian
areas. This species is known from portions
of the Central Valley of California
Adults emerge in
spring until June
Exit holes visible
year – round
None; there were no elderberry
shrubs identified within the Study
Area during the February 2024 site
survey.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT; --; --; -- Inhabits vernal pools, swales, and
ephemeral freshwater habitat. Known from
Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra
Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kings,
Madera, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,
Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama,
Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, and Yuba
counties.
USFWS protocol-
level wet-season
sampling and/or
dry season cyst
identification
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE; --; --; -- Inhabits vernal pools, swales, and
ephemeral freshwater habitat. Known from
Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa,
Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Merced, Placer,
Fresno, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo,
and Yuba counties.
USFWS protocol-
level wet-season
sampling and/or
dry season cyst
identification.
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Fish
Central Valley steelhead DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Population 11
FT; --; --; -- Found in cool, clear, fast-flowing
permanent streams and rivers with riffles
and ample cover from riparian vegetation
or overhanging banks. Spawning occurs in
streams with pool and riffle complexes.
The species requires cold water and
gravelly streambed to successfully breed.
Spawn in the Fresno and San Joaquin rivers
and tributaries before migrating to the
Delta and Bay Area.
Spawns in winter
and spring
Low; the Study Area with Cirby
Creek a perennial stream
passing through the northern
section of the site does provide
suitable habitat that is
marginal. However, Cirby Creek
will not be directly or indirectly
impacted by the project and
therefore, no impact to this species
will occur from the project if present.
Amphibians/ Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
PT; --; --; -- Typically associated with permanent
ponds, lakes, streams, irrigation ditches
and canals, and marshes, or pools in
intermittent drainages, usually lined with
abundant vegetation and either rocky or
muddy bottom substrates.
Requires aquatic basking sites, such as
logs, rocks, or exposed banks. Turtles are
active from February to November, in
which breeding occurs from April to May.
Overwintering occurs in upland terrestrial
habitats close to water sources (up to 300
feet). Are known to bury themselves
under loose soil.
Active: February –
November
Low; the Study Area provides
suitable habitat that is
marginal; however, Cirby Creek
provides potential access to the
Study Area. The species may
move through the creek zone
but it is highly unlikely the
species would use the upland
areas outside the riparian zone
of the creek given the
urbanized development and
lack of suitable habitat,
including the lack of loose soils
to bury themselves during the
overwintering time period.
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
CT; FT Breeds in vernal pools and seasonal ponds
in grasslands and oak savannas. Adults
spend summer in small mammal burrows.
March – June None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species and is outside of its known
range.
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
PT; --; --; -- Found in a variety of upland habitats,
including lowlands, foothills, grasslands,
open chaparral, and pine-oak woodlands.
Habitat preferences include shortgrass
plains, and sandy or gravelly soils for
burrowing. Aestivates for most of the year
underground. During the breeding season
are found in temporary rain pools, and
slow-moving streams.
Breeding: January –
May
Low; the Study Area provides
potential breeding habitat for this
species within Cirby Creek. However,
upland aestivation habitat is not
present outside the banks of the
creek given a lack of burrows within
the developed site. The project will
avoid Cirby Creek and its banks and
would avoid impacts to the species if
present.
Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
FC; --; --; -- Requires milkweed as its host plant. None; the Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this
species given the lack of milkweed
species within the Study Area.
Special-Status Species Regulatory
Status
Habitat Requirements Identification/
Survey Period
Potential for Occurrence
Birds
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
--; CT; --; -- Colonial breeder found in open and partly open situations, frequently near flowing
water. Nests on steep sand, dirt, or gravel
banks, in burrows dug near the top of the
bank, along the edge of inland water, or
along the coast, or in gravel pits or road
embankments.
Breeding:
April – September
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Cirby Creek does not
contain the required burrows
along the top of either bank
within the Study Area.
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
--; CT; --; -- Nest peripherally in valley riparian systems, lone trees or groves of trees in agricultural
fields. Valley oak, Fremont cottonwood,
walnut, and large willow trees, ranging in
height from 41 to 82 feet, are the most
commonly used nest trees in the Central
Valley.
Breeding:
March – October
None; although the Study Area
contains marginal non-native annual
grassland, the site is highly disturbed
and not large enough to be
considered foraging habitat for this
species. Additionally, the Study Area
is on the very fringe of the known
range of this species.
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
--; CFP; --; --
(nesting)
Inhabit savanna, open woodlands, marshes,
desert grassland, partially cleared lands and
cultivated fields. Nests in trees, often near a
marsh in savanna, open woodland, partially
cleared lands, and cultivated fields. Foraging
occurs within ungrazed or lightly-grazed
fields and pastures.
Year – round None; although the Study Area
contains marginal non-native annual
grassland, the site is highly disturbed
and not large enough to be
considered foraging habitat for this
species. Additionally, the Study Area
does not provide nesting habitat for
this species.
Note: Table above only includes federal threatened or endangered species, and State threatened, endangered, or fully protected species.
Table 2. Special-Status Species (Non-Federal or State Endangered Species Act Listed – CDFW and CNPS Listed Species)
Special-Status Species Regulatory
Status
Habitat Requirements Identification/
Survey Period
Potential for Occurrence
Plants
Valley brodiaea
Brodiaea rosea ssp. valicola
--; --; --; 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb that grows
in vernally moist gravelly serpentine
clay in foothill pine forest or oak
woodland.
Blooming period:
April – June
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species given the lack of serpentine
soils present.
Stinkbells
Fritillaria agrestis
--; --; --; 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb found in clay soils, sometimes in serpentinite,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
pinyon and juniper woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland from 10 to
1,555 meters.
Blooming period:
March – June
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species given the lack of claypan
present.
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
--; --; --; 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in
marshes and swamps in assorted
shallow freshwater areas from 0 to 650
meters.
Blooming period:
May – October
Low; Cirby Creek within the
Study Area may provide marginal
suitable habitat for this species.
However, Cirby Creek and its
associated banks and riparian
habitat will be avoided by the
project and this species would
not be impacted if present.
Invertebrates
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
--; CSA; --; -- Found in a variety of natural, and
artificial seasonally ponded freshwater
habitats, including vernal pools, swales,
ephemeral drainages, stock ponds,
reservoirs, ditches, backhoe pits, and
ruts caused by vehicular activity.
Wet-season
sampling and/or
dry season cyst
identification
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Amphibians/Reptiles
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
--; CSC; --; -- Species occurs in open sandy areas,
scattered low bushes, chaparral,
manzanita, and oak woodland habitats.
It is found in the Sierra Nevada foothills
from Butte County to Kern County and
throughout the central and southern
California coast.
Year –
round
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Birds
Long-eared owl
Asio otus
--; CSC; --; -- Occurs very locally within the mapped
range, particularly in the southern
deserts and densely forested areas.
Essentially extirpated from the entire
floor of the Central Valley and locally
on the southern coast; numbers have
declined at least moderately overall.
Year –
round
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
--; CSA; --; -- Inhabits both freshwater and saltwater
habitats and forages in grassland and
agricultural field. Breeding colonies are
located within 2 to 4 miles of feeding
areas, often in isolated swamps or on
islands, and near lakes and ponds
bordered by forests.
Year –
round
Low; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Special-Status Species Regulatory
Status
Habitat Requirements Identification/
Survey Period
Potential for Occurrence
Birds
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
--; CSA; --; -- Found near a water source, either
freshwater or salt water, such as coastal
estuaries, salt marshes, large lakes,
reservoirs, and rivers, where large
numbers of fish are present. Sometimes
seen in desert habitat during migration.
Winter (Non-
Breeding)
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii
--; CSC; --; -- Found in cismontane woodland, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, and upper
montane coniferous forest.
Year – round Low; the riparian woodland within the
Study Area provides marginal suitable
habitat for this species. Given the
location of the subject parcel within a
highly urbanized setting, the potential
presence of this species within the
subject parcel is considered very low.
American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
FD; --; --; -- They winter in the northern limits of their range, including portions of Canada, and
are very widespread during migration.
Winter in areas with large concentrations
of waterfowl.
Winter and during
Migration
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Vaux’s swift
Chaetura vauxi
--; CSC; --; -- Vaux’s Swifts arrive in Oregon and
California in late April, court their mates
in May and June, and have their 4-6 eggs
laid and hatched by July.
Spring and
Summer Residents
None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Invertebrates
Andrenid bee
Andrena subapasta
--; CSA; --; -- Found in grassland habitats within El
Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and San
Joaquin counties. Ground nesters that
will be underground from summer, fall
and winter and emerge in early spring
to forage and pollinate early bloomers,
such as willows, maples, violets and
other early blooming wildflowers.
Year – round None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
--; CSA; --; -- Large bee that prefers farmland and
open spaces.
Year – round None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Fish
Pacific lamprey
Entosphenus tridentatus
--; CSC; --; -- Pacific Lampreys are eel-like in form
and anadromous, using both fresh
water and marine habitats to complete
their life cycle. Adult Pacific
lamprey live in the ocean and return to
freshwater to spawn and then die,
completing their lifecycle.
Year – round Low; the Study Area with Cirby
Creek a perennial stream
passing through the northern
section of the site does provide
suitable habitat that is marginal
for this species. However, Cirby
Creek will not be directly or
indirectly impacted by the project
and therefore, no impact to this
species will occur from the project if
present.
Mammals
Sacramento valley red fox
Vulpes vulpes patwin
--; --; --; -- The Sacramento Valley red fox occurs
on the valley floor of the upper- and
mid-Sacramento Valley.
Year – round None; the Study Area does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species.
Appendix H
USFWS IPaC Species List and CNDDB/CNPS Species Lists
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
701 SUNRI
SE AVENUE
APN 470-010-043
-000
Roseville, CA 95661
November 1, 2024
Prepared For:
HAMZAH ALK
ORDY
901 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 1A
Roseville, CA 95661
792 Searls Avenue
Nevada City, CA 95959
PROJECT NO. 5994.00
IS ATTACHMENT 3
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 Project No. 5994.00
Novemb
er 1, 2024
Sent via Email
Hamzah Alkordy
901 S
unrise Avenue, Suite 1A
Roseville, CA 95661
[email protected]
Reference: 701 Sunrise Avenue
APN 470-010-043-000
Roseville, CA 95661
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Dear Mr. Alkordy:
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the 2.7-acre property located at 701 Sunrise Ave. in Roseville, California. As proposed, the project is to include development of a 7,000 square foot building, and associated retaining walls, roadways, sidewalks, underground utilities, and landscaping.
The findings presented in this report are based on our subsurface investigation, laboratory test results, and our experience with subsurface conditions in the area. Our opinion is that the project can be completed as proposed, provided the recommendations presented in this report are implemented. Our primary concerns, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, include the location of the site in a flood plain and very stiff to hard fine-grained deposits at the location of the proposed improvements. Recommendations addressing these concerns are presented in the report.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding our observations or the recommendations presented in this report.
Sincerely,
NV5
Ted Bibby, GIT 1732 Chuck Kull, CEG, GE
Project Geologist Principal
X:\1 Projects\5994 701 Sunrise Ave\11 Report\5994.00 701 Sunrise Ave Geotechnical Report.docx
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INT
RODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 S ITE DESCRIPTION
..................................................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................1
1.3 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................1
1.4 SCOPE OF SERVICES...............................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................2
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Soil Survey.................................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Geologic Setting........................................................................................................2
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................2
2.2.1 Surface Conditions ...................................................................................................2
2.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions......................................................................................3
2.2.3 Groundwater Conditions ..........................................................................................3
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................4
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................5
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................6
5.1 GRADING..................................................................................................................................7
5.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing .............................................................................................7
5.1.2 Cut Slope Grading.....................................................................................................8
5.1.3 Soil Preparation for Fill Placement..........................................................................8
5.1.4 Fill Placement ...........................................................................................................9
5.1.5 Fill Slope Grading ...................................................................................................11
5.1.6 Underground Utility Trenches ................................................................................11
5.1.7 Hardpan Deposits ..................................................................................................14
5.1.8 Erosion Controls .....................................................................................................14
5.1.9 Wet Weather Grading.............................................................................................15
5.1.10 Construction Dewatering .......................................................................................15
5.1.11 Surface Water Drainage.........................................................................................16
5.1.12 Soil Corrosion Potential..........................................................................................16
5.1.13 Grading Plan Review and Construction Monitoring .............................................17
5.2 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE......................................................................................................17
5.2.1 Perimeter Foundation Drains ................................................................................18
5.2.2 Crawl Space Drains ................................................................................................19
5.3 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................20
5.3.1 Seismic Design Criteria..........................................................................................20
5.3.2 Shallow Foundations..............................................................................................21
5.3.3 Slab-on-Grade Floor Systems ................................................................................23
5.3.4 Pavement Design ...................................................................................................25
6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................26 Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Page iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1, So
il Classification, Gradation and Shear Strength.....................................................4 Table 3-2, Att
erberg Limits and Expansion Index.........................................................................5 Table 3-3, Resistance Value ..........................................................................................................5 Table 3-4, Corrosion Testing..........................................................................................................5 Table 5-1, Minimum Testing Frequencies ....................................................................................9 Table 5-2, Minimum Testing Frequencies for Non-Expansive Soil ...........................................10 Table 5-3, Minimum Testing Frequencies for Utility Trench Backfill ........................................14 Table 5-4, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters....................................................................21 Table 5-5, Recommended Pavement Sections..........................................................................25
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure
1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Exploratory Trench Location Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Exploratory Trench Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C Seismic Design Criteria (SEAOC/OSHPD)
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the
request of Hamzah Alkordy, NV5 performed a geotechnical investigation of the 2.7-acre property located
at 701 Sunrise Avenue in Roseville, California. The geotechnical investigation was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated September 10, 2024 for the project.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located east of the Carbon Health Urgent Care Clinic at 701 Sunrise Avenue, approxima
tely 450 feet southeast of the Sunrise Avenue and Coloma Way intersection, in Roseville, California. The property is bordered by commercial buildings to the north, east, and south, and by Sunrise Avenue to the west. A site vicinity map is presented as Figure 1.
At the time of our field investigation, the project site consisted of a multi-story structure at the southwest corner of the property, a parking lot, and an undeveloped area on the eastern half of the property. The site topography was generally flat with a slight slope trending from east to west. There was a seasonal creek (Cirby Creek) on the northern edge of the property.
1.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on our review of a site plan titled Sunrise Office Center (undated) for the project provided by Milleni
um Planning and Engineering, NV5 understands that the proposed improvements will likely include a 7,000-square-foot office building and associated parking lot, utilities, and sidewalks. We anticipate that grading for the project will include general site clearing/preparation, minor cut and fill for roadways and building pad(s), and excavation for underground utilities. We understand that Stormtech Arch Chambers are proposed for impervious surface drainage storage and infiltration.
1.3 PURPOSE
NV5 performed a surface reconnaissance and subsurface geotechnical investigation at the site, collected
soil samples for laboratory testing, and performed engineering calculations to provide grading and drainage recommendations, foundation design criteria, slab-on-grade recommendations, and pavement design for the proposed improvements.
1.4 SCOPE OF SERVICES
To prepare this report, we performed the following scope of services:
• We marke
d the site for underground service alert (USA) and performed a surface reconnaissance.
• We performed a site investigation, including a literature review and a subsurface investigation.
• We collected relatively undisturbed soil samples and bulk soil samples from selected exploration trenches.
• We performed laboratory tests on select soil samples obtained during our subsurface investigation to determine their engineering material properties. • Based on observations made during our subsurface investigation and the results of laboratory testing, we performed engineering calculations to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for earthwork and structural improvements.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Our scope of services did not include retaining wall design. We did not perform a groundwater flow analysi
s nor an evaluation of the site for the presence of hazardous materials, historic mining features, asbestiform minerals, mold, or percolation rates of native soil.
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
We performed a site investigation to characterize the existing surface conditions and shallow subsurface
soil/rock conditions. Our site investigation included a literature review and field investigation as described below.
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
We performed a limited review of geologic literature pertaining to the project site. The following sections summar
ize our findings.
2.1.1 Soil Survey
As part of our study, we reviewed the Web Soi l Survey (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]; https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). The soil survey indicated that the site is located in an area containing one distinct soil type. The site consists of Xerofluvents, frequently flooded. (194) Xerofluvents, frequently flooded: The soil survey describes this soil type as being somewhat poorly drained with a very low runoff class. The soil profile typically consists of stratified loamy sand to fine sandy loam from 0 to 15 inches, stratified loamy sand to fine loam to silt loam from 15 to 37 inches, and stratified loam to silty clay loam to clay from 37 to 55 inches below ground surface (bgs).
