Kaiser Riverside-Cirby Medical Office Building Project

Transcription

1 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Kaiser Riverside-Cirby Medical Office Building Project SCH P R E PA R E D B Y: 1102 R Street Sacramento, California Date Completed: May 2017 P R E PA R E D F O R : City of Roseville 311 Vernon Street Roseville, California 95678

2

3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE KAISER RIVERSIDE-CIRBY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT (SCH# ) Prepared for: City of Roseville 311 Vernon Street Roseville, California Contact: Lauren Hocker Prepared by: 1102 R Street Sacramento, California Contact: Christine Kronenberg, AICP MAY 2017

4 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM May 2017 TOC-i

6 TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May 2017 TOC-ii

7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains the public and agency comments received during the public review period for the Kaiser Riverside-Cirby Medical Office Building Draft EIR. The EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the City of Roseville (City) and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Kaiser Riverside- Cirby Medical Office Building Project (proposed project) or one of the alternatives to the project described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (March 9, 2017 through April 24, 2017) on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR. The responses in the Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR, as appropriate. There were text changes made at the initiative of the Lead Agency (City). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code (PRC), ). BACKGROUND In accordance with CEQA, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 7, The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. Comments received on the NOP were reviewed and addressed in the Draft EIR. A summary of the comments relative to a particular issue area is provided in the introduction of each technical section in Chapter 4. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days from March 9, 2017 through April 24, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18; Government Code , ) requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005, a city or county must consult with Native American tribes with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, features, and objects located within that jurisdiction. In compliance with SB 18, the City requested a list of tribal contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission, and sent letters to the listed California Native American Tribes (tribes). Responses were received from two tribes requesting to be consulted through project updates if any new information or human remains are found during project construction. The comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, as amended by the text changes, constitute the EIR that will be considered for certification by the decision makers of the City of Roseville. May

8 1 INTRODUCTION CEQA REQUIREMENTS Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prior to approving a proposed project. The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the Final EIR shall consist of: a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft. b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency must provide each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency s response to such comments a minimum of 10-days before certifying the Final EIR. USE OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR allows the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the project discussed in the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15090(a) (1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations: 1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. 3. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency s independent judgment and analysis. As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. May

9 1 INTRODUCTION 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency s administrative record. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a separate document that will be considered for adoption by the City s decision makers at the time of project approval. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW The proposed project is located on an approximately 14-acre site located to the southeast of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Cirby Way. Interstate 80 (I-80) borders the south and east sides of the site. The proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR consists of the following: An approximately 194,000-square-foot, five-story medical office building. A one-story, 21-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot pavilion building. An approximately 11-foot tall, 82,630-square-foot parking deck with 255 parking spaces and 803 surface parking spaces. Site/building lighting and landscaping. Demolition of the existing medical office complex that includes six building for a total of 90,209 square feet. A detailed project description is contained in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description. The environmental impact analysis is included in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES Chapter 2 in this Final EIR, Changes to the Draft EIR, identifies any changes made to the document by chapter or section. No revisions or changes were required to the text of the Draft EIR. May

10 1 INTRODUCTION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A list of public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR is included in Chapter 3 in this Final EIR. A total of two comment letters were received from public agencies, one letter was received from a tribe, and no comments were received from the public. Responses to comments received appear in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. Each comment letter on the Draft EIR is numbered and presented with brackets indicating how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a binomial with the number of the comment letter appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, comments in Letter 1 are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and so on. Immediately following the letter are responses, each with binomials that correspond to the bracketed comments. As the subject matter of one topic may overlap between letters, the reader is occasionally referred to one or more responses to review all the information on a given subject. To assist the reader, crossreferences to other comments are provided if necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project, presented in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR, includes all of the mitigation measures required of the proposed project by the Draft EIR. If the City Council chooses to approve the proposed project or one of the alternatives described in the Draft EIR, the Council will be required to adopt the MMRP at the same time it adopts its CEQA Findings, as required by Section of the Public Resources Code. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW PROCESS The City notified all responsible and trustee agencies and all known interested groups, organizations, and individuals that the Draft EIR was available for review. The following list of actions took place during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft EIR: The City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) along with copies of the NOP stating the City s intention to prepare an EIR for the proposed project with the State Clearinghouse for the required 30-day public review period on June 7, An NOC and copies of the Draft EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 9, 2017, to start the required 45-day public review period. The City distributed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to interested groups, organizations, and individuals regarding the availability of the Draft EIR, as well as by direct mailing to all properties within 300 feet of the proposed project. May

