Submitted to:

MTC Properties 7300 Folsom Blvd #203 Sacramento, CA 95826

Attn: Mr. Armando Lee and Mr. Zach Liptak

Submitted by:

IN-SITE ENGINEERING 6000 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95819

SSiittee AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess Engineering Consultant Services

Project: Site Development for Dental Office Location: Elk Grove, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page(s)

1. Introduction ....................................................................... 1

2. Discussion ....................................................................... 1-2

a. Alternative 1 Description ...................................................... 1

b. Alternative 2 Description ..................................................... 2

c. Alternative 3 Description ...................................................... 2

3. Ranking Criteria ............................................................... 2-4

a. Cost .................................................................................... 2-3

b. Accessibility and Site Flow .................................................... 3

c. Environmental Purpose ..................................................... 3-4

d. Ranking ................................................................................ 4

4. Apply Ranking Criteria ........................................................ 4

5. Conclusion from Ranking Criteria Analysis .......................... 5

a. Alternative 1 ......................................................................... 5

b. Alternative 2 ........................................................................ 5

c. Alternative 3 ......................................................................... 5

6. Recommendation to Client ................................................. 5

7. Attachments/Appendix: Site Alternative Exhibits .......... 5-10

1

1. Introduction ISE has been tasked with developing a dental office space in the Sacramento County region. The parcel is located in Elk Grove, CA, at the intersection of B Drive and D Drive. The primary purpose of this report is to present several site alternatives and determine the best recommendation for the dental office. Three site alternative plans are discussed and evaluated in the following pages as potential development alternatives for this area. The size of the parcel is 3.5 acres and will be adjacent to future developments which include several retail and business spaces. The building will serve as a children’s and adult’s dental and orthodontic office with a footprint of approximately 12,000 square feet. The size of the the building is based on a dental office accommodating for 5 dentists. The footprint can alternatively be utilized for other business professional usage in the future. The remaining space can lead to the addition of future development on the property. The goal is to create a welcoming atmosphere and environmentally sustainable property with easy access from all areas. The lot layout includes accessibility for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle users via driveways, sidewalks, and bike paths, respectively. Each site alternative is accessible from driveways located on B Drive and D Drive. A valley elderberry bush is located on the northwest corner of the parcel. The site alternatives are designed to work around preserving the location of the bush which serves as a natural habitat for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn beetle. Site alternatives are designed with the consideration of existing conditions such as utilities, grades and stormwater drains. The building location will be the main factor for ranking these alternatives. The criteria currently being used to determine which of the three site alternatives will be most or least appropriate for this development includes Cost, Accessibility and Site Flow, and Environmental Purpose. A weighted ranking system is used to evaluate the three alternatives based on the criteria. A detailed evaluation analysis and description is provided to ensure that the most feasible alternative is chosen. This process is presented in the following pages. The site alternative designs are included in Appendix I.

2. Discussion

a. Alternative 1 Description: This site layout places the dental office in the southeast corner of the lot. Two driveways are used, one for both B and D Drive. A 32 feet wide driveway from D Street, to which twelve feet of lane width will be allotted from MTC’s property, is shared with the adjacent lot to the north. This shared driveway contains an inlet to the east and west of the parking lot allowing access for all vehicle sizes to both compact and regular size parking stalls. From B Street, a 30 feet wide driveway allows access to a “park and ride” lot on the east and ADA parking to the west. The parking lot contains 78 total parking stalls including 21 compact, 51 regular, 4 regular ADA and 2 van ADA parking spots. Three main walkways are used to provide ample and explicit access to the building entrance for bicyclists, ADA and general pedestrians. A bioswale is located on either side of the south driveway which utilizes the natural grade to attract drainage runoff. A third bioswale is located along the west property line between the building and the street sidewalk. These bioswales connect to 8 stormwater drains throughout the parking lot. Shade trees are placed strategically to provide a comfortable environment throughout the property. The trees are located around a general outdoor sitting area and ADA parking, throughout parking landscape strips, and along the major walkways.

2

b. Alternative 2 Description: This layout places the dental office in the center-west portion of the lot. There are two driveways located at B and D Drive, serving as main entry points. Both driveways are one-way entry points set at 24 feet wide. This alternative shares a driveway with the adjacent lot to the north. This driveway provides easy access to employee parking to the building, and serves as the only exit point. There is one main walkway leading to the building from B Drive and throughout the landscaping of the southwestern corner of the site. This provides walking and bicycle access. The parking lot contains 73 parking spots, and an additional 6 ADA parking spots. Shade trees placed throughout the site are aesthetically pleasing, and maintain temperatures for comfort. Bioswales are placed along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, in which the natural grade will direct the drainage runoff. This alternative contains 6 stormwater drains throughout the parking lot, and 3 inlets.

c. Alternative 3 Description: This site layout places the dental office in northwest corner of the lot.