2.1.2 Geologic Setting
Based on revi
ew of the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000, published by the State of California (D.L. Wagner et al., 1981), the area containing the project site is gener
ally underlain by Quaternary-age (2.58 million years before present to present day) sedimentary and metasedimentary rock (Geologic Map Symbol Qmr). The project site is between Cirby Creek to the north and Linda Creek, approximately 600 feet to the south.
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION
NV5 performed our field investigation on September 27, 2024. During our field investigation, we observed the
local topography and surface conditions and performed a subsurface investigation. The following sections summarize surface and subsurface conditions observed during our field investigation.
Our subsurface investigation included the excavation of 5 exploration trenches across the project site. We excavated to depths ranging between 5 and 8 feet below the ground surface (bgs) using a Cat-304 excavator equipped with a 24-inch bucket. We obtained samples using a hand-actuated slide sampler and hand shovel. A staff engineer from our firm logged the soil conditions revealed in the exploratory trenches and collected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples for laboratory testing. Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of exploration trenches.
2.2.1 Surface Conditions
At the time of our investigation, the site consisted of an urgent care clinic in the southwest corner of the sit
e with associated parking lot, utilities, and sidewalks. The subsurface investigation was Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
performed on the eastern half of the site in an undeveloped field. No trenches were excavated in the area o
f existing improvements.
Site topography was generally flat, with estimated slopes ranging from 0 to 5 percent, trending from east to west. According to Google Earth (2024) site elevations ranged from 138 to 142 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Vegetation on the site was typical of the Sierra Nevada Foothills with oak trees and dry grass.
Seasonal drainage courses, including Cirby Creek, parallel the northern border of the site, trending from east to west. The seasonal stream courses were lined with blackberry thickets and riparian grasses north of the existing fence.
2.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The soil conditions described in the following paragraphs are generalized, based on our observations of soil rev
ealed in our 5 exploratory trenches. Detailed descriptions of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions that were encountered in each subsurface exploratory locations are presented in the Trench logs in Appendix A.
The soil and/or rock units encountered in the subsurface exploration excavations were generally stratigraphically continuous across the site with little variations in gradations and thicknesses. The units encountered in general stratigraphic sequence during the subsurface investigation of the site are described below. In general, all exploration excavations were terminated at practical refusal on very dense soil or hardpan. Subsurface conditions may vary at other locations and times. • ML, Silt with Gravel/Cobbles: This soil is considered to be topsoil consisting of the following field estimated particle size percentages: 60 percent low plasticity silt and clay (fines) and 40 percent gravel and cobbles. This soil was brown, dense, and dry at the time of the subsurface investigation and contained some roots. This soil was encountered in the upper 3 to 5 feet. • SP, Poorly Graded Sand: This soil is considered to be a subsoil consisting of the following field estimated particle size percentages: 10 percent low plasticity silt and clay (fines) and 90 percent poorly graded sand. This soil was light brown to brown, dense, and dry at the time of the subsurface investigation. This soil was only encountered in trench T-1. • ML-CL, Sandy Silt/Clay (Hardpan): This soil is considered to be a subsoil (hardpan) consisting of the following field estimated particle size percentages: 60 percent low plasticity silt and clay (fines) and 40 percent poorly graded sand. This soil was light brown to brown, very dense, highly cemented, and damp at the time of the subsurface investigation.
2.2.3 Groundwater Conditions
During our site investigation, we did not encounter groundwater seepage in our exploration trenches, nor did we obse
rve onsite springs or seeps emanating from the ground surface. Surface water was observed in Cirby Creek which is directly adjacent to the project site suggesting groundwater may be encountered at deeper depths. There is a possibility that perched groundwater may be encountered due to hardpan in the subsurface.
Our observations of groundwater conditions were made in September 2024 following a period of dry weather. Although we did not observe groundwater in our exploratory trenches, our experience has shown that seepage may be encountered in excavations which reveal the soil/weathered rock transition, particularly during or after the rainy season.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
We perfor
med laboratory tests on selected soil samples collected from our subsurface exploration trenche
s to determine their engineering material properties. These engineering material properties were used to develop geotechnical engineering design recommendations for earthwork and structural improvements. We performed the following laboratory tests:
• ASTM D2487 Soil Classification by the USCS
• ASTM D2488 Soil Classification by Visual-Manual Procedures • ASTM D422 Particle Size Distribution
• ASTM D2216 Moisture Content
• ASTM D2937 In Place Density
• ASTM D2166 Unconfined Compression
• ASTM D3080 Direct Shear Strength
• ASTM D4318 Atterberg Indices (Dry Method)
• ASTM D4829 Expansion Index
• ASTM D2844 Resistance Value
• ASTM D516/CTM 417 Sulfate
• ASTM D512/CTM 422m Chloride
• ASTM D4972/CTM 643 pH
• ASTM G47/CTM 643 Minimum Soil Resistivity
In general, relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected for laboratory testing within the upper
5.0 feet of the trenches. Test results are summarized in the following tables. Laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B.
Table 3-1, Soil Classification, Gradation and Shear Strength ASTM
D2487/
D2488 D422A D2216 D2937 D3080 D3080/
D2166Trench
ID
Sample
ID
Depth
bgs
(feet)
USCS
Symbol
Gravel
Content
(%)
Sand
Content
(%)
Clay/Silt
Content
(%)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Friction
Angle
(deg)
Cohesion
(psf)
T1 T1-L2 5 ML -- -- -- 8.1 102.3 -- --
T5 T5-B1 5 CL-ML 0 35.9 64.1 -- -- -- --
T2 T2-L1 2 CL-ML -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,581
T2 T2-L2 4 CL-ML -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,497
T1 T1-L1 2 CL-ML -- -- -- -- -- 31 454*
Notes:
* Due to cracks/granular material in the soil sample, cohesion value is low and regarded as a false result (ASTM D3080) ASTM = ASTM International pcf = pounds per cubic feet psf = pounds per square foot bgs = below ground surface % = Percent USCS = Unified Soil Classification System deg. = degrees
NV5 performed Atterberg Limits and expansion index testing on a selected bulk soil sample. The Atte
rberg Limits determinations used sample portions passing the No. 40 sieve to calculate the Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Plasticity Index (PI). Expansion index was determined by remolding in a 1.0-inch-high ring and submerging in water under an applied loading of 144 pounds per square foot (psf). Swell (or settlement) was measured with a dial micrometer over a 24-hour period. The sample was determined to be non-expansive. Results are presented in Table 3-2.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Table 3-2, Atterberg Limits and Expansion Index
Trench No. T-3
Sample No. BK1Sample ID
Depth bgs (feet) 5
Liquid Limit (LL) 22
Plastic Limit (PL) 15Atterberg Limits Determination
(ASTM D4318)
Plasticity Index (PI) 7
Expansion Index (Corrected) 4Expansion Index Testing
(ASTM D4829) Expansion Potential Very Low
Notes:
ASTM = ASTM International bgs = below ground surface
One Resistance Value (R-Value) test was performed by Pavement Engineering Inc. on a composite bulk sample o
btained from exploratory trench T-5 at an approximate depth of 1.0 to 3.0 feet bgs.
R-Value test results are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3, Resistance Value
Trench ID T5
Sample ID T5-R1
Depth bgs (feet) 1.0 3.0
R-Value (CTM 301) 18
Notes:
CTM = California Test Method bgs = feet below the ground surface Sunland Analytical performed corrosion testing on a soil sample obtained from exploratory trench T-5 at 1
.0 to 3.0 feet bgs. Corrosion testing included pH and minimum resistivity, sulfate content and chloride content. The sample was generally described as brown clay. Corrosion test results are presented in Table 3-4 and are further discussed in Section 5.5.12, Soil Corrosion Potential.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on our field observations, laboratory test results, and our expe
rience in the area.
1. Our opinion is that the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided that the geotechnical engineering recommendations and design criteria presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans.
Table 3-4, Corrosion Testing
CTM
643 643 422M 417
Sample
ID
Depth
bgs
(feet)
pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-cm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Sulfide
(ppm)
T5-R1 1.0 3.0 6.58 1,720 5.6 106.2
Notes:
CTM = Caltrans Test Method
ohms-cm = ohms-centimeter
ppm = parts per million
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
2. Our primary concerns are the location of the site in a flood plain and that the site is underlain by very
stiff to hard fine-grained deposits within the location of the proposed improvements.
3. An existing concrete pipe was encountered in trench T-2 at approximately 4 feet bgs. We believe the pipe trends from southeast to northwest based on the small visible section of pipe, as noted on the preliminary plans.
4. Based on our site observations, the geology of the region, and our experience in the area, our opinion is that the risk of seismically induced hazards such as slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture are low at the project site.
5. During our site investigation, we did not encounter ultramafic rock, serpentinite, or NOA minerals. If ultramafic rock, serpentinite or NOA-containing minerals are encountered at the site, site grading would be regulated under Cal/EPA Air Resources Board Regulation 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (ATCM) and Placer County Rule 228, Fugitive Dust.
6. Very stiff to hard fine-grained Hardpan deposits were encountered in our exploration trenches. Excavations may require ripping or hammering due to hardpan deposits.
7. We did not encounter existing fill in our exploration trenches. If existing fill or loose soils are encountered during construction, we should be retained to evaluate the condition of the fill, and to make recommendations to mitigate the presence of fill, if necessary. Existing fill, if encountered, should not be relied upon to support proposed improvements without testing and evaluation.
8. During our site investigation, we did not observe groundwater or seepage within our exploration trenches. However, we did observe evidence that surface water is seasonally transported through drainage channels on the property. We anticipate that moist to saturated soil conditions and groundwater may be encountered during grading, particularly during the rainy season. Preliminary recommendations regarding subsurface drainage and construction dewatering are presented in this report.
9. It is our opinion that the soils evaluated at the site may experience low water infiltration rates due to the nature of the soil and degree of compaction observed in units at depth. Highly compacted silts and clays (also referred to as hardpan) have the tendency to prevent water movement into the subsurface, increasing the saturation of surface soils and leading to greater surface water during wet events. Roots also tend to terminate at hardpan horizons and spread laterally.
Providing infiltration rates and stormwater drainage calculations and designs were not included in the NV5s scope of services and are the responsibility of the designer.
10. Prior to grading and construction, we should be retained to review the proposed grading plan and structural improvements to confirm our recommendations.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our understanding of the project as cu
rrently proposed, our field observations, the results of our laboratory testing program, engineering analysis, and our experience in the area.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
5.1 GRADING
The following secti
ons present our grading recommendations. The grading recommendations address cle
aring and grubbing, cut slope grading, soil preparation, fill placement, fill slope grading, underground utility trenches, erosion control, wet weather grading, surface water drainage, construction dewatering, soil corrosion potential, plan review, and construction monitoring.
5.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing
The areas to be graded should be cleared and grubbed to remove vegetation and other deleterious mater
ials as described below.
1. Strip and remove debris from clearing operations, including the weak and porous soil containing shallow vegetation, roots and other deleterious materials. Trees and shrubs that will not be part of the proposed development should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed. We anticipate that the depth of grubbing and clearing would be between 3 and 6 inches, but the actual depth of stripping will vary across the site and may be greater in forested areas. Actual stripping depth should be determined by a representative of the geotechnical engineer in the field at the time of stripping. The organic topsoil can be stockpiled on-site and used in landscape areas but is not suitable for use as engineered fill.
The project geotechnical engineer should approve any proposed use of the spoil generated from stripping prior to placement on the site.
2. Overexcavate any relatively loose debris and soil that is encountered down to underlying, competent material. Possible excavations include previous exploration trenches, soil test pits, holes resulting from tree stump or boulder removal, and mining relics.
3. Hardpan deposits were encountered between approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet. Excavations may requi
re ripping or hammering due to the very stiff to hard fine-grained deposits, and excavation rates may be slowed.
4. Undocumented fill was not encountered in our exploration trenches. However, if loose undocumented fill or potential soil stockpiles are encountered during site development, overexcavate to competent native soil or weathered rock and replace with engineered fill in accordance with Section 5.1.4, Fill Placement, of this report. Relatively loose fill shall be removed to within and a minimum of 5 feet beyond proposed structure footprints.
5. Overexcavate any encountered stumps, oversized rocks, leach lines, abandoned sewer, water, and fuel lines, and loose soil in abandoned subsurface utility line trenches within the proposed improvement areas to underlying competent soil, as determined by a representative of NV5. Excavate remaining cavities or holes to a sufficient width so that an approved backfill soil can be placed and compacted in the cavities or holes. Enough backfill soil should be placed and compacted in order to match the surrounding elevations and grades.
6. Remove rocks greater than 8 inches in greatest dimension (oversized rock) from native soil by scarifying to a depth of 12 inches below finish grade in areas to support pavement, slabs- on-grade or other flatwork. Oversized rock may be used in landscape areas, rock landscape walls, or removed from the site. Oversized rock can be stockpiled onsite and used to construct fills, but must be placed at or near the bottom of deep fills and must be placed in windrows to avoid nesting. No oversized rock should be placed in the upper 3 feet of any Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
structural fill. Unless used as rip-rap, oversized rock placed in fill should not be located within 5 feet ho
rizontally of the finished fill slope face. The project geotechnical engineer should approve the use of oversized rock prior to constructing fill.
7. NV5 did not encounter expansive soil during our field investigation, however, if fine grained, potentially expansive soil is encountered during grading, it should be mixed with granular soil or overexcavated and stockpiled for removal from the project site or for later use in landscape areas. A typical mixing ratio for granular to expansive soil is 4 to 1. The actual mixing ratio should be determined by NV5.
8. Vegetation, deleterious materials, structural debris, and oversized rocks not used in landscape areas, drainage channels, or other non-structural uses should be removed from the site.
5.1.2 Cut Slope Grading
Based on our understanding of the project at this time, we do not anticipate that permanent cut slope
s will be created during grading of the proposed improvements. In general, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1, horizontal to vertical (H:V). Steeper cut slopes may be feasible, depending on the soil/rock conditions encountered and should be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. The upper two feet of all cut slopes should be graded to an approximate 2:1, H:V, slope to reduce sloughing and erosion of looser surface soil.
5.1.3 Soil Preparation for Fill Placement
Where fill placement is proposed, the surface soil exposed by site clearing and grubbing should be prepared as d
escribed below.
1. The surface soil should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the existing ground surface, or to resistant rock, whichever is shallower. Following scarification, the soil should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within approximately 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
2. The scarified and moisture conditioned soil should then be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent based on ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. The moisture content, density, and relative percent compaction should be verified by a representative of NV5. The earthwork contractor should assist our representative by excavating test pads with onsite earth moving equipment.
3. The prepared native soil surface should be proof-rolled with a fully loaded, 4,000-gallon- capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a double-axle, tandem-wheel undercarriage or approved equivalent. The proof-rolled surface should be visually observed by the project engineer or their field representative to be firm, competent and relatively unyielding. The project engineer or their field representative may also evaluate the surface material by hand probing with a ¼-inch-diameter steel probe, however, this evaluation method should not be performed in place of proof rolling as described above.
4. Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) tests should be performed using the minimum testing frequencies presented in Table 5-1 or as modified by the project engineer to better suit the site conditions and change in soil or construction methods.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Table 5-1, Minimum Testing Frequencies
ASTM No. Test Description Minimum Test Frequency(1)
D1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Curve 1 per 1,500 CY or Material Change(2) D6938 Nuclear Density and Nuclear Moisture Content 1 per 250 CY Notes: (1) These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or decreased at the project geotechnical engineers discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered during grading. (2) Whichever criteria provides the greatest number of tests.
ASTM No. = ASTM International Number
CY = cubic yards
5. The native soil surface should be graded to minimize the ponding of water and to drain surface wat
er away from the building foundations and associated structures. Where possible, surface water should be collected, conveyed and discharged into natural drainage courses, storm sewer inlet structures, permanent engineered stormwater runoff percolation/evaporation basins or engineered infiltration subdrain systems.
5.1.4 Fill Placement
All fill placed beneath structural improvements (e.g., foundation elements, pavements, slabs-on- grade and ut
ility lines) and as part of a fill slope or retaining structures should be considered structural engineered fill. Material used for structural fill should consist of uncontaminated, predominantly granular, non-expansive native soil or approved import soil, as described in the following sections.