11 1 INTRODUCTION Copies of the Draft EIR were available for review on the City s website ( at the City of Roseville Permit Center and City Clerk s office, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California 95678; and the Main Library, 225 Taylor Street, Roseville, California Kaiser Permanente held a community meeting on March 22, 2017, to share project information to the public. City staff and the EIR consultant were available to address any EIR-related questions. The project was heard by the City of Roseville Planning Commission on April 27, The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR and all comments received and recommended staff prepare the Final EIR for certification by City Council. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on April 14, 2017 in the Roseville Press Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet, as well as to interested groups, organizations, and individuals. No public comments were received during the hearing. May

12 1 INTRODUCTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

13 CHAPTER 2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR INTRODUCTION There were no minor corrections, additions or revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency (City of Roseville), reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. Therefore, in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines there is no need to recirculate either select portions or all of the Draft EIR. May

14 2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

15 CHAPTER 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter contains the comment letters received in response to the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered, each comment is bracketed, and responses are provided to each comment. The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the project unrelated to its environmental impacts) may either be discussed or noted for the record. Where text changes in the Draft EIR are warranted based on comments received or information provided by City of Roseville staff, such text changes are included in the response to comment and are also listed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. No text changes were required. Below is a list of agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. Federal Agencies There were no comments received from federal agencies by the close of the comment review period (April 24, 2017). State Agencies California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Tribal Governments United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria Local Agencies/Individuals There were no comments received from local agencies or individuals by the close of the comment review period (April 24, 2017). May

16 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

17 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

18 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

19 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

20 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

21 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter 1 Kevin Yount, Branch Chief, Office of Transportation Planning Regional Planning Branch North, California Department of Transportation 1-1 The comment is encouraging that the traffic analysis includes an evaluation of the project site for any access concerns, a review of vehicle miles (VMT) traveled, and any service needs that need to be addressed. The EIR traffic analysis is included in Section 4.3, Transportation and Circulation, and addresses site access starting on page and provides a number of recommendations consistent with the City s Design Standards. The project s VMT is addressed starting on page and Table quantifies the project s weekday VMT. Other Transportation Considerations that include construction staging, site access and circulation, and parking is included starting on page The EIR addresses site access, VMT, as well as parking and other project-related needs. 1-2 The comment notes that State facilities, specifically I-80 from Riverside Avenue to Antelope Road, and the Riverside Avenue/I-80 WB ramps and the Riverside Avenue/I- 80 EB ramps/orlando Avenue intersection were all analyzed in the EIR, as requested by Caltrans. The EIR notes there are no significant impacts to State roadway facilities during peak hours under Existing Plus Project conditions. The comment is noted and no response is required. 1-3 The comment states that under Cumulative Plus Project conditions the WB right turn movement would require a 700-foot queue length; however, a queue length of 325 feet is available. Caltrans is requesting the project applicant be required to pay their fair share contribution towards any necessary improvement to this off-ramp. The comment does not indicate which off-ramp, but based on the information provided it appears the comment is referencing the westbound Orlando Avenue to northbound Riverside Avenue right turn movement. The EIR evaluates queuing analysis and queue lengths under Cumulative Plus Project conditions starting on page Table identifies that the available storage at the Riverside Avenue/I-80 EB ramps at Orlando Avenue at the westbound right turn lane would exceed the maximum queue length under PM peak hour conditions both under No Project and Plus Project conditions. Table also shows that the project would not cause traffic on the I-80/Riverside Avenue eastbound and westbound off-ramps to queue back onto the I-80 mainline. The 700 foot queue only impacts the City s local street, Orlando Avenue, and does not impact the May