There are two main entry points to the lot, from both B and D Drive. Both driveways serve as two-way access points, approximately 30 feet wide. The parking lot contains a total of 86 parking spots, and 5 additional ADA parking spots. There are walkways surrounding the site, adjacent to B and D drive and throughout the main parking area. The walkway coming from D Drive provides a direct access to the building. The walkway adjacent to B drive leads into a sitting area located within the landscaping south of the Valley Elderberry bush, but still gives access to the dental office. Shade trees are located around the main building, throughout the parking lot, and near walkways to provide a comfortable experience throughout the site. The west side portion of the property will contain two bio-retention basins. The drainage system will be designed similarly to Alternative 2, as the building location is placed in the northwest area of the site. The bioswales located at the east, west, and south of the lot will connect to 8 stormwater drains. Stormwater drains are placed throughout the lot and near the inlets from the main road. The natural slope of the site will lead stormwater runoff to the southwest and southeast corners of the site.

3. Ranking Criteria The ranking for these criteria is made based on the following categories: Cost, Accessibility and Site Flow, and Environmental Purpose. These three criteria will be used to evaluate the site alternative designs.

a. Cost

The first criterion for ranking is the cost. The cost of the site layout is evaluated on a general basis, focusing on categories such as parking area, walkways, and general landscaping material which is represented in Table 1. Cost is based on estimated values of areas in the site alternatives and per square foot pricing of specified materials.

3

Table 1 – General Site Layout Cost Breakdown (Parking Area, Walkways, and Landscaping

Estimated Pricing

Per SQFT Alternative 1 AREA (SQFT)

Alternative 2 AREA (SQFT)

Alternative 3 AREA (SQFT)

Asphalt Parking Lot Paving

$3 57,500 67,000 63,600

Concrete Walkways

$11 20,300 12,500 13,900

Landscaping

Grass $4 20,400 26,700 36,100

Bark/Mulch $2 30,000 17,000 6,500

Rocks $11 1,900 4,400 6,000

Smaller Gravel $3 900 5,200 0

TOTALS $561,000 $543,300 $567,100

b. Accessibility and Site Flow The second criterion is the extent of overall accessibility and site flow. Building location within the parcel will heavily impact this criterion. Accessibility will encompass the number of parking spaces, ADA requirements, pedestrian and bicycle access, locations of driveways, and other nearby developments. Based on the area of the building, the minimum number of parking spaces is determined to be 54 with at least 4 ADA parking spaces. Site flow will focus on aspects of the layout, such as shared driveways and walkway placement. These aspects will be evaluated on its coherence within the layout and its reference to the main dental office, and connectivity to the adjacent developments.

c. Environmental Purpose The third criterion is environmental purpose. ISE will seek to utilize the property for positive environmental impact as much as possible. The percentage of landscaping used for environmental purposes such as bioswales, retention basins, rain-gardens, shade trees, and use of native plants will be evaluated with respect to overall landscaping is displayed in Table 2 below. This will lend to quantifying implementation of biological enhancement and water quality management through landscaping. Since the parcel size is large enough to accommodate an appropriate building size as well as parking spaces, the remaining land will serve as an environmentally friendly landscape. Several native species are used throughout the design which includes California pine trees, Aleppo pine trees, Prairie fire crabapples, and Japanese snowbells. Water quality detention basins will be used to provide both stormwater treatment and flood control, add substantial aesthetic and recreational value to the site.

4

Table 2 – Percentage of {LID/Environmentally Friendly Landscaping}/ Total Landscaping

Alternative 1 AREA (SQFT)

Alternative 2 AREA (SQFT)

Alternative 3 AREA (SQFT)

Environmentally Friendly Landscaping

16400 11600 16600

Estimated Total Landscaping

72200 60500 69200

Percentage of Environmental Purpose

23% 19% 24%

d. Ranking

In the following section, the ranking criteria are applied to the site alternatives providing an overall rating (best to worst). The three alternatives described are analyzed on a weighted basis and numerical ratings are established based on the criteria listed below. A rating was established of 0 = not applicable, 1 = poor compliance, 2 = fair to average compliance, 3 = good compliance, and 4 = optimal/excellent compliance.