5.1.4.1 Import Fill Soil
Import fill soil should meet the geotechnical engineering material properties described in the following Section, Engineered Fill Construction with Testable Earth Materials. Import soil should be predominantly granular, non-expansive and free of deleterious material. Prior to importation to the site, the source generator should document that the import fill meets the guidelines set forth by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their 2001 Information Advisory, Clean Imported Fill Material. This advisory represents the best practice for characterization of soil prior to import for use as engineered fill. Import material that is proposed for use on-site should be submitted to NV5 for approval and possible laboratory testing at least 72 hours prior to transport to the site.
5.1.4.2 Engineered Fill Construction with Testable Earth Materials Testable earth materials are generally considered to be soils with gravel and larger particle sizes retained on the No. 4 mesh sieve that make up less than 30 percent by dry weight of the total mass.
The relative percent compaction of testable earth materials can readily be determined by the following ASTM test procedures: laboratory compaction curve (D1557), field moisture and density (D6938). Construction of engineered fills with testable earth materials is described below.
1. Testable Soil used for fill should consist of uncontaminated, predominantly granular, non- expansive native soil or approved import soil. If encountered, rock used in fill should be broken into pieces no larger than 8 inches in diameter. Rocks larger than 8 inches are considered oversized material and should be stockpiled for off haul or use in landscape areas and drainage channels. No oversized rock should be placed in the upper 3 feet of any structural fill.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
2. Cohesive, predominantly fine-grained, or potentially expansive soil encountered during grading should
be stockpiled for removal, mixed as directed by NV5, or used in landscape areas. As an option, cohesive fine-grained or potentially expansive soil can often be placed in the deeper portions of proposed fill (e.g., depths greater than 3 feet below subgrade in building footprints).
However, this option would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration of the fill depth and proposed loading.
3. Soil used to construct engineered fill should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within approximately 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. If site grading is performed during or following periods of wet weather, near-surface site soils may be significantly above its optimum moisture content. These conditions could hamper equipment maneuverability and efforts to compact fill materials to the recommended compaction criteria.
Fill material may require drying to facilitate placement and compaction, particularly during or following the wet season. Suitable compaction results may be difficult to obtain without processing the soil (e.g., discing during favorable weather, covering stockpiles during periods of precipitation, etc.).
4. Fill should be constructed by placing uniformly moisture conditioned soil in maximum 12-inch- thick loose, horizontal lifts (layers) prior to compacting.
5. The earthwork contractor should compact each loose soil lift with a tamping foot compactor such as a Caterpillar (CAT) 815 Compactor or equivalent as approved by NV5s project engineer or their field representative. A smooth steel drum roller compactor should not be used to compact loose soil lifts for construction of engineered fills.
6. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. The upper 12 inches of fill in paved areas, beneath proposed slabs-on-grade, and within the proposed building footprint should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
7. The moisture content, density and relative percent compaction of all engineered fills should be tested by a representative of NV5 during construction to evaluate whether the compacted soil meets or exceeds the minimum compaction and moisture content requirements. The field and laboratory CQA tests should be performed consistent with the testing frequencies presented in Table 5-2 or as modified by the project engineer to better suit the site conditions. The earthwork contractor shall assist the project engineers field representative by excavating test pads with the on-site earth-moving equipment.
Table 5-2, Minimum Testing Frequencies for Non-Expansive Soil ASTM No. Test Description Minimum Test Frequency(1)
D1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Curve 1 per 1,500 CY or Material Change (2) D6983 Nuclear Moisture and Density 1 per 250 CY
Notes: (1) These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or decreased at the project engineers
discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered during grading. (2) Whichever criteria provides the greatest number of tests.
ASTM No. = ASTM International Number
CY = cubic yards
8. The prepared finished grade or finished subgrade soil surface should be proof-rolled with a fully loade
d, 4,000-gallon-capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a double-axle, Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
tandem-wheel undercarriage or approved equivalent. The proof-rolled surface should be visually observe
d by the project engineer or their field representative to be firm, competent and relatively unyielding.
5.1.4.3 Rock Fill Placement
Based on our observation of the rocky nature of the subsurface conditions revealed in some of our exploration trenches, we anticipate that fill material generated from the site may contain significant cobbles, and that compaction testing with conventional methods may be difficult or inappropriate.
Typically, fill that consists primarily of soil can be tested for relative compaction by using a nuclear density gauge. Structural fill material with more than 30 percent rock material larger than ¾-inch cannot be reliably tested using conventional compaction testing equipment.
We recommend that quality assurance during rock material fill placement be based on a procedural approach, or method specification, rather than a specified relative compaction. The procedural requirements will depend on the equipment used, as well as the nature of the fill material, and will need to be determined by the geotechnical engineering firm on-site. Typically, procedural recommendations are based on the measured relative compaction of a test fill constructed on-site.
Based on our experience in the area, we anticipate that the procedural specification will require a minimum of six passes (back and forth equaling one pass) with a Cat 563 or similar, self-propelled, vibratory compactor to compact a maximum 12-inch thick, loose lift. Processing or screening of the fill material will be needed to remove rocks larger than approximately 12 inches in maximum dimension. Continuous or nearly continuous observation by a representative of NV5 would be required during fill placement to confirm that procedural specifications have been met.
5.1.5 Fill Slope Grading
Based on our understanding of the project, we do not anticipate fill slopes will be created as part of the pro
posed improvements. However, if permanent fill slopes are created onsite, they should be no steeper than 2:1, H:V. NV5 should review fill slope configurations greater than approximately 10 feet in height, if proposed, prior to fill placement. Compaction and fill slope grading must be confirmed by NV5 in the field.
5.1.6 Underground Utility Trenches
Underground utility trenches should be excavated and backfilled as described below for each trench zone shown in the fi
gure below.
1. Trench Excavation Equipment: NV5 anticipates that the contractor will be able to excavate underground utility trenches to depths of 3 to 5 feet bgs with a Case 580 Backhoe or equivalent. Underground utility trenches greater than 5 feet bgs may require ripper teeth on an excavator to facilitate the removal of very stiff to hard fine-grained deposits.
2. Trench Shoring: All utility trenches that are excavated deeper than 4 feet bgs are required by California OSHA to be shored with bracing equipment or sloped back to an appropriate slope gradient prior to being entered by any individuals.
3. Trench Dewatering: If the utility trenches are excavated during the winter rainy season, shallow or perched groundwater seepage will likely be encountered. The earthwork contractor may need to employ dewatering methods as discussed in Section 5.1.10, Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Construction Dewatering in order to excavate, place and compact the trench backfill mater
ials.
4. Pipe Zone Backfill Type and Compaction Requirements: The backfill material type and compaction requirements for the pipe zone, which includes the bedding zone, the shading zone and the cover zone, are described in detail below. a. Pipe Zone Backfill Material Type: Trench backfill used within the pipe zone, which includes the bedding zone, the shading zone, and the cover zone, should consist of ¾- inch-minus, washed, crushed rock. The crushed rock particle size gradation should meet the following requirements (percentages are expressed as dry weights using ASTM D422 test method): 100 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve, 80 to 100 percent passing the ½- inch sieve, 60 to 100 percent passing the 3/8-inch sieve, 0 to 30 percent passing the No. 4 sieve, 0 to 10 percent passing the No. 8 sieve, and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
If groundwater is encountered within the trench during construction, or if groundwater is expected to rise during the rainy season to an elevation that will infiltrate the pipe zone within the trench, then the pipe zone material should be wrapped with a minimum 6 ounce per square yard, non-woven geotextile filter fabric such as TenCate® Mirifi N140 or an approved equivalent. The geotextile seam should be located along the trench centerline and have a minimum 1-foot overlap. If the utility pipes are coated with a
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
corrosion protection material, then the pipes should be wrapped with a minimum 6 ounce per
square yard, non-woven, geotextile cushion fabric such as TenCate® Mirifi N140 or an approved equivalent. The geotextile cushion fabric should have a minimum 6-inch seam overlap. The geotextile cushion fabric will protect the pipe from being scratched by the crushed rock backfill material.
b. Pipe Bedding Zone Compaction: Trench backfill soil placed in the pipe bedding zone (beneath the utilities) should be a minimum of 3 inches thick, moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Crushed rock should be mechanically consolidated under the observation of NV5.
c. Pipe Shading Zone Compaction: Trench backfill soil placed within the pipe shading zone (above the bedding zone and to a height of one pipe radius above the pipe spring line) should be moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Crushed rock should be mechanically consolidated under the observation of NV5. The pipe shading zone backfill material should be shovel-sliced to remove voids and to promote compaction. d. Pipe Cover Zone Compaction: Trench backfill soil placed within the pipe cover zone (above the pipe shading zone to 1 foot over the pipe top surface) should be moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Crushed rock should be mechanically consolidated under the observation of NV5.
e. Groundwater Migration through Utility Trenches: Trench backfill for utilities exceeding 3 percent slope should incorporate Clay or CLSM check dams every 200 feet within any trenches excavated into hardpan, or competent bedrock, to prevent sediment transportation along the trench alignment as a result of perched groundwater. Clay or CLSM check dams should be placed where utility trenches enter into a building footprint where internal improvements are sensitive to moisture.
5. Trench Zone Backfill and Compaction Requirements: The trench zone backfill materials consist of both lower and upper zones, as discussed below. a. Trench Zone Backfill Material Type: Soil used as trench backfill within the lower and upper intermediate zones, as shown on the preceding figure, should consist of non- expansive soil with a PI of less than or equal to 15 (based on ASTM D4318) and should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in greatest dimension. b. Lower Trench Zone Compaction: Soil used to construct the lower trench zone backfills should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within 0 and 4 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content, placed in maximum 12-inch-thick loose lifts prior to compacting and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.
c. Upper Trench Zone Compaction (Road and Parking Lot Areas): Soil used to construct the upper trench zone backfills should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within 0 and 4 percentage points greater than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content, placed in maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts (layers) prior to compacting and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
d. Upper Trench Zone Compaction (Non-Road and Non-Parking Lot Areas): Soil used to constr
uct the upper trench zone backfills should be uniformly moisture conditioned to within 0 and 2 percentage points greater than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content, placed in maximum 6-inch-thick loose lifts (layers) prior to compacting and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.
6. CQA Testing and Observation Engineering Services: The moisture content, dry density and relative percent compaction of all engineered utility trench backfills should be tested by the project engineers field representative during construction to evaluate whether the compacted trench backfill materials meet or exceed the minimum compaction and moisture content requirements presented in this report. The earthwork contractor shall assist the project engineers field representative by excavating test pads with the on-site earth moving equipment.
a. Compaction Testing Frequencies: The field and laboratory CQA tests should be performed consistent with the testing frequencies presented in Table 5-3 or as modified by the project engineer to better suit the site conditions.
Table 5-3, Minimum Testing Frequencies for Utility Trench Backfill ASTM No. Test Description Minimum Test Frequency(1)
D1557 Modified Proctor
Compaction Curve
1 per 500 CY (2)
Or Material Change
D6983 Nuclear Moisture
and Density
1 per 100 LF per 24-Inch-Thick Compacted Backfill Layer (2) The maximum loose lift thickness shall not exceed
12-inches prior to compacting.
Notes: (1) These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or decreased at the project engineers discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered during grading. (2) Whichever criteria provide the greatest number of tests.
ASTM No. = ASTM International Number
CY = cubic yards
b. Final Proof Rolling: The prepared finished grade AB rock surface and/or finished subgrade soi
l surface of utility trench backfills should be proof rolled, as mentioned above the Fill Placement section of this report.
5.1.7 Hardpan Deposits
Hardpan deposits (very stiff to hard fine-grained soils) were encountered in our exploration trenches.
Excavations de
eper than approximately 5 feet below existing ground surface may require ripping or hammering due to these compacted layers, resulting in slower excavation rates.
In addition, exposed hardpan in open excavations may become unstable during wet weather and severe sloughing and excavation failures can occur. All temporary excavations must comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Safety and Hazards Administration (OSHA) excavation and trench safety standards.
5.1.8 Erosion Controls
Graded portions of the site should be seeded as soon as possible to allow vegetation to become established p
rior to and during the rainy season. In addition, grading that results in greater than one acre of soil disturbance or in sensitive areas may require the preparation of a site-specific storm Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
water pollution prevention plan. As a minimum, the following controls should be installed prior to and during g
rading to reduce erosion.
1. Prior to commencement of site work, fiber rolls should be installed down slope of the proposed area of disturbance to reduce migration of sediment from the site. Fiber rolls on slopes are intended to reduce sediment discharge from disturbed areas, reduce the velocity of water flow, and aid in the overall revegetation of slopes. The fiber rolls should remain in place until construction activity is complete and vegetation becomes established.
2. All soil exposed in permanent slope faces should be hydroseeded or hand seeded/strawed with an appropriate seed mixture compatible with the soil and climate conditions of the site as recommended by the local Resource Conservation District.
3. Following seeding, jute netting or erosion control blankets should be placed and secured over the slopes steeper than 2:1, H.V.
4. Surface water drainage ditches should be established as necessary to intercept and redirect concentrated surface water away from cut and fill slope faces. Under no circumstances should concentrated surface water be directed over slope faces. The intercepted water should be discharged into natural drainage courses or into other collection and disposal structures.
5.1.9 Wet Weather Grading
Generally, grading is performed more economically during the summer months when on-site soils are usually dry o
f optimum moisture content. Delays should be anticipated in site grading performed during the rainy season or early spring due to excessive moisture in on-site soils. Special and relatively expensive construction procedures, including dewatering of excavations and importing granular soils, should be anticipated if grading must be completed during the winter and early spring or if localized areas of soft saturated soils are found during grading in the summer and fall.
Open excavations also tend to be more unstable during wet weather as groundwater seeps towards the exposed cut or fill slopes. Severe sloughing and occasional slope failures should be anticipated.
The occurrence of these events will require extensive clean up and the installation of slope protection measures, thus delaying projects. The general contractor is responsible for the performance, maintenance and repair of temporary cut slopes.
5.1.10 Construction Dewatering
Seepage may be encountered during grading, particularly in deeper excavations made during site preparatio
n. The earthwork contractor should be prepared to dewater excavations if seepage is encountered during grading. Seepage may be encountered if grading is performed during or immediately after the rainy season. In addition, perched groundwater may be encountered on low permeability soil or weathered rock layers even during the summer months.
If subsurface seepage or groundwater conditions are encountered which prevent or restrict fill placement or construction of the proposed improvements, subdrains may be necessary. If groundwater or saturated soil conditions are encountered during grading, we should be retained to observe the conditions and provide site specific subsurface drainage recommendations. The following typical measures can be employed to mitigate the presence of seepage in excavations.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
1. We anticipate that dewatering of utility trenches can be performed by constructing sumps to depths be
low the trench bottom and removing the water with sump pumps.
2. Additional sump excavations and pumps should be added as necessary to keep the excavation bottom free of standing water and relatively dry when placing and compacting the trench backfill material.
3. If groundwater enters the trench faster than it can be removed by the dewatering system, the underlying compacted soil may become unstable while compacting successive soil lifts. If this occurs, the unstable soil may need to be removed and replaced with free draining open graded drain rock. If drain rock is used, it should meet or exceed the following gradation specifications: 100 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve, 95 to 100 percent passing the ½-inch sieve, 70 to 100 percent passing the ⅜-inch sieve, 0 to 55 percent passing the No. 4 sieve, 0 to 10 percent passing the No. 8 sieve, and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Other approved backfill materials can again be used after placing the drain rock to an elevation that is higher than the groundwater.
4. We recommend that the utility trench excavations be performed as late in the summer months as possible to allow the groundwater table to reach its lowest seasonal elevation.
5.1.11 Surface Water Drainage
Proper surface water drainage is important to the successful development of the project. We recommend
the following measures to help mitigate surface water drainage problems:
1. Slope final grades in structural areas so that surface water drains away from building pad finish subgrade at a minimum 2 percent slope for a minimum distance of 10 feet. For structures utilizing slab-on-grade interior floor systems we recommend increasing the slope to 4 percent.
2. To reduce surface water infiltration, compact and slope all soil placed adjacent to building foundations such that water is not allowed to pond. Backfill should be free of deleterious materials.
3. Direct downspouts to positive drainage or a closed collector pipe that discharges flow to positive drainage.
4. Construct V-ditches at the top of cut and fill slopes where necessary to reduce concentrated surface water flow over slope faces. Typically, V-ditches should be 3 feet wide and at least 6 inches deep. Surface water collected in V-ditches should be directed away and downslope from proposed building pads and driveways into a drainage channel.