22 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Caltrans off-ramp or the mainline. Because the project does not impact any Caltrans facilities the City has not required the applicant provide any fair share contribution. 1-4 The comment notes that the project would not adversely impact any existing or planned transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The comment is noted and no response is required. 1-5 The comment notes that redeveloping the project site may increase impervious surface area resulting in an increase in stormwater runoff. The comment states that no net increase in 100-year storm event stormwater can be discharged within the State s rightof-way, and any increase in stormwater runoff must be reduced to at or below preconstruction levels. All stormwater and water runoff generated on the project site would be treated through the use of an underground detention system (galleries) that would detain and treat stormwater on site before it is discharged into the site s two existing connections to the City s storm drain system. The first is a curb inlet just south of the Riverside/Cirby intersection. The second is an 18-inch pipe just east of the existing Cirby Way entrance. Both of these two connection points would be maintained. As stated on page 2-30 of the Project Description, the project would maintain pre-project flow rates through the use of on-site infiltration and detention. The proposed project s detention system would include an orifice structure located just upstream of the connection to the City s public system. The detention structure would store excess water in underground infiltration galleries. The detention volume has been designed to store stormwater to not exceed the preproject peak discharge flow rate associated with a 10-year storm event. Pavement runoff would be directed to area inlets or curb inlets. Roof runoff would be connected to subsurface infiltration galleries. The on-site piping system would be designed to convey the 10% chance (10-year) storm event. Overland release would be provided to convey the 1% chance (100-year) storm event. 1-6 The comment states that the project applicant must maintain or improve existing drainage patterns to the satisfaction of the State and Caltrans. The project applicant must maintain these systems during project operation. The project has been designed to ensure stormwater generated during peak events would not exceed pre-project peak discharge flow rates associated with a 10-year storm event. Please see Response to Comment 1-5. May

23 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1-7 The comment states that any runoff that enter the State s right-of-way must meet all regional water quality control board standards and storm water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) be applied. The project applicant must also properly maintain these systems. The stormwater quality control measures, as discussed above under Response to Comment 1-5, have been designed to comply with the requirements of the City s Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Standards for New Development, which is consistent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and NPDES permit standards. 1-8 The comment is requesting Caltrans be notified of any further actions regarding the project. The City will ensure Caltrans is kept apprised of any changes to the project. The comment is noted, no further response is required. May

24 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

25 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

26 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

27 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

28 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

29 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

30 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS May

31 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter 2 Stephanie Tadlock, Environmental Scientist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2-1 The comment is describing the requirements contained in the Basin Plan, required to be adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. No issues or concerns pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft EIR are provided. The comment is noted and no further response is required. 2-2 The comment is noting that all wastewater discharge must comply with the State s Antidegradation Policy and is a mandatory element in the NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permitting process. The project would connect to the City s wastewater and storm drainage systems; therefore, the City is required to comply with these requirements. The comment is noted and no further response is required. 2-3 The comment provides an overview of the permitting requirements. No issues or concerns pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft EIR are provided. The project will require coverage under the Construction General Permit for stormwater. Consistent with the requirements of the MS4 permit, the project is subject to the City s Stormwater Management Plan and implementing municipal codes. As the project would rely upon Section 401 permits issued in 1989, a new Section 401 application is not anticipated at this time. The comment is noted and no further response is required. 2-4 The comment references requirements for projects that require commercially irrigated land. The project does not include any commercial irrigation; therefore, this comment is not applicable to the project and no response is required. 2-5 The comment states that if the project requires any dewatering or would involve any other activity that would discharge into waters of the U.S. the project would require coverage under a NPDES permit. The project does not anticipate any dewatering would be required and does not anticipate discharging into waters of the U.S. The project would connect to the City s wastewater and storm drain systems and would be covered under the City s NPDES permit. The comment is noted and no further response is required. May

32 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

33 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter 3 Gene Whitehouse, Chairman United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section , subdivision (c), certain kinds of information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process may not be included in the environmental document or disclosed to the public without the prior written consent of the tribe. The lead agency may instead summarize the tribal letters in a general way. The following is a summary of the letter: The UAIC thanked the City for providing the DEIR, requested the City continue sending copies of any other environmental documents published for the project, and further requested the UAIC be contacted if any cultural resources are found in the project area. Consistent with this letter, the UAIC is included on the mailing list for this project, and Mitigation Measure CUL-1, included in the Initial Study and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, includes provisions to contact the UAIC should any resources be discovered. May