4. Apply Ranking Criteria Table 3 below provides the value (0-4) each alternative received relative to each criterion. The values are adjusted according to each criterion’s weight (40%, 30%, and 30% respectively). Lastly, the weighted values are accumulated for each alternative and the optimal site alternative is determined based on the total.

Table 3 – Ranking Criteria (Cost of Site Layout, Accessibility & Site Flow, Environmental Purpose)

Weight

Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3

Value Weighted

Value Value Weighted

Value Value Weighted

Value

Cost of Site Layout 40% 2 0.8 3 1.2 1 0.4

Accessibility & Site Flow

30% 4 1.2 1 0.3 3 0.9

Environmental Purpose

30% 3 0.9 1 0.3 4 1.2

TOTAL

2.9

1.8

2.5

5

5. Conclusion from Ranking Criteria Analysis

a. Alternative 1: This site alternative received a value of 2 for the cost of the layout based on the total cost accumulated from Table 1. Accessibility and site flow of this layout is the most convenient for all types of users therefore it was given a value of 4. In terms of environmental purpose, this alternative received a value of 3 because it has a substantial amount of low impact development relative to the other alternatives presented in Table 2.

b. Alternative 2: This site alternative received a value of 3 for the cost of the layout based on the total cost accumulated from Table 1. It has the lowest total cost compared to the other alternatives. This layout received a value of 1 for accessibility and site flow because it is a restrictive design due to having two main entry points but only one exit point. This alternative also received a value of 1 for the environmental purpose because it ranked at the lowest percentage found in Table 2.

c. Alternative 3: This site alternative received a value of 1 for the cost because it was the most expensive alternative as shown in Table 1. This design received a value of 3 for accessibility and site flow because it is comparatively suitable for all users. For environmental purpose, this alternative received a value of 4 because it has the most amount of low impact development throughout the lot as shown in Table 2.

6. Recommendation to Client From the information provided in the previous pages, site alternative 1 is recommended to be the optimum option for this project. This design has the highest overall score based on the criteria listed above. Site alternative 1 has the most accessible site layout and flow as well as a substantial amount of low impact development, and a fairly low cost estimate. It is also the most aesthetically appealing layout in terms of overall connectivity. The layout is designed as such that it has potential for future development or repurposing. There is enough space to expand with additional development on the lot such that the Valley Elderberry bush is mitigated. With all things considered, ISE strongly recommends site alternative 1 to be the most feasible option. 7. Attachments/Appendix I: Site Alternative Exhibits

___________________________ Taylor Wilson,

Project Manager

___________________________ Austin de los Reyes,

Quality Manager

___________________________ Bryce Leuschen,

Environmental Engineer

___________________________ Lidiya Sypyuk,

Geotechnical/ AutoCAD Engineer

___________________________ Manvir Chahal,

Hydrologist

___________________________ Jasmeen Chahal,

Transportation Engineer

"B" DRIVE"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

Client: MTC PropertiesProject: Site Development for Dental Office SpaceSheet Title: Legend

Created By: Taylor Wilson, EITDate: 10/11/2016

FILL/HATCH

LINETYPE OBJECT

SIDEWALK PAVEMENT BARK/MULCH

GRASS COBBLE/STONE

BIORETENTION BASIN

SITECONTEXT

GRAVEL

DRAINAGE PIPE

SEWAGE PIPE

POTABLE WATER SOURCE

EARTH SEPARATOR

WHITE PARKING LOT PAINT

BLUE PARKING LOT PAINTWHITE, RED PAINT

SHADE TREE

VALLEY LONGHORN BUSH

DRAIN TO UTILITY

ANNOTATION

CONCRETE TABLE/BENCH

"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

Client: MTC PropertiesProject: Site Development for Dental Office SpaceSheet Title: Site Alternative 1

Created By: Taylor Wilson, EITDate: 10/11/2016

Scale:1" = 40'

"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

Client: MTC PropertiesProject: Site Development for Dental Office SpaceSheet Title: Site Alternative 2

Created By: Taylor Wilson, EITDate: 10/11/2016

Scale:1" = 40'

"B" DRIVE"B" DRIVE

"D" D

RIV

E

Client: MTC PropertiesProject: Site Development for Dental Office SpaceSheet Title: Site Alternative 3

Created By: Taylor Wilson, EITDate: 10/11/2016

Scale:1" = 40'