5.1.12 Soil Corrosion Potential
We reviewed the NCRS Web Soil Survey Soil Conservation Service (https://
websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). Based on review of soil survey information, the native soil conditions onsite possess a low corrosion potential for concrete and a high corrosion potential for uncoated steel.
A select soil sample collected from the site was evaluated and tested for soil corrosion potential by Sunland Analytical. The soil sample tested was collected at a depth of approximately 1.0 to 3.0 feet bgs. The test results are summarized in Section 3.0, Laboratory Testing, Table 3-4.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Pursuant to Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (202 1), minimum soil resistivity less than 1,100 ohms-cm indicates the presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. The guidelines state that corrosive conditions include:
• Chloride concentrations greater than 500 ppm,
• Sulfide concentrations greater than 1,500 ppm, or
• pH 5.5 or less.
The tested soil has a relatively high minimum resistivity (1,720 ohms-cm), low chloride and sulfide concentrations (5.6 ppm and 106.2 ppm, respectively), and neutral soil pH (6.58) indicating a non- corrosive environment pursuant to Caltrans guidelines.
Chloride and sulfate concentrations less than 110 ppm are not typically considered corrosive to reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar-coated steel. Typical concrete mix designs from this area contain Type II/V cement. Buried metallic piping should be properly protected against corrosion in accordance with the pipe manufacture recommendations.
To reduce the likelihood of corrosion problems, materials used for underground utilities, permanent subsurface drainage improvements, and foundation systems should be selected based on local experience and practice. If alternative or new construction methods or materials are being proposed, it may be appropriate to have the selected materials evaluated by a corrosion engineer for compatibility with the onsite soil and groundwater conditions.
5.1.13 Grading Plan Review and Construction Monitoring
Coordination between the design team and the geotechnical engineer is recommended to assure that the
design is compatible with the geotechnical Site conditions encountered during NV5s geotechnical investigation. NV5s experience, and that of the geotechnical engineering profession, clearly indicates that risks of costly design, construction and maintenance problems can be significantly reduced by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications prior to construction, and to provide geotechnical engineering consultation, observation and construction quality assurance (CQA) services during construction. CQA includes the review of plans and specifications and construction monitoring as described below.
1. NV5 should be retained to review the final earthwork grading plans prior to Site development to verify NV5s understanding of the proposed improvements, to determine whether NV5s recommendations have been incorporated in the project design, and if necessary to provide additional and/or modified recommendations.
2. NV5 should be retained to perform construction quality assurance (CQA) monitoring of all earthwork grading to verify that NV5s recommendations are implemented, to verify that Site conditions are similar to those encountered at the exploratory locations, and if necessary to provide additional and/or modified recommendations. NV5 cannot assume responsibility or liability for the projects geotechnical performance if NV5 is not retained to provide geotechnical CQA services during project development.
5.2 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
This section of the report presents general recommendations to reduce the possibility of near- surface gro
undwater entering below grade areas. We understand that an interior raised floor and crawlspace is currently proposed for the new building and that Stormtech Arch Chambers are Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
proposed for impervious surface drainage storage and infiltration. For the discussion of subsurface drainage re
lated to grading, refer to Section 5.1.10, Construction Dewatering. Based on our observations and past experience with geotechnical investigations in the project vicinity, there is a likely potential for seasonal saturation of near-surface soil and groundwater seepage into foundation areas. Depending on final site grades, rainfall, irrigation practices, and other factors beyond the scope of this study, perched groundwater will likely develop seasonally above on-site hardpan, rock, or fine-grained soil. Near-surface groundwater may enter under-floor crawlspaces, migrate through concrete floor slabs, degrade asphalt concrete pavements, increase frost heave, and contribute to other adverse conditions.
5.2.1 Perimeter Foundation Drains
Where interior crawl spaces are lower than adjacent exterior grade, exterior subdrains should be installed ad
jacent to perimeter foundations, except on the downhill side, to prevent surface runoff from entering the crawl space. Foundation drains should consist of trenches that are at least 12 inches below the crawl space surface and are sloped to drain by gravity. Four-inch diameter perforated pipe sloped to drain to outlets by gravity should be placed in the bottom of the trenches.
The top of subdrain pipes should be at least 12 inches lower than the adjacent crawl space grade.
The perimeter subdrain trenches should be backfilled to within 6 inches of the surface with Class 2 permeable material or ¾-inch drain rock wrapped in filter fabric. The upper 6 inches should be backfilled with compacted soil to exclude surface water. Where perimeter foundation drains are not used, water ponding in the crawl space should be anticipated. Where retaining walls are used for perimeter foundations, retaining wall backdrains may be used in lieu of foundation drains.
5.2.2 Crawl Space Drains
Crawl spaces are inherently damp and humid. In addition, groundwater seepage is unpredictable and diffic
ult to control and, regardless of the care used in installing perimeter foundation drains, can find its way into crawl spaces. Care should be taken to reduce water and moisture introduced into the building interior, including crawlspaces, during construction.
We recommend that the elevation of the interior subgrade in the crawlspace be higher than the exterior ground surface. If the design of the building is such that the crawlspace must be lower than the surrounding grade, drains should be installed in the crawlspace area.
The subgrade should be sloped to collect and divert water to drains that exit under or through the foundation (positive crawlspace drainage). If site grades do not permit gravity draining, this water should be collected in a sump and pumped to an infiltration facility. All vegetation and highly organic soil should be removed from the crawlspace area. Adequate ventilation should be provided in all crawlspace areas to promote drying. The project architect and owner should consider the need for an automated mechanical ventilation system. Care should be taken during construction to reduce the amount of moisture that gets sealed into crawlspaces.
Drains should extend to a properly designed infiltration facility. Recommended subsurface drain locations can be provided at the time of construction and when foundation elevations and configuration are known. Due to the gentle topography of the Site, elevations of foundations and crawlspaces should be carefully planned so that it is possible to install gravity-fed drains that daylight a minimum of 10 feet from structures, or a nearby collection system. Subsurface and foundation drain locations should be included on the project plans.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
The ground surface within the crawl space should be sloped to drain away from foundations and toward
a 12-inch square drain trench that is excavated through the longitudinal axis of the crawl space. A 4-inch diameter perforated drainpipe (SDR 35 or better) should be embedded in Class 2 permeable materials, or ¾-inch drain rock wrapped in filter fabric near the bottom of the trench. The drain rock should extend to the surface of the crawl space. Piped outlets should be provided to allow drainage of the collected water through foundations and discharge into the storm drain system.
5.3 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA
The following sections present our structural improvement design criteria and recommendations.
The recommend
ations address foundations, seismic parameters, concrete slabs-on-grade, isolated spread footings, retaining walls and pavement design.
5.3.1 Seismic Design Criteria
NV5 developed the code-based seismic design parameters in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC and t
he Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps web application, formerly facilitated by the USGS. The internet-based application (https://seismicmaps.org/) is used for determining seismic design values from the 2016 ASCE-7 Standard, and the 2021 International Building Code (2021 IBC) in accordance with the 2022 CBC. The spectral acceleration, site class, site coefficients, adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration, and design spectral acceleration parameters are presented in Table 5-4. The Seismic Design Parameter detailed report from the SEAOC/OSHPD analysis is provided in Appendix C.
Our classification of on-site soil conditions is based on our field observations. The onsite soil appeared to generally consists of predominantly fine-grained and some granular soil; therefore, we classified the on-site soil as stiff soil (Site Class D) for design purposes.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
Table 5-4, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Description Value Reference
Latitude North (degree) 38.7356003 Google Earth
Longitude West (degree) -121.2716226 Google Earth
Site Coefficient, FA 1.452 2022 CBC, Table 1613.2.3(1), SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps
Site Coefficient, FV 2.200 a 2022 CBC, Table 1613.2.3(2) ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8
Site Class D = Stiff Soil ASCE 7-16 Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1 Short (0.2 sec) Spectral
Response, SS (g) 0.436 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.2,
SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps
Long (1.0 sec) Spectral
Response, S1 (g) 0.220 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.2
Short (0.2 sec) MCE Spectral
Response, SMS (g) 0.632 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.4,
SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps
Long (1.0 sec) MCE Spectral
Response, SM1 (g) 0.484 a 2022 CBC, Section 1613.2.3
ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8
Short (0.2 sec ) Design Spectral
Response, SDS (g) 0.422 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.5,
SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps
Long (1.0 sec) Design Spectral
Response, SD1 (g) 0.323 a 2022 CBC, Section 1613.2.4
ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8
Risk Category (I, II, III or IV) II ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.5 Seismic Design Category, SDC D a 2022 CBC, Section 1613.2.5 Geometric Mean Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGAM) (g) 0.265 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.8.3, SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps
Notes: a = Pursuant to CBC 2022, referenced sections 1613.2.3, 1613.2.4, and 1613.5 for applicable values.
Requirements pertaining to site-specific ground motions are described in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 Exception 2 for Site Class D.
CBC = California Building Code
MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake
g = gravitational acceleration (9.81 meters per second2 = 32.2 feet per second2) sec = second
5.3.2 Shallow Foundations
Provi
ded that the grading for the project is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented
in this report, NV5s opinion is that the site will be suitable for the use of conventional lightly loaded shallow foundations including continuous and isolated spread foundations. The following recommendations apply to foundations constructed on compacted and tested fill (engineered fill) or competent native soil/rock.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
5.3.2.1 Shallow Continuous and Isolated Spread Foundations
1. Foo
tings for single story structures should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and trenched through any loose surface material, potentially expansive soil, or untested fill, and a minimum of 12 inches into competent native soil, weathered rock or compacted fill. Footings for two-story structures, if proposed, should be a minimum of 15 inches wide and trenched a minimum of 18 inches into competent native soil, weathered rock or compacted fill.
2. If expansive clay is encountered at the base of footing excavations, the footing should be deepened through the clay lens into underlying granular material or weathered rock, as determined in the field by NV5. Alternatively, footings could be designed on a case-by-case basis to mitigate expansive soil effects without deepening the footing through a clay lens.
3. In the event bedrock is encountered at a depth shallower than the depths specified above, a representative from NV5 may observe the excavation depth to determine if the rock is competent and capable of supporting the recommended bearing capacity without further excavation. Rock dowels can be used to dowel the footings to rock for lateral resistance.
Dowels should be sized by a representative from our firm.
4. The base of the footing excavation should be approximately level. On sloping sites, it will be necessary to step the base of the footing excavation as necessary to maintain a slope of less than 10 percent at the base of the footing.
5. Footing trenches should be cleaned of all loose soil and construction debris prior to placing concrete. A representative from NV5 should observe the footing excavations prior to concrete placement.
6. As a minimum, the footings should be designed with two No. 4 rebar reinforcement, one near the top of the footing and one near the bottom. A minimum of 3 inches of concrete coverage should surround the bars.
7. Footing excavations should be saturated prior to placing concrete to reduce the risk of problems caused by wicking of moisture from curing concrete. However, concrete should not be placed through standing water in the footing excavations.
8. Bearing Capacity: In an effort to reduce the likelihood of settlement-induced distress to the proposed structures, we recommend that strip and isolated footings with a minimum emb
edment depth of 12 inches in competent soil be sized for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This value can be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment up to a limiting value of 3,600 psf.
Allowable bearing may be increased by 33 percent for additional transient loading, such as wind or seismic loads.
9. Lateral Resistance: A triangularly-distributed lateral resistance (passive soil resistance) of 300d psf, where d is footing depth, may be used for footings. This value may be increased by 33 per
cent for wind and seismic. As an alternate to the passive soil resistance described above, a coefficient of friction for resistance to sliding of 0.3 may be used. The higher of the two values should be reduced by 50 percent if both resisting values are to be used.
10. Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the plan dimensions of the foundation and actual structural loading. Based on anticipated foundation dimensions and loads, we estimate that total post-construction settlement of footings designed and Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
constructed in accordance with our recommendations will be on the order of ½-inch.
Differenti
al settlement between similarly loaded, adjacent footings is expected to be less than ¼-inch, provided footings are founded on similar materials (e.g., all on structural fill, native soil, or rock). Differential settlement between adjacent footings founded on dissimilar materials (e.g., one footing on soil and an adjacent footing on rock) may approach the maximum anticipated total settlement. Settlement of foundations is expected to occur rapidly and should be essentially complete shortly after initial application of loads. Care should be taken to avoid constructing footings for the structures in varying material due to the presence of shallow bedrock to prevent differential settlement and point loading.
11. Prior to placing concrete in any foundation excavation, the project geotechnical engineer or their field representative should observe the excavations to document that the following requirements have been achieved: minimum foundation dimensions, minimum reinforcement steel placement and dimensions, removal of all loose soil, rock, wood debris or other deleterious materials, and that firm and competent native or engineered fill soil is exposed along the entire foundation excavation bottom and no expansive soil is observed.
Strict adherence to these requirements is paramount to the satisfactory behavior of a building foundation. Minor deviations from these requirements can cause the foundations to undergo minor to severe amounts of settlement which can result in cracks developing in the foundation and adjacent structural members, such as concrete slab-on-grade floors.
5.3.3 Slab-on-Grade Floor Systems
NV5 understands exterior concrete sidewalks and a non-structural crawl space slab will likely be construct
ed for the proposed improvements. We also understand an elevated floor, used in conjunction with perimeter concrete foundations, is proposed for the new building, and asphalt pavements are proposed for parking and driveway areas. If interior concrete slab-on-grade building floors or exterior concrete pavements are alternately proposed, NV5 should review the project plans and provide additional slab-on-grade recommendations.
This section presents typical slab sidewalk sections and non-structural crawl space slabs used for construction in the region and construction recommendations. The concrete slab-on-grade components are described below from top to bottom. The concrete exterior sidewalk areas should be evaluated by a California-licensed civil engineer for expected live and dead loads to determine if the minimum slab thickness and steel reinforcement recommendations presented in this report should be increased or redesigned. If static or intermittent live floor loads greater than 250 pounds per square foot (psf) are anticipated, then a California-licensed structural engineer should design the necessary concrete slab-on-grade floor thickness and steel reinforcements.
1. Minimum 4-Inch-Thick Concrete Slab: The concrete sidewalk should be installed with a minimum 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength after 28 days of curing. NV5 reco
mmends that the concrete design have a water/cement ratio no greater than 0.45 and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 3 and 5 inches, respectively.
Pozzolans or other additives may be added to increase workability. The concrete mix design is the responsibility of the concrete supplier. The slab-on-grade and sidewalk should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for areas without traffic loading, unless additional thickness is required by local agency standards.
2. Steel Reinforcement: Reinforcement should be used to improve the load-carrying capacity, to reduce cracking caused by shrinkage during curing and from both differential and repeated loading
s. It should be understood that it is nearly impossible to prevent all cracks from Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
development in concrete slabs; in other words, it should be expected that some cracking will occur
in all concrete slabs no matter how well they are reinforced. Concrete slabs that will be subjected to heavy loads should be designed with steel reinforcements by a California- licensed structural engineer.
3. Minimum 4-Inch-Thick Crushed Rock or Class II Aggregate Base Rock Layer: Exterior floors should use either crushed rock or Class II AB rock. Crushed rock should be mechanically consolidat
ed under the observation of NV5. AB rock layers should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with a moisture content of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The crushed rock should be washed to produce a particle size distribution of 100 percent (by dry weight) passing the ¾ inch sieve and 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
An alternative rock material for external slab-on-grade concrete surfaces would include AB rock meeting the specification of Caltrans Class II AB. Just prior to pouring the concrete slab, the rock layer should be moistened to a saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. This measure will reduce the potential for water to be withdrawn from the bottom of the concrete slab while it is curing and will help minimize the development of shrinkage cracks.
4. Concrete slabs impart a relatively small load on the subgrade (approximately 50 psf).
Therefore
, some vertical movement should be anticipated from possible expansion, freeze- thaw cycles, or differential loading. If the current property owner elects to eliminate the crushed rock or AB rock layer beneath the exterior concrete slabs-on-grade for economic reasons, then there will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the development of both shrinkage and bearing-related cracks in the associated slabs.
5. Subgrade Soil Preparation: The subgrade soil should be prepared and compacted consistent with the recommendations of Section 5.1, Grading. The top 12 inches of the non-expansive soi
l should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with relatively uniform moisture content within 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. Prior to placing slab rock, subgrade soil must be moisture conditioned to between 75 and 90 percent saturation to a depth of 24 inches. Moisture conditioning should be performed for a minimum of 24 hours prior to concrete placement.
Clayey soil may take up to 72 hours to reach this required degree of saturation. If the soil is not moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete, moisture will be wicked out of the concrete, possibly contributing to shrinkage cracks. Additionally, our opinion is that moisture conditioning the soil prior to placing concrete will reduce the likelihood of soil swell or heave following construction at locations where fine grained, potentially expansive soil is encountered. To facilitate slab-on-grade construction, we recommend that the slab subgrade soil be moisture conditioned following rock placement.
6. Crack Control Grooves: Crack control grooves should be installed during placement or deep tool cuts should be made in accordance with the ACI and Portland Cement Association (PCA) and Ci
ty specifications. Generally, NV5 recommends that expansion joints be installed on 10-foot-centers in both directions (perpendicular).
7. Field Observations: Field observations of all concrete slab-on-grade surfaces and installed steel reinforcements should be made by an NV5 construction monitor prior to pouring concre
te.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
8. Concrete slabs should be moisture cured for at least seven days after placement. Excessive curling
of the slab may occur if moisture conditioning is not performed. This is especially critical for slabs that are cast during the warm summer months.
5.3.4 Pavement Design
The following recommended asphalt concrete flexible pavement sections are based on a design R-value of 1
8 and preliminary traffic indices (TIs) of 4 and 5 for light-auto roadway and parking.
Pavement design is presented in Table 5-5 below unless additional section is required by local agency standards. The TIs are being considered on a preliminary basis to facilitate planning of the proposed onsite roadways. Other TIs may need to be considered in design if heavy vehicle loads or offsite roadway improvements are proposed.
Table 5-5, Recommended Pavement Sections
Development
Zone
(Design R-Value)
Traffic Description
Traffic
Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2 Baserock
95% Compaction
(inches)
Subgrade Soil
95% Compaction
(inches)
Auto Parking 4 2.5 7.0 12.0
Native Site Soil
(18)
Residential Streets,
Light Traffic 5 2.5 9.0 12.0
We make the following recommendations regarding paving at the site.
1. S
tructural fill placed beneath pavement sections must be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. The upper 12 inches of subgrade in areas to be paved must be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent per ASTM D1557. Moisture content, dry density and relative compaction should be evaluated by NV5. In addition to density testing, the subgrade should be proof-rolled under the observation of a representative of NV5 prior to baserock placement. The prepared finished subgrade soil surface should be proof-rolled with a fully loaded, 4,000-gallon-capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a double-axle, tandem-wheel undercarriage or approved equivalent. The proof-rolled surface should be visually observed by the project engineer or their field representative to be firm, competent and relatively unyielding.
2. Class II aggregate baserock (AB) should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent per ASTM D1557 and similarly proof-rolled under the observation of NV5.
3. The subgrade adjacent to paved areas should be sloped to drain away from the proposed road alignment.
4. Import soil, if used, should be predominantly granular, non-expansive and free of deleterious material. Proposed import should be submitted to NV5 for testing prior to transport to the site.
5. Steel reinforced concrete slabs should be considered for use in garbage facilities, and other areas where frequent, heavy vehicle loads are anticipated. The project structural engineer should determine slab thickness and steel reinforcement.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
6. In areas where heavy construction storage and wheel loads are anticipated, the pavements should
be designed to support these loads. Support could be provided by increasing pavement sections or by providing reinforced concrete slabs. Alternatively, paving can be deferred until heavy construction storage and wheel loads are no longer present. Loading areas for self-loading dumpster trucks should be provided with reinforced concrete slabs at least 6 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars at 12-inch centers each way.
7. To improve pavement performance and lifespan, we recommend promoting drainage of the pavement subgrade. Drainage can be accomplished through roadway layout and design, subdrains, and/or roadside ditches. NV5 should evaluate pavement subgrade at the time of construction and provide location-specific recommendations for subdrains. Typical subdrains consist of a shallow trench with a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe encased in open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Pavement subgrade should be graded and prepared such that water drains from beneath the pavement section to a properly designed infiltration facility. Subdrains may be used in conjunction with roadside ditches located on one or both sides of the roadway. Roadside ditches should be constructed to a depth greater than the proposed pavement and subdrain section. Ditches should be rock-lined or vegetated to help reduce erosion and convey water to a properly designed infiltration facility.
8. We recommend installing cut-off curbs where paved areas abut landscaped areas to reduce migration of irrigation water into subgrade soil or baserock, promoting asphalt failure. Cut-off curbs should be a minimum of 4-inches wide and extend through the aggregate base a minimum of four inches into subgrade soil.
9. These recommendations are intended to provide support for traffic represented by the indicated Traffic Indices. They are not intended to provide pavement sections for heavy concentrated construction storage or wheel loads such as forklifts, parked truck-trailers, and concrete trucks.
10. Depending on the subsurface conditions encountered and the sources of fill, the actual subgrade material may vary significantly from that tested during this investigation.
Representative subgrade samples should be obtained, and additional R-value tests performed, if appropriate, to confirm the recommendations in this report. If the results of confirmation testing vary significantly from those used in design, the recommended pavement sections may need to be revised.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The following limitations apply to the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report:
1. Our professional services were performed consistent with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices employed in northern California. No warranty is expressed or implied.
2. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of our services. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this report. This report is solely for the use of our client unless noted otherwise. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at the party's sole risk.
Project No. 5994.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report
November 1, 2024 701 Sunrise Avenue
3. If changes are made to the nature or design of the project as described in this report, then the conc
lusions and recommendations presented in this report should be considered invalid.
Only our firm can determine the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Therefore, we should be retained to review all project changes and prepare written responses with regards to their impacts on our conclusions and recommendations.
However, we may require additional fieldwork and laboratory testing to develop any modifications to our recommendations. Costs to review project changes and perform additional fieldwork and laboratory testing necessary to modify our recommendations are beyond the scope of services presented in this report. Any additional work will be performed only after receipt of an approved scope of services, budget, and written authorization to proceed.
4. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time we performed our surface and subsurface field investigations. We have assumed that the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the location of our exploration trenches are generally representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the entire project site. However, the actual subsurface conditions at locations between and beyond our exploratory trenches may differ. Therefore, if the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report, then we should be notified immediately so that we can review these differences and, if necessary, modify our recommendations.
5. The elevation or depth to groundwater underlying the project site may differ with time and location.
6. The project site map shows approximate exploratory trench locations as determined by pacing distances from identifiable site features and/or handheld gps. Therefore, the trench locations should not be relied upon as being exact nor located with surveying methods.
7. Our geotechnical investigation scope of services did not include evaluating the project site for the presence of historic mining operations or hazardous materials. Although we did not observe evidence of historic mining activity or hazardous materials within the proposed building area at the time of our field investigation, all project personnel should be careful and take the necessary precautions should hazardous materials be encountered during construction. Possible historic mining excavation not detected during our investigation may impact the proposed improvements.
8. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the passage of time. The changes may be due to natural processes or to the works of man, on the project site or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards can occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years from the issue date without our review.
FIGURES
Figu
re 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure
2 Exploratory Trench Location Map
NVS
Location Map
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Sunrise Office Center 701 Sunrise Avenue
� Trench Roseville, CA
0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Feet
I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I
0 5 10 20 30 Meters
PROJECT NO. 5994.00
OCTOBER 2024
FIGURE 2
APPENDIX A
Explorat
ory Trench Logs
792 SEARLS AVENUE, NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
DMO 17-0531
NFWE
10:00 (T-1)
-- --
--
--
--
--
A
B
T-1 & T-2
Drive Sample, 2.5-inch ID Brass Liner
Bulk Sample
Project Name:
Project No.:
Task No.:
Location:
Logged By:
Date Logged:
Backhoe Company:
Backhoe Type:
Backfill Description:
Date:
Time (24 Hr. Clock):
Depth bgs (ft):
Scale:
Trench Bearing:
Trench Elev.:
Unit
No.
No.
Ground Water Information
Trench No.
Exploratory
Trench Log
Sample
Soil And/Or Rock Material Descriptions
Depth(Ft) SOIL: USCS Symbol; Name; Particle Size Gradation %; Munsell Color; Density/Consistency; Moisture; Odor; Organics; Cementation; Texture; Refuse; Etc.
ROCK: Unit Name; Lithology; Munsel Color; Cementation; Weathering; Competency; Bedding/Foliation; Fracture/Joint Spacing & Roughness; RQD; Moisture. 1 Grid Square = 1 Square Foot
701 Sunrise Avenue
5994.00 00
701 Sunrise Avenue, Roseville, CA
T. Kull 9-27-2024
Hanson Brothers Enterprises (HBE)
CAT 304, 24-inch Bucket
Loose Soil (Spoils) Backfill
NFWE
11:00 (T-2)
A A
B
T-1 T-2
Concrete Pipe - Storm Drain
2.0 2.0
T1-L1
T1-BK1
T2-L1
4.0 T2-L2
T1-L2
3.0 5.0
(ML) Silt with gravel/cobbles; Field Est.: 60% fines, 40% gravel and cobbles (up to 8- inch diameter); Brown (7.5YR 4/2); Dense; Dry; Rootlets up to 1-inch diamter. (SP) Poorly graded sand; Field Est.: 90% sand, 10% fines; Light brown (7.5YR 6/3) to Brown (7.5YR 5/3); Dense; Dry, Moderate Cementation.
792 SEARLS AVENUE, NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
DMO 17-0531
NFWE
12:00 (T-3)
-- --
-- --
----
A
C
T-3 & T-4
Drive Sample, 2.5-inch ID Brass Liner
Bulk Sample
Project Name:
Project No.:
Task No.:
Location:
Logged By:
Date Logged:
Backhoe Company:
Backhoe Type:
Backfill Description:
Date:
Time (24 Hr. Clock):
Depth bgs (ft):
Scale:
Trench Bearing:
Trench Elev.:
Unit
No.
No.
Ground Water Information
Trench No.
Exploratory
Trench Log
Sample
Soil And/Or Rock Material Descriptions
Depth(Ft) SOIL: USCS Symbol; Name; Particle Size Gradation %; Munsell Color; Density/Consistency; Moisture; Odor; Organics; Cementation; Texture; Refuse; Etc.
ROCK: Unit Name; Lithology; Munsel Color; Cementation; Weathering; Competency; Bedding/Foliation; Fracture/Joint Spacing & Roughness; RQD; Moisture. 1 Grid Square = 1 Square Foot
701 Sunrise Avenue
5994.00 00
701 Sunrise Avenue, Roseville, CA
T. Kull 9-27-2024
Hanson Brothers Enterprises (HBE)
CAT 304, 24-inch Bucket
Loose Soil (Spoils) Backfill
NFWE
13:00 (T-4)
C
C
A A
T-3 T-4
2.5 T4-L1
T3-BK15.0
(ML) Silt with gravel/cobbles; Field Est.: 60% fines, 40% gravel and cobbles (up to 8-inch diameter); Brown (7.5YR 4/2); Dense; Dry; Rootlets. (ML-CL) Sandy silt/clay; Field Est.: 60% fines, 40% poorly graded sand; Light brown (7.5YR 6/3) to Brown (7.5YR 5/3); Very dense; Damp; Highly cemented; Dry roots up to 1-inch diameter.
T4-BK14.5
792 SEARLS AVENUE, NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
DMO 17-0531
NFWE
14:00
--
--
--
A
C
T-5
Drive Sample, 2.5-inch ID Brass Liner
Bulk Sample
Project Name:
Project No.:
Task No.:
Location:
Logged By:
Date Logged:
Backhoe Company:
Backhoe Type:
Backfill Description:
Date:
Time (24 Hr. Clock):
Depth bgs (ft):
Scale:
Trench Bearing:
Trench Elev.:
Unit
No.
No.
Ground Water Information
Trench No.
Exploratory
Trench Log
Sample
Soil And/Or Rock Material Descriptions
Depth(Ft) SOIL: USCS Symbol; Name; Particle Size Gradation %; Munsell Color; Density/Consistency; Moisture; Odor; Organics; Cementation; Texture; Refuse; Etc.
ROCK: Unit Name; Lithology; Munsel Color; Cementation; Weathering; Competency; Bedding/Foliation; Fracture/Joint Spacing & Roughness; RQD; Moisture. 1 Grid Square = 1 Square Foot
701 Sunrise Avenue
5994.00 00
701 Sunrise Avenue, Roseville, CA
T. Kull 9-27-2024
Hanson Brothers Enterprises (HBE)
CAT 304, 24-inch Bucket
Loose Soil (Spoils) Backfill
C
A
T-5
1.0-
3.0 T5-R1
T5-BK15.0
(ML) Silt with gravel/cobbles; Field Est.: 60% fines, 40% gravel and cobbles (up to 8-inch diameter); Brown (7.5YR 4/2); Dense; Dry; Rootlets. (ML-CL) Sandy silt/clay; Field Est.: 60% fines, 40% poorly graded sand; Light brown (7.5YR 6/3) to Brown (7.5YR 5/3); Very dense; Damp; Highly cemented; Dry roots up to 1-inch diameter.
APPENDIX B
Laborat
ory Test Data
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: 5994 Project Name: Date: 10/25/2024
Sample No.: T5-Bk1 Boring/Trench: - Depth, (ft.): 5' Tested By: CTV Description: Checked By: RGK
Sample Location: Lab. No.: 15-24-279
Particle Diameter Dry Weight on Sieve Percent
Inches Millimeter Retained Accumulated Passing Passing
On Sieve On Sieve Sieve
(in.) (mm) (gm) (gm) (gm) (%)
6.0000 152.4 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
3.0000 76.2 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
2.0000 50.8 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
1.5000 38.1 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
1.0000 25.4 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.7500 19.1 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.5000 12.7 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.3750 9.5 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.1870 4.7500 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.0787 2.0000 0.00 0.0 2,103.0 100.0
0.0335 0.8500 17.77 17.8 2,085.2 99.2
0.0167 0.4250 53.71 71.5 2,031.5 96.6
0.0098 0.2500 122.35 193.8 1,909.2 90.8
0.0059 0.1500 212.40 406.2 1,696.8 80.7
0.0030 0.0750 349.69 755.9 1,347.1 64.1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422
701 Sunrise Ave.
Light Brown (7.5YR 6/4) Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
0 Sieve Size
(U.S. Standard)
6 Inch
3 Inch
2 Inch
1.5 Inch
1.0 Inch
3/4 Inch
1/2 Inch
3/8 Inch
#200
Hydrometer
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL #4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
80.0 90.0
100.0
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001,000.000
Percent Passing (%)
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Gradation
ClaySiltFineMedium
SandFine CobbleBoulders Coarse Gravel Coarse
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xls Sieve
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: Project Name: Date: 10/28/2024
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) Tested By: CTV/ALA
Soil Description: Check By: RGK
Sample Location: Lab No.: 15-24-279
Tare Tube Number I.D.
Tare Weight (gm)
Wet Soil + Tare (gm)
Dry Soil + Tare (gm)
Weight of Water (gm)
Dry Soil Weight (gm)
Moisture Content (%)
Soil Height (cm)
Sample Diameter (cm)
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Specific Gravity (dim)
Saturation (%)
Strain Rate (%) Unconfined Shear Strength = psf
Proving Ring Constant (lbs/unit)
Elapsed Area Deviator
Time Units Percent Dial Force Stress
(Minutes) (0.001in/unit) (%) (cm^2) (units) (lbs) (psf) 0:00:00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
0:00:10 10 0.21 18.90 20 22.16 1089.47
0:00:20 20 0.41 18.94 26 28.81 1413.37
0:00:30 30 0.62 18.98 33 36.56 1790.16
0:00:40 40 0.83 19.02 41 45.43 2219.50
0:00:50 50 1.04 19.05 48 53.18 2593.00
0:01:00 60 1.24 19.09 55 60.94 2964.92
0:01:10 70 1.45 19.14 60 66.48 3227.67
0:01:20 80 1.66 19.18 61 67.59 3274.56
0:01:30 90 1.87 19.22 66 73.13 3535.50
0:01:40 100 2.07 19.26 76 84.21 4062.58
0:01:50 110 2.28 19.30 83 91.96 4427.37
0:02:00 120 2.49 19.34 91 100.83 4843.80
0:02:10 130 2.70 19.38 100 110.80 5311.54
0:02:20 140 2.90 19.42 106 117.45 5618.24
0:02:30 150 3.11 19.46 106 117.45 5606.24
0:02:40 160 3.32 19.50 126 139.61 6649.76
0:02:50 170 3.52 19.55 136 150.69 7162.12
0:03:00 180 3.73 19.59 128 141.82 6726.33
0:03:10 0.00
0:03:20 0.00
0:03:30 0.00
0:03:40 0.00
0:03:50 0.00
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL
2.70 47.79
1.21 3,581.1
1.108
Strain Load
420.83
8.52 12.25
4.90 123.43
113.74
Brown (7.5YR 5/4) Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
Sample Data Sample Sketch At Failure
FML
373.96
830.64
794.79
35.85 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
ASTM D2166
5994 107 Sunrise Ave.
T2-L1 Boring/Trench No.: T-2 2.0
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Deviator Stress (psf)
Axial Strain (%)
Deviator Stress vs. Strain
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xlsunconfined 1
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: Project Name: Date: 10/30/2024
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) Tested By: RGK
Soil Description: Check By: KDW
Sample Location: Lab No.: 15-24-279
Tare Tube Number I.D.
Tare Weight (gm)
Wet Soil + Tare (gm)
Dry Soil + Tare (gm)
Weight of Water (gm)
Dry Soil Weight (gm)
Moisture Content (%)
Soil Height (cm)
Sample Diameter (cm)
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Specific Gravity (dim)
Saturation (%)
Strain Rate (%) Unconfined Shear Strength = psf
Proving Ring Constant (lbs/unit)
Elapsed Area Deviator
Time Units Percent Dial Force Stress
(Minutes) (0.001in/unit) (%) (cm^2) (units) (lbs) (psf) 0:00:00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
0:00:05 1 0.02 19.09 33 36.56 1779.11
0:00:10 2 0.05 19.10 86 95.29 4635.41
0:00:15 6 0.14 19.11 122 135.18 6569.89
0:00:20 9 0.20 19.13 152 168.42 8179.90
0:00:25 12 0.27 19.14 184 203.87 9895.27
0:00:30 15 0.34 19.15 204 226.03 10963.40
0:00:35 18 0.41 19.17 233 258.16 12513.43
0:00:40 21 0.47 19.18 256 283.65 13739.33
0:00:45 25 0.56 19.20 275 304.70 14745.68
0:00:50 31 0.70 19.22 280 310.24 14993.36
0:00:55 33 0.74 19.23 273 302.48 14611.89
0:01:00 34 0.77 19.24 254 281.43 13591.86
0:02:10 0.00
0:02:20 0.00
0:02:30 0.00
0:02:40 0.00
0:02:50 0.00
0:03:00 0.00
0:03:10 0.00
0:03:20 0.00
0:03:30 0.00
0:03:40 0.00
0:03:50 0.00
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL
2.70 48.15
0.77 7,496.7
1.108
Strain Load
368.27
10.28 11.27
4.93 117.86
106.87
Brown (7.5YR 5/4) Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
Sample Data Sample Sketch At Failure
EJ
190.07
596.20
558.34
37.86 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
ASTM D2166
5994 107 Sunrise Ave.
T2-L2 Boring/Trench No.: T-2 4.0
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
Deviator Stress (psf)
Axial Strain (%)
Deviator Stress vs. Strain
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xlsunconfined 2
FRICTION ANGLE, (Degree)
COHESION, (psf)
10/29/2024
15-24-279
2.0 Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) Silty Sand (SM)
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE NO.: T1-L1 SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.):
DESCRIPTION: Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) Silty Sand (SM)
SAMPLE NOTES:
PROJECT NAME: 107 Sunrise Ave.
PROJECT NO.: 5994 DATE:
BORING / TRENCH NO.: T-1 LAB NO.:
PARAMETERS PEAK STRENGTH: RESIDUAL STRENGTH:
31.3 33.3
454.7 129.8
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D3080
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
Normal Strain (inches)
Shear Strain (inches)
Shear Strain vs. Normal Strain
1000
2000
3000
0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (inches)
Shear Strain vs. Shear Stress
1000
2000
3000
y = 0.6089x + 454.68
R² = 0.8665
y = 0.6577x + 129.83
R² = 0.9781
0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Shear Stress (psf)
Normal Loads (psf)
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope
Peak Strengths Residual Strengths
Linear (Peak Strengths) Linear (Residual Strengths)
Normal Load (psf)
Normal Load (psf)
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xlsDS
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: Date: 10/2/2024
Lab No.: Performed By: Checked By:
Boring/Trench No. Units T1
Sample No. T1-L2
Depth Interval (ft.) 5'
Sample Description
USCS Symbol
Sample Length (in) 6.060
Sample Diameter (in) 1.920
Sample Volume (cf) 0.0102
Wet Soil + Tube Wt. (gr) 671.11
Tube Wt. (gr) 161.92
Wet Soil Wt. (gr) 509.19
Tare No. JB
Tare Wt. (gr) 193.39
Wet Soil + Tare Wt. (gr) 702.62
Dry Soil + Tare Wt. (gr) 664.64
Water Wt. (gr) 37.98
Dry Soil Wt. (gr) 471.25
Moisture Content (%) 8.1
Wet Unit Wt. (pcf) 110.6
Moisture Content (%) 8.1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) 102.3
Gauge Moisture (%)
K Value Correction Factor
Test Method
Curve No.
Max Wet Unit Wt. (pcf)
Max Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)
Optimum Moisture (%)
Wet Relative Comp. (%)
Dry Relative Comp. (%)
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL
SAMPLE LOCATION DATA
SAMPLE DIMENSION AND WEIGHT DATA
MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
TEST RESULTS
MOISTURE CORRECTION DATA
COMPACTION CURVE DATA (ASTM D698, ASTM D1557, or CAL216)
MOISTURE & DENSITY
ASTM D2216 & D2937
5994.00 Project Name: 107 Sunrise Ave.
15-24-279 ALA RGK
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xlsMD
ASTM D4318
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: 5994.00 Project Name: Date: 10/2/2024
Sample No.: T3-BK1 Boring/Trench: T3 Depth, (ft.): 5' Tested By: ALA Description: Checked By: RGK
Sample Location: Lab. No.: 15-24-279
Estimated % of Sample Retained on No. 40 Sieve: 35 yes
A
Sample No.: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
Pan ID: TD TG PD R EE
Wt. Pan (gr) 50.40 50.63 50.35 15.02 15.57
Wt. Wet Soil + Pan (gr) 59.95 58.20 57.45 21.69 21.69
Wt. Dry Soil + Pan (gr) 58.30 56.84 56.09 20.81 20.91
Wt. Water (gr) 1.65 1.36 1.36 0.88 0.78
Wt. Dry Soil (gr) 7.90 6.21 5.74 5.79 5.34
Water Content (%) 20.9 21.9 23.7 15.2 14.6
Number of Blows, N 35 25 17
22 15
14.9 15 Plasticity Index = 7
Group Symbol ML
LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT:
LIQUID LIMIT = PLASTIC LIMIT =
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTERBERG INDICES
107 Sunrise Ave.
Light Brown ( 7.5YR 6/4) Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML)
Sample Air Dried:
Test Method A or B:
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
1 10 100
Number of Blows (N)
Flow Curve
Water Content (%)
CL-
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Atterberg Classification Chart
CH or OH
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xlsAtterbergs
DSA File #:
DSA Appl #:
Project No.: 5994 Date: 10/2/2024
Sample No.: T3-BK1 Depth (ft.) 5' Tested By: RGK
Soil Description: Checked By: KDW
Notes: Lab. No.: 15-24-279
Specimen Type: Undisturbed: Disturbed: Remolded to:
4 1.00
Test wt. 144 Test wt. Test wt.
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
Tare Tube Number Tare Number
Tare Weight (gr) Tare Ring Weight (gr) 368.55 368.55
Wet Soil + Tare (gr) Tare Pan Weight (gr) 0.00 408.53 Dry Soil + Tare (gr) Wet Soil + Tare (gr) 733.26 1184.89 Weight of Water (gr) 0.00 Dry Soil + Tare (gr) 689.92 1098.45 0.00 0.00 Dry Soil Weight (gr) 0.00 Weight of Water (gr) 43.34 86.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moisture Content (%) 0.00 Dry Soil Weight (gr) 321.37 321.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (In.) Moisture Content (%) 13.49 26.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 110.58 123.21 Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 97.44 97.10 Sample Height (Inches) 1.00 1.004
2.7 Percent Saturation 49.94 98.78
Elapsed Change Elapsed Change Elapsed Change
Time in Height Time in Height Time in Height
(m:s) (Inches) (m:s) (Inches) (m:s) (Inches)
0.0 0.0000
Test wt. 144 1.0 -0.0049
Test wt. 2.0 -0.0048
Test wt. 4.0 -0.0041
8.0 -0.0030
15.0 -0.0021
30.0 -0.0013
60.0 -0.0004
120.0 0.0011
240.0 0.0019
480.0 0.0026
960.0 0.0032
1440.0 0.0035
792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CQA – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL 51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Very High
Expansion Index Values and Descriptions
Expansion Index Potential Expansion
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
4 4
Soil Height
Specific Gravity
Expansion Index Number
Uncorrected
Corrected to 50%
SaturationSurcharge (psf)
FIELD DATA LAB DATA
Tube Sample Moisture & Density
CTP
Light Brown (7.5YR 6/4) Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML)
Estimated % of sample retained on #4:
ASTM Guidelines
Tube Dia. (Inch) = Ring Dia. (Inch) = Ring Height (Inch) =
EXPANSION INDEX/SWELL
ASTM D4829
Project Name: 107 Sunrise Ave.
Boring/Trench No.: T3
-0.0060
-0.0050
-0.0040
-0.0030
-0.0020
-0.0010
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 Inches
Minutes
Expansion Versus Time
144
5994.00 Sunrise Ave. Lab 15-24-279.xls EI
PEI Laboratory No.: L243298 NV5 Project Name: 701 Sunrise Ave.
PEI Client: NV5 NV5 Project No.: 5994
PEI Project Name: 2024 Laboratory Testing NV5 Date Sampled:
PEI Project No.: 240018-01 NV5 Office: Nevada City
Report Date: October 9, 2024 NV5 Lab No.: 15-24-279
Sample Description: Brown Clay NV5 Sample ID: T5-R1 @ 1'-3' Specimen No. 1 2 3
Moisture Content (%) 14.9 15.9 16.4
Dry Density (PCF) 119.1 116.8 115.9
Resistance Value (R) 29 14 3
Exudation Pressure (PSI) 406 266 165
Expansion Pressure 87 43 0
14.9 RESISTANCE VALUE AT 300 P.S.I. 18
Reviewed By:
Brandon Rodebaugh
RESISTANCE (R) VALUE TEST
ASTM D2844
Materials Engineer
As Received Moisture Content (%)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0100200300400500600700800
Resistance Value
Exudation Pressure (P.S.I.)
Resistance Value Test 300 P.S.I.
APPENDIX C
Seismic
Design Criteria (SEAOC/OSHPD)
USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error.
USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected. 701 Sunrise Ave, Roseville, CA 95661, USA
Latitude, Longitude: 38.7356003, -121.2716226
Date 10/21/2024, 3:03:20 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
SS 0.436 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.22 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS 0.632 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.422 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1.452 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.185 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.43 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.265 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds
SsRT 0.436 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 0.457 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.22 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.233 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAUH 0.185 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.953 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.942 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV 0.99 Vertical coefficient
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Title/File Number: INFILL PCL 183, 229, 305 – Sunrise Office Center Project Location: 705 Sunrise Av.
Project Description:
The applicant requests approval of a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 7,300 sf general medical office building and a Flood Encroachment Permit to allow site construction within the existing Cirby Creek floodplain. The project also includes a Tree Permit to remove three (3) protected Valley oak trees.
Environmental Document ISMND, SCH # 2024120281
Project Applicant: Robert Wood, Millenium Planning and Engineering Property Owner: Kurdi Management, LLC
Lead Agency Contact Person: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid signific ant effects on the environment." This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental impacts
MONITORING PROCESS: Existing monitoring mechanisms are in place that assist the City of Roseville in meeting the intent of CEQA. These existing monitoring mechanisms eliminate the need to develop new monitoring processes for each mitigation measure. These mechanisms includ e grading plan review and approval, improvement/building plan review and approval and on-site inspections by City Departments. Given that these monitoring processes are requirements of the project, they are not included in the mitigation monitoring program.
It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant/owner to provide written notification to the City using the Mitigation Verification Cover Sheet and Forms, in a timely manner, of the completion of each Mitigation Measure as identified on the following pages. The City will verify that the project is in compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Any non-compliance will be reported by the City to the applicant/owner, and it shall be the project applicant’s/owner’s responsibility to rectify the situation by bringing the project into compliance. The purpose of this program is to ensure diligent and good faith compliance with the Mitigation Measures which have been adopted as part of the project.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
TABLE OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Documents to be Submitted to City
Staff Use Only
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Nesting Sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:
a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30th and February 15th to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area.
b) For Swainson’s hawk, if avoidance of tree removal outside the breeding season is not feasible, and a nest is present, the applicants would be required to obtain a 2081 permit from CDFG to mitigate for potential “take” under CESA. If no nesting is occurring, a take permit would not be required. c) Prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15 th and August 30th, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30 -days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests or burro ws are found, and the site is within 350-feet of potential construction activity, a highly visible temporary fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 350-feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area. d) Preconstruction and non -breeding season exclusion measures shall be developed in consultation with CDFG, and shall preclude burrowing owl occupation of the portions of the project site subject to disturbance such as grading. Burrowing owls may be passivel y excluded from burrows in construction areas by placing one -way doors in the burrows according to CDFG protocol. The one -way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation must be cleared with the one- way doors. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of the one - way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow.
e) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones) unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species.
f) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30 th or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.
Results of preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted prior to the issuance
of a grading permit or Improvement
Plans. Applicable construction
restrictions shall be reflected within
plans.
Pre-Construction and Construction:
Surveys required prior to
construction. If surveys are
positive for birds, then remainder of
mitigation steps are required prior
to construction.
Add as note on Improvement Plans.
Engineering Nesting Bird Surveys
Mitigation Measure CUL -1 – Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist
Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed to assess the resource and provide proper management This condition shall be reflected in all
construction and building plans, and
construction site workers shall be
advised by the site manager of this
measure.
Construction: Measure applies if
resources are discovered during
construction.
Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans.
Engineering and Building None
recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary for the protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to b e Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 -- Cease Work Until Review Conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.
This condition shall be reflected in all
construction and building plans, and
construction site workers shall be
advised by the site manager of this
measure.
Construction: Measure applies if
resources are discovered during
construction.
Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans.
Engineering and Building None
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Post-Review Discovery Procedures If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archeologist or project archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor, or, in the absence of either, contact the consulting tribe(s) and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate mana gement recommendations in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) if the find is a tribal cultural resource.
All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and consulting tribes and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no- work radius.
The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource.
The type of discovery, as described below will determine the subsequent actions.
These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of s oil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for This condition shall be reflected in all
construction and building plans, and
construction site workers shall be
advised by the site manager of this
measure.
Construction: Measure applies if
resources are discovered during
construction.
Add as note on Improvement Plans
and Building Plans.
Engineering and Building None
discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.
Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination.
Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.
The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
Response to False Alarms : If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the Cit y’s representative. No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation o f this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors.
Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-tribal resources.
Notice shall include the photograph and descri ption of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non -tribal, work shall not resume within the no -work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Response to Tribal Discoveries : If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no -work radius until the City, through consultation as appropria te, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on -site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbanc e (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 sha ll be implemented.
If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides struct ure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).
If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate In formation Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through c onsultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
MITIGATION VERIFICATION SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
Project Title/Planning File #
Project Address
Property Owner
Planning Division Contact
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL Mitigation Measure Supporting Attachments Included Date Complete
I HAVE ATTACHED THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED ITEMS:
☐ Table of Applicable Mitigation Measures
☐ Mitigation Verification Form(s)
☐ Specific supporting documentation required by measure(s), if applicable (e.g. biologist’s report) I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner or an agent of the property owner and am authorized to submit this Mitigation Verification Form. I also certify that the above -listed mitigation measures have been completed in the manner required, and that all of the information in this submittal is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge:
Signature and Date Print Name Contact Number
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM
Mitigation Measure
Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. The following information is a required part of the description:
dates, personnel names or titles, and the stage/phase of construction work. Additional notes sheets may be attached, if necessary, or the below may simply reference a separate attachment that provides the required information.
INSTRUCTIONS
COVER SHEET:
A Cover Sheet for the project/development is prepared by City staff, with the top portion filled out. Each time Mitigation Verification Forms(s) are being submitted, a Cover Sheet completed by the Developer, Contractor, or Designee is required. An example of a completed summary table is provided below. The signature on the Cover Sheet must be original wet ink.
EXAMPLE MITIGATION VERIFICATION SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
Project Title/Planning File # New Coffee Shop, PL15-0000 Project Address 10 Justashort Street
Property Owner Jane Owner
Planning Division Contact Joe Planner, Associate Planner, (916) 774-####
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL Mitigation
Measure Supporting Attachments Included Date Complete
MM-3 Copy of survey report signed by biologist 5/10/2016 MM-4 All information included in Mitigation Verification Form 5/12/2016 MM-5 E-mail from Air District approving Dust Control Plan 5/05/2016
MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM:
A Mitigation Verification Form is provided by City staff, along with the Cover Sheet and Table of Applicable Mitigation Measures. A form is filled in and submitted for each mitigation measure by the Developer, Contractor, or Designee. The form needs only the mitigation number to be filled in, along with the Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. Multiple forms may be submitted simultaneously, under one cover sheet. It is also permissible to submit a form for each part of a measure, on separate dates. For instance, in the example measure MM-4 in the table above, the actual mitigation requires informing construction workers and retaining a qualified archeologist if resources are uncovered.
Thus, a developer may submit a form in May certifying that construction workers have been informed, and also submit a second copy of the form in July because resources were discovered and add itional actions had to be undertaken.
Each mitigation measure specifies the type of supporting documentation required; this must be submitted in order for the City to accept the mitigation as complete. An example of a completed Mitigation Verification Form is provided below.
EXAMPLE
MITIGATION VERIFICATION FORM
Mitigation Measure MM3
Description of Monitoring and Verification Work Performed. The following information is a required part of the description:
dates, personnel names or titles, and the stage/phase of construction work. Additional notes sheets may be attached, if necessary, or the below may simply reference a separate attachment that provides the required information.
The mitigation measure text is included on the Improvement Plans General Notes page (Improvement Plan EN15-0001).
On May 4, 2016, prior to any ground-disturbing activities (the pre-construction phase), a site meeting was held. At this meeting, workers on the site were informed of the potential to unearth remains, and were instructed to cease work and notify their supervisor immediately if any resources were observed.
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING RESERVED
PARKING
COMPACT
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING RESERVED
PARKING
COMPACT
DESIGNED BY: MCL
SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER
705 SUNRISE AVE
471 SUTTON WAY, SUITE 210, GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 446-6765 DRAWN BY: BES
PROJECT NO.: 23-0709
SHEET NUMBER:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
PRELIMINARY
APN
SITE AREA
SITE ADDRESS
PLANNING & CIVIL ENGINEERING
ZONING/GENERAL PLAN
VICINITY MAP
PARKING STATISTICS
SITE STATISTICS
SUNRISE AVE
VERTICAL DATUM
OWNER/APPLICANT
PROJECT INFORMATION
SHEET INDEX
SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR
BUILDING STATISTICS
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C1.0
SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER
PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLANS
705 SUNRISE AVE. ROSEVILLE, CA
AUGUST, 2024
FOR
LEGEND
PRELIMINARY STRIPING NOTE
EV CHARGING
ONLY
SITE PLAN
FIRE / REFUSE TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT
PC EXHIBIT B
G
G
G
G
G
G
TT
TT
T
T
SMH
EL BOX
WV
SSCO
B
EL BOX
SMH
SMH
SMH
SSCO
SSCO
SDMH
SDMH
B
B
B
B
WM
WM
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
FV
FV
FV
WV
WV WV
FV
WM
IRRIGATION VALVES
ON CONC. PAD
TRANSFORMER
ON CONC. PAD
GM
EM
EL BOX
WP WP
WP
WP
WP WP
WP
WP
WV
WV
145
140
140 140
140
140
140
140140
140
135
FV
WV SSCO
DESIGNED BY: MCL
SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER
705 SUNRISE AVE
471 SUTTON WAY, SUITE 210, GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 446-6765 DRAWN BY: BES
PROJECT NO.: 23-0709
SHEET NUMBER:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
PRELIMINARY
SUNRISE AVE
10 02040
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FEET
C2.0
DEMOLITION PLAN
DEMOLITION NOTESLEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
PC EXHIBIT C
EL BOX
SDMH
SDMH
GM
EM
140
140140
135
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
24"SD
24"SD
15"SD
12"SD
12"SD
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING RESERVED
PARKING
12"SD12"SD
18"SD
COMPACT
B
C3.0
AC3.0
B
C3.0
A
C3.0
12"SD
EV CHARGING
ONLY
DESIGNED BY: MCL
SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER
705 SUNRISE AVE
471 SUTTON WAY, SUITE 210, GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 446-6765 DRAWN BY: BES
PROJECT NO.: 23-0709
SHEET NUMBER:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
PRELIMINARY
10 02040
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FEET
C3.0
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
LEGEND
12"SD
EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS
12"SD
EROSION CONTROL NOTE
DETAIL 1 - ADA PARKING DETAIL
A-A CROSS-SECTION
B-B CROSS-SECTION
PC EXHIBIT D
G
GG
G
G
G
T
T
T
T
T
T
SMH
EL BOX
WV
SSCO
EL BOX
SMH
SMH
SMH
SSCO
SSCO
SDMH
SDMH
WM
WM
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
FV
FV
FV
WV
WV WV
FV
WM
IRRIGATION VALVES
ON CONC. PAD
TRANSFORMER
ON CONC. PAD
GM
EM
EL BOX
WV
WV
WV
FV
WV SSCO
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
24"SD
24"SD
15"SD
12"SD
12"SD
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING
RESERVED
PARKING RESERVED
PARKING
12"SD12"SD
18"SD
COMPACT
12"SD
DESIGNED BY: MCL
SUNRISE OFFICE CENTER
705 SUNRISE AVE
471 SUTTON WAY, SUITE 210, GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 446-6765 DRAWN BY: BES
PROJECT NO.: 23-0709
SHEET NUMBER:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
PRELIMINARY
SUNRISE AVE
10 02040
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FEET
C4.0
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
LEGEND
SMH
EM
EL BOX
WV
SSCO
WM
FV
GM
GV
4"FW
24"SD 12"SD
PC EXHIBIT E
G G G G G G
T T T T T T
SMH
EL BOX
WV
SSCO
EL BOX
SMH
SMH
SMH
SSCO
SSCO
SDMH
SDMH
F
WM
WM
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
FV
FV
FV
WV
WVWV
FV
WM
IRRIGATION VALVES
ON CONC. PAD
TRANSFORMER
ON CONC. PAD
GM
EM
B
B
B
B
B
EL BOX
APPROXIMATE
TOP 12" STEEL PIPE
BLOCKED
CONCRETE
BOX CULVERT
WP
WP
WP
B
B
WV
WV
WV
36" CONCRETE
PIPE W/ FLARED
END SECTION
145
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
135
135
135
FV
WV
BUS STOP W/
CONCRETE PAD
SSCO
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
RESERVEDPARKING
N
LANDSCAPE TO SCREEN
UTILITIES & PROVIDE VISUAL
INTEREST AT WALKWAY
L1
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1. ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR (C-27 LICENSE) OR CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TYPE OF WORK SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. A MINIMUM THREE INCH (3″) LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD MULCH (ARBOR MULCH) SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL
SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. "GORILLA HAIR" SHREDDED REDWOOD MULCH IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
3. CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SAMPLES FROM PLANTING AREAS TO A LABORATORY FOR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS DESCRIBED IN THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. SOIL SAMPLING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LABORATORY PROTOCOL, INCLUDING PROTOCOLS REGARDING ADEQUATE SAMPLING DEPTH FOR THE INTENDED PLANTS.
4. A MINIMUM OF 8” OF NON-MECHANICALLY COMPACTED SOIL SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR WATER ABSORPTION AND ROOT GROWTH IN PLANTED AREAS.
5. INCORPORATE ORGANIC COMPOST INTO THE SOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8” AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 6 CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OR PER SPECIFIC AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A SOILS LABORATORY REPORT.
6. PLANTS SHALL BE OF QUALITY NURSERY STOCK, FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASES, AND CONFORM TO THE SIZE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PLANT LEGEND AND THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN NURSERYMAN STANDARDS.
7. ALL PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. CONTRACTOR IS TO ADJUST ALL PLANTING WITH UTILITY LOCATIONS OR OTHER OBSTACLES NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED PLANTING AND UTILITIES OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REMEDY.
8. PLANTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN A TRIANGULAR SPACING PATTERN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND MONITOR THE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION FOR 60 DAYS UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
PLANTS IN AN UNHEALTHY OR DISTRESSED STATE SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIFICATION AS THE ORIGINAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR 6 MONTHS UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
PLANTING NOTES
20'0 40'
1" = 20' - 0"
CONTENTS
PROJECT INFO
PROJECT NO. 24.06
DATE: APRIL, 2024
DESIGNED BY: SK
DRAWN BY: SK
SUNRISE AVENUE
705 SUNRISE AVENUE
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
SHEET NO.
ISSUED:
4/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTStephe n A . K o v anis
S
t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a
RENEWAL DATE
DATE
SIGNATURE
6/30/2025
4/26/2024
No. 6197
(707) 978-6655
4016 Bohemian Hwy.
Occidental, CA 95465
SK
LA
Steve Kovanis
Landscape Architect
PLANT LEGEND
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE QTY. WATER USE MATURE SIZE (HxW) TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' CRAPE MYRTLE 24" BOX 9 L 25'x25' PISTACHIA 'KEITH DAVEY' PISTACHE 24" BOX 9 L 30'x30'
QUERCUS LOBATA VALLEY OAK 24" BOX 6 L 60'x40'
QUERCUS WISLIZENII INTERIOR LIVE OAK 24" BOX 1 VL 60'x60' SHRUBS
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'HOWARD McMinn' MANZANITA 5G -- L 8'x8'
CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' BOTTLEBRUSH 5G -- L 4'x4'
DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY 5G -- L 3'x4'
FRANGULA 'EVE CASE' COFFEEBERRY 5G -- L 6'x6'
PHLOMIS FRUTICOSA JERUSALEM SAGE 5G -- L 4'X5'
RHAPHIOLEPIS 'PINK LADY' INDIAN HAWTHORNE 5G -- L 5'x5' WESTRINGIA 'WYNYABBIE GEM' COAST ROSEMARY 5G -- L 6'x6'
GROUNDCOVERS & PERENNIALS SPACING
BACCHARIS 'PIGOEN POINT' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH 5G -- L 8'
FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS BLUE FESCUE 1G -- L 18"
FESTUCA MAIREI MAIRE'S FESCUE 5G -- L 3'
KNIPHOFIA 'FLAMENCO' HOT POKER PLANT 5G -- L 2'
LOMANDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' MAT RUSH 1G -- L 3'
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 5G -- L 4'
NEPETA FAASSENII CATMINT 1G -- L 3'
TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDER 1G -- L 2'
VERBENA 'De La Mina' CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA 1G -- L 3'
THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY'S WATER USE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOT SHADING. THE PLANT PALETTE FEATURES BOTH NATIVE PLANTS AND CLIMATE APPROPRIATE SPECIES WELL SUITED TO THE LOCAL CONDITIONS AND SOILS. THE PLANTINGS ARE INTENDED TO ADD LAYERS OF VISUAL INTEREST TO THE NEW BUILDING AND SURROUNDING PARKING LOT.
A NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. COMPONENTS SHALL INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION
CONTROLLER CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING RUN TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER CONDITIONS, DRIP IRRIGATION FOR ALL PROPOSED
PLANTINGS, TREES HAVING SEPARATE IRRIGATION VALVES THAN OTHER LANDSCAPE, IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WHICH GROUP PLANTS BY WATER NEEDS, AND OTHER COMPONENTS TO PROVIDE WATER USE EFFICIENCY.
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STATEMENT
GENERAL NOTES
1. SEE ABORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFO ON TREES
2. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
EXISTING TREE TO
REMAIN, TYP.
NEW BUILDING
SHADING CALCULATIONS FOR PARKING AREAS
TOTAL PARKING LOT AND DRIVE AISLE AREA REQUIRED FOR SHADING = 15,083 ft² 50% SHADING REQUIREMENT = 15,083 x 0.5 = 7,542
TREE & CANOPY AREA INTERIOR PLANTER - 100% SOUTH, EAST & WEST - 50% CORNER & NORTH - 25% LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' - 491 ft² 4x491x0.50 = 982 ft²
PISTACHIA 'KEITH DAVEY' - 707 ft² 3x707 = 2,121 ft² 6x707x0.25 = 1,061 ft² QUERCUS LOBATA - 962 FT² 3X962 = 2,886 FT² 2x962x0.25 = 481 FT² QUERCUS WISLIZENII - 962 ft² 1x962x0.25 = 241 ft²
SUBTOTAL: 5,007 ft² 982 ft² 1,783 ft²
TOTAL: 7,772 ft²
NEW PARKING LOT
(E) BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING LOT
CRAPE MYRTLE & SHRUBS TO
PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST AT STAIRS
& SIDEWALK/STREETSCAPE
LOW PLANTINGS TO MAINTAIN
CLEAR SIGHT DISTANCE &
PROVIDE ENTRY INTEREST
EVERGREEN OAK & SHRUBS
TO SCREEN ONSITE VIEWS
OF ENCLOSURE
SHRUBS & TREES TO SCREEN
ONSITE VIEWS OF PARKING
& PROVIDE SHADE
CIRBY CREEK
LARGE NATIVE OAKS
FOR HABITAT & SHADE
SHRUBS & TREES TO SCREEN
ONSITE VIEWS OF PARKING
& PROVIDE SHADE
TRASH & REC.
ENCLOSURE
LANDSCAPE TO PROVIDE
BUFFER AND TRANSITION
FROM CREEK
(E) PAVED PATHWAY
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SUNRISE AVE.
FLOODWAY FRINGE
ZONING BOUNDARY
FLOODWAY FRINGE
ZONING BOUNDARY
PC EXHIBIT F
Tree Inventory and Arborist Report
APN: 470-010-043 in City of Roseville, Placer County, CA Prepared for:
Hamzah Alkordy (Applicant)
901 Sunrise Avenue, Suite A1
Roseville, CA 95661
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by:
Greg Matuzak, Principal
Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Nevada City, CA 95959
Email: [email protected]
March 2024
PC EXHIBIT G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1.0
2.0 Regulatory Overview and Definitions ............................................................................. 2.0
3.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 3.0
4.0 Results.................................................................................................................................. 4.0
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 5.0
Appendices
Appendix A Parcel Report
Appendix B Site Plans with Mapped Trees
Appendix C Photo Log
Tables
Table 1 Tee Rating System
Table 2 Tree Species Identified and Mapped within the Project Disturbance Area
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Greg Matuzak, a biologist on the Placer County Planning Department’s Biological Resources Consultants List and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) qualified biologist, conducted a tree inventory for the proposed Sunrise Avenue Development Project (Project) in order to develop this Arborist Report. Additionally, Greg Matuzak has previously developed several biological resources assessments, CEQA documents, and state and federal permitting applications and consultations for projects within Placer County and for the City of Roseville. In addition, Mr. Matuzak has developed many tree inventory and arborist survey reports.
No previous tree inventory or arborist reports specifically covering the subject parcel are known to exist, so this Arborist Report has been developed based on a site visit and tree inventory survey. However, prior to conducting the site visit and tree inventory survey, the Project surveyor mapped each of the trees within the proposed disturbance areas within the subject parcel. Therefore, the attached Site Plans contain the trees mapped within the proposed disturbance areas and the protected trees to be removed from the development and implementation of the Project (see Appendix A for a Parcel Report covering the entire subject parcel and Appendix B for a Site Plan for where the proposed disturbance will be located within the subject parcel). For this report, the tree inventory coverage included only the areas within the subject parcel where the proposed Project related disturbance would occur.
The Project area is located within The City of Roseville approximately 0.5 miles directly south along Sunrise Avenue from the Interstate 80 (I-80) and Douglas Boulevard crossing. The Project area is located at 701 Sunrise Avenue and currently contains a single large office building, parking, and some open space grassy areas with several trees, both native and non-native. The Project area includes the following subject parcel:
a 2.63-acre parcel (APN: 470-010-043). In total, the subject parcel comprises a total of
2.63 acres with a newly developed area that is approximately 0.63.
The proposed Project includes the development of 86 parking spaces, including 5 ADA spots, 62 standards spots, 2 compact spots, and 17 EV spots. Additionally, the proposed Project includes the expansion of parking (with the totals outlined above and within the Site Plan attached in Appendix B) as well as the construction of a second building within the subject parcel. The new building would be 8,000 square feet. The existing building within the subject parcel is 4,968 square feet and contains an existing trash enclosure, deck, and a ramp.
The subject parcel includes a walking path along the southern side of Cirby Creek, which is located adjacent to the north of the subject parcel and Project area. The existing path along the southern side of Cirby Creek will be maintained as well as the existing 10-foot sewer easement. Therefore, the proposed additional parking and new building construction will not encroach into Cirby Creek or impact any existing riparian vegetation along the southern side of the creek. The tree inventory survey and this Arborist Report does not include the areas outside the proposed Project related disturbance within the subject parcel and therefore, Cirby Creek and its associated riparian habitat zone are not included in this Arborist Report.
2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS
Local Regulations and Policies
City of Roseville Tree Ordinance
The City of Roseville regulates the removal of or the impact to protected trees under Chapter 19.66 of the Roseville Municipal Code. Protected trees are defined as any native oak tree, valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), or hybrid of these species, with a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six inches at breast height (DBH), which is at 54” above grade. No work that might impact the tree, including grading, trenching, or irrigation, is allowed within the protected zone of a protected tree, defined as the dripline radius plus one foot, without a tree permit. No permit is required for the removal of a protected tree under the following situations:
1. Trees damaged by thunderstorm, windstorm, flood, earthquake, fire or other natural cause and determined by a peace officer, fire fighter, public utility official, civil defense official or city code enforcement officer, acting in his or her official capacity, to present a danger to persons or property. Upon discovery of a condition justifying removal, the officer or official making the determination shall immediately provide written notification of the condition and action taken to the planning director.
2. When removal is determined to be necessary by fire department personnel actively engaged in fighting a fire.
3. When compliance would interfere with activities of a public utility necessary to comply with applicable safety regulations and/or necessary to repair or avoid the interruptions of services provided by such a utility. Unless there is an imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare, the Planning Director shall be notified prior to the removal by a public utility of a protected tree.
4. The Planning Director may allow removal of a protected tree which has been certified by an arborist to be a dead tree. An arborist-certified dead tree may be removed without any replacement or mitigation requirements.
5. A protected tree located on property developed with a single-family or two-family dwelling which has been granted occupancy.
6. When a protected living tree presents a hazard to health and safety or structures due to its structural condition and location, the tree may be removed without any replacement or mitigation requirements. The hazardous condition of the tree must be determined by an arborist. The Planning Director must review the arborist’s determination and consider the location of the protected tree prior to approving removal.
3.0 METHODS
In order to evaluate the Project area for the presence of protected trees, a tree inventory survey was conducted for the areas where proposed disturbance would take place as part of the proposed Project. The attached Site Plan in Appendix B identify the location and size of the mapped trees within the areas proposed for disturbance as part of the development and implementation of the Project.
Tree Inventory and Field Survey
A reconnaissance-level biological survey was conducted on foot of the Project area and within the entirety of the subject parcel by Greg Matuzak, a CDFW Qualified Biologist and an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (WE-8962A).
Greg Matuzak has developed several assessments of biological resources and conducted many tree inventory surveys within the City of Roseville and Placer County in the past. The site visit and tree inventory survey was conducted on February 29th, 2024.
An assessment of the existing trees and protected oak resources was the focus of the site survey conducted as part of the development of this report. Appendix B includes the Site Plans containing the mapped trees within the proposed disturbance areas as well as the X marks through the trees that will be removed within the proposed disturbance areas. A photo log of the Project area observed during the tree inventory field survey was compiled (see Appendix C).
The health condition of each tree was verified and rated according to Table 1 below. The health rating considers factors such as the size, color, and density of the foliage as well as the amount of deadwood within the canopy. Additionally, bud viability, evidence of wound closure, and the presence or evidence of stress, disease, nutrient deficiency, and insect infestation are taken into consideration for the overall health condition of a tree. In cases where conditions fall between the good, fair, and poor ratings, as well as dead for trees that are dead. Any rating that is listed as poor or dead indicates that the given tree is a hazard tree and should be removed for public safety.
Such hazard trees are typically exempt from mitigation requirements.
TABLE 1 — TREE RATING SYSTEM
Rating Tree Health
Good There is an average or below-average amount of deadwood/dieback with respect to the tree’s size and growing environment; leaf size, color, and density are typical for the species; buds are normal size, viable, abundant, and uniform throughout the canopy; current and past growth increments are generally average or better; any callusing is vigorous. This health rating indicates that there is very little, if any, evidence of stress, disease, nutrient deficiency, and/or insect infestation.
Fair There is an above-average amount of deadwood/dieback with respect to the tree’s size and growing environment; leaf size, color, and density may be below what is typically expected for the species; buds are normal size and viable, but slightly sparse throughout the canopy; current and past growth increments may be below average; tree may be slow to callus around old wounds. This health rating indicates that there is moderate evidence of stress, disease, nutrient deficiency, and/or insect infestation.
Poor There is an extreme amount of deadwood/dieback with respect to the tree’s size and growing environment; leaf size, color, and density are clearly compromised; very few viable buds are present throughout the canopy; current and past growth increments are meager; no evidence of callusing around old wounds. This health rating indicates that there is widespread evidence of stress, disease, nutrient deficiency, and/or insect infestation.
Dead There is an extreme amount of deadwood/dieback with respect to the tree’s size and growing environment; leaf size, color, and density are clearly compromised; very few viable buds are present throughout the canopy; current and past growth increments are meager; no evidence of callusing around old wounds. This health rating indicates that there is widespread evidence of stress, disease, nutrient deficiency, and/or insect infestation.
4.0 RESULTS
Protected Trees
Protected trees are defined under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance as any native oak tree, valley oak, interior live oak, blue oak, or hybrid of these species, with a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six inches at breast height (DBH), which is at 54” above grade. During the February 29, 2024 site survey, Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC conducted a tree inventory and has also developed an Arborist Report for the Project area within the subject parcel. The tree inventory and Arborist Report focused on the proposed areas of disturbance within the subject parcel/Project area.
A total of three (3) trees with a DBH of six inches or greater were mapped within the Project area (see Appendix B with the Site Plan containing the mapped trees and DBH within the Project area). Several other small non-oak trees and small oak trees within the Project area were also mapped within the Project area; however, given they are not protected under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance, they would not be included in any required Tree Removal Permit and compensatory mitigation for impacts to such protected trees. Each of the trees meeting the definition of a protected tree by the City of Roseville is a valley oak and all three trees will be removed as part of the proposed additional parking areas. See the attached Site Plan in Appendix B with the required X through the three valley oak trees requiring removal. The DBH of those trees is 36”, 40”, and 18”. In total, DBH of 94” of protected trees will be removed and compensatory mitigation under the City of Roseville Tree Mitigation Program.
Table 2. Tree Species Identified and Mapped within the Project Disturbance Area Tree Species DBH Protected (Y/N) Tree Health Valley Oak 36” Y Good
Valley Oak 18” Y Good
Valley Oak 40” Y Good
Valley Oak 4” N Good
Valley Oak 4” N Good
Valley Oak 4” N Good
Non-Native Landscape Tree 14” N Good
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 3 trees with a DBH of six inches or greater were mapped within the Project area (see Appendix B with the Site Plan containing the mapped trees and DBH within the Project area). Several other small non-oak trees and small oak trees within the Project area were also mapped within the Project area; however, given they are not protected under the City of Roseville Tree Ordinance, they would not be included in any required Tree Removal Permit and compensatory mitigation for impacts to such protected trees.
Each of the trees meeting the definition of a protected tree by the City of Roseville is a valley oak and all three trees will be removed as part of the proposed additional parking areas. See the attached Site Plan in Appendix B with the required X through the three valley oak trees requiring removal. The DBH of those trees is 36”, 40”, and 18”. In total, DBH of 94” of protected trees will be removed and compensatory mitigation under the City of Roseville Tree Mitigation Program. The applicant has stated that the proposed tree mitigation would include required planting within the subject parcel in order to fully compensate for the loss of 94” of DBH of protected trees.
Compensatory Mitigation Options
Impacts to protected trees are mitigated under Chapter 19.66.070 of the City of Roseville’s Municipal Code. Mitigation planting or in-lieu fees are expected to be required for any protected trees removed or significantly impacted as part of the project. The total number of mitigation trees to be planted or in-lieu fees to be paid are based on an inch- for-inch basis of the total trunk diameter of protected trees removed. For this project, a total of 94 trunk inches will be removed given the DBH of the 3 protected valley oak trees to be removed for the proposed Project.
Given the landscape design and open areas within the subject parcel, there is sufficient area within the subject parcel to allow for 100 percent on-site mitigation planting. For replacement planting, a 1:1 replacement of trunk inches would be required for any trunk inches to be removed (a total of 94 inches in the case of the 3 proposed protected trees to be removed). A minimum of 50 percent of the trees must be native oak species. Up to 50 percent may be met by planting of non-native species.
If the applicant decides at a later date to use of in-lieu fees for compensatory mitigation, the current rate for mitigation payment is $118 per inch. In- lieu fees are deposited into either a Native Oak Tree Propagation Fund or a Non-Native Tree Fund, as determined by the Planning Manager. If payment of in-lieu fees is chosen as the sole form of mitigation, the total amount required is estimated to be $11,092.
Tree Protections During Construction
The following measures should be integrated into the construction documents to protect trees to remain that will be adjacent to the proposed areas of disturbance during construction where accessible:
• Tree Protection Fencing, consisting of four-foot tall, brightly-colored, high- visibility plastic fencing, shall be placed around the perimeter of the tree protection zone (TPZ) (dripline radius + 1 foot). The TPZ is the minimum distance for placing protective fencing. Tree protection fencing should be placed as far outside of the TPZ as possible. Signs shall be placed along the fence denoting this as a Tree Protection Zone that shall not be moved until construction is complete. Trees or tree clusters with canopy extending beyond 50 feet from proposed project boundaries may be fenced only along sides facing the project. In cases where proposed work infringes on TPZ, fence shall be placed at edge of work;
• Whenever possible, fence multiple trees together in a single TPZ; • Tree protection fencing shall not be moved without prior authorization from the Project Arborist and the City of Roseville, as appropriate; • No parking, portable toilets, dumping or storage of any construction materials, grading, excavation, trenching, or other infringement by workers or domesticated animals is allowed in the TPZ;
• No signs, ropes, cables, or any other items shall be attached to a protected tree, unless recommended by an ISA-Certified Arborist;
• Underground utilities should be avoided in the TPZ, but if necessary shall be bored or drilled. If boring is impossible, all trenching will be done by hand under the supervision of an ISA-Certified Arborist;
• No cut or fill within the dripline of existing protected tree is permitted. If cut or fill within the dripline is unavoidable, any mitigation requirements shall be determined by the City of Roseville, as appropriate;
• Pruning of living limbs or roots over two inches in diameter shall be done under the supervision of an ISA-Certified Arborist;
• All wood plant material smaller than six inches in diameter shall be mulched on site. Resulting mulch shall be spread in a layer four to six inches deep in the TPZ of preserved trees. Mulch shall not be placed touching the trunk of preserved trees; and
• Appropriate fire prevention techniques shall be employed around all significant trees to be preserved. This includes cutting tall grass, removing flammable debris within the TPZ, and prohibiting the use of tools that may cause sparks, such as metal blade trimmers or mowers.
Appendix A
Parcel Report
Property Report
07/21/2023Asessor's Parcel Number: 470-010-043-000
PD52
FW
PD52
*Primary Zoning
BP
OS/FP
CC
*Primary Landuse
Infill
*Primary Planning Area
*The Zoning and Land Use designations provided in this property report are limited to the primary designations associated with this parcel, and are not necessarily the only applicable designations for this property. Please refer to the map display or an official Zoning and/or Land Use map to determine any subordinate designation applicable to this parcel. Visit http://www.roseville.ca.us/zonlu11 for detailed landuse and zoning code information.
*Primary Parcel Number
229
305
183
Situs Address
Location
Characteristics
MEADOW OAKSNeighborhood Association:
Elementary School District:
High School District:
ROSEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Secondary Addresses
General Planning
ROSEVILLE, CA
701 SUNRISE AV
95661
Lot Area (Sq Ft):
Lot Area (Acres):
Lot Perimeter (Ft):
Developed Bldg (Sq Ft):
Undeveloped Bldg (Sq Ft):
Potential Bldg (Sq Ft):
Developed Buildings:
Developed Units:
Undeveloped Units:
Potential Units:
114,673
2.63 1,391
4,700
1 Existing Use:
Existing Use Class:
RESTAURANT
COMMERCIAL
Project Stage: COMPLETED
Subdivision:
Subdivision Code:
302 Number:
Lot Number: A
Redevelopment Area:
Redevelopment Dist:
Disclaimer: This document was prepared for general inquiries only. The City of Roseville gains access from multi-jurisdictional databases and is not liable for errors or omissions that might occur. Official information concerning specific parcels should be obtained from recorded or adopted City documents.
Appendix B
Site Plans
Appendix C
Photo Log
Photos of the February 29th, 2024 Tree Inventory Survey
Photo 1: From northeastern corner of the Project area looking west along Cirby Creek to the right. Existing path runs along southern edge of creek riparian corridor in photo.
Photo 2: Project disturbance area includes grassy area and two oak trees in distance where additional parking will be located. Two oaks are protected and will be removed.
Photo 3: Project disturbance area includes grassy area and three oak trees in the photo are protected trees and will be removed.
Photo 4: Southeastern section of the subject parcel where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area within the photo. Existing building in distance.
Photo 5: Photo looking west within the subject parcel where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area. Non-native landscape tree to be removed.
Photo 6: Photo looking northwest where the proposed new building will be located within the grassy area. 3 protected oak trees to be removed in the distance.
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Date: January 9, 2025
Re: Agenda Item # 6.1 – 705 Sunrise Av. – Response to Comments The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with updated information regarding public input on the proposed Sunrise Office Center project, File # PL24-0812. This includes a summary of a conference call, as well as neighbor letters and staff’s response.
Neighborhood Input
On January 3, 2025, staff received a phone call from Jennifer Chapman, resident of the adjoining Terraces of Roseville community care facility (707 Sunrise Av.), regarding the status of the project and inquiring about whether staff could come and speak to the Terraces residents about the application. Ms.
Chapman was informed by staff of the scheduled January 9 th Planning Commission hearing. She expressed concern that she did not receive a notice regarding the hearing; however, staff confirmed that notice was provided to the ownership of the Terraces facility in conformance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Individual unit addresses for community care facilities are not available to the City, so individual notices were not provided.
On January 6th, Ms. Chapman hosted a community forum within the Terraces facility to share the project plans, previously provided to her by staff in November 2024. According to Ms. Chapman, 34 residents attended the discussion. Planning staff had a follow up conference call with Ms. Chapman and additional residents on January 7 th, addressing questions related to the use of the building (unknown medical tenants), traffic and access of emergency vehicles to the Terraces, and the floor plan of the building. Ms.
Chapman also submitted a letter regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, further discussed below, on January 6th.
On January 8 th, Ms. Chapman forwarded staff a letter from the Terraces Resident Council Board requesting an extension of the public comment period an additional 15 days to January 21, 2025. A letter from
a Ms. Biasotti expressing concerns about the project was also recieved. These letter s is included as Attachment 1 to this
memorandum.
Chapman Letter
On January 6 th, Ms. Chapman submitted a letter to staff as a comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The majority of the comments do not pertain to the environmental document, but are general comments on the project. In this memorandum, staff will respond to all sections of the letter as project comments, with an evaluation with respect to the MND where appropriate. The letter is included in Attachment 1.
Item 1: Ms. Chapman requests that the comment period on the MND be extended for 15 days, due to the holidays. She also states that notice was not provided to the residents of the Terraces of Roseville.
The MND was published on December 5th to the California Office of Planning and Research for a review period of 30 days, as well as posted on the City website and the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood 916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774 -5276