34 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May

35 CHAPTER 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Section of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) contained herein is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the Kaiser Riverside-Cirby Medical Office Building Project (proposed project). This MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMRP were developed in the Draft EIR and Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The Draft EIR for the proposed project presents a detailed set of mitigation measures required for implementation. As noted above, the intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Compliance The City of Roseville will coordinate monitoring activities and document the implementation of mitigation measures. The table below identifies the mitigation measures, the monitoring actions, the implementing entities, the responsible parties for monitoring actions, and the timing of mitigation actions. The entity identified as having implementing responsibility has the primary duty to execute the mitigation measures. The applicant shall refer to the entity seeking entitlements for development of the project in the project area. In some instances this may require contracting for specialized consultant services. In instances where the implementing responsibility is shared between the City and construction contractors, the City would be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation requirements are implemented. May

36 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Field Monitoring of Mitigation Measures Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, while detailed development plans are being prepared for approval by City staff, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the project design phase. During construction and following the project, the City s Public Works Department will assign inspectors who will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures, the implementation of which is the responsibility of the applicant or applicant s designee. The inspectors will report to the City s Public Works Department and will be thoroughly familiar with the mitigation measures in the MMRP. In addition, the inspectors will be familiar with construction contract requirements, schedules, standard construction practices, and mitigation techniques. The City will be responsible for on-site, day-to-day monitoring of construction activities, reviewing construction plans and equipment staging/access plans to ensure conformance with adopted mitigation measures. The City will also have the authority to enforce mitigation measures by suspending particular construction activities. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as necessary. If any mitigation measures are not being implemented, the City may pursue corrective action. Penalties that may be applied include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) a written notification and request for compliance; (2) withholding of permits; (3) administrative fines; (4) a stop-work order; (5) criminal prosecution and/or administrative fines; (6) forfeiture of security bonds or other guarantees; (7) revocation of permits or other entitlements. Changes to Mitigation Measures Any substantive change in the monitoring plan made by City Staff shall be reported in writing to the Planning Division. Modifications to the mitigation may be made by City staff subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the record: a. The mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and MMRP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the Final EIR has been found not to exist or to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in conditions of the environment or other factors. Or b. The modified or substitute mitigation measure to be included in the MMRP provides a quantified level of environmental protection equal to or greater than that afforded by the mitigation included in the Final EIR and the MMRP; and the modified or substitute mitigation measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in May

37 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM addition to or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing bodies in their decisions on the Final EIR and the proposed project; and the modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City through measures included in the MMRP or other City procedures can ensure their implementation. Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project file with the MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The table presented on the following pages provides the MMRP for the proposed project. The MMRP identifies the following: 1. an explanation of each impact by issue area, summarized as an impact statement; 2. the full text of the mitigation measure(s) applicable to each impact statement; 3. the method and/or process by which the mitigation measure will be implemented; 4. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure; and 5. the party responsible for ensuring implementation of each mitigation measure. Following completion of the monitoring and reporting process, the final monitoring results will be filed with the project s Environmental Record. May

38 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party 4.3 Transportation and Circulation The project applicant shall install a southbound right-turn overlap arrow at the Cirby Way/Vernon Street intersection Change in LOS at Signalized Intersections in the City of Roseville 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. BIO-1: To avoid take of any active raptor nest or disturbance of other protected native birds, to the extent feasible site disturbance shall be avoided from March 1 through August 31, which coincides with the typical nesting season for most common bird species in the region. Initial Study Biological Resources If construction work is required to be scheduled during the typical nesting season (March through August), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area to determine if any native birds, including raptors, are nesting in or in the immediate vicinity of the vegetation to be removed. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through August. If active nests are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately-sized buffer around the nest based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by City staff based on the input from the biologist (using information provided in existing regulations and in guidance documents, e.g. CDFW Handbook for Swainson s Hawks), and, if necessary, after consultation with the CDFW. City staff shall modify its CIP to program the necessary improvements at the Cirby Way/Vernon Street intersection. Payment of the City s TMF by the applicant represents a fair share contribution to the improvements. If project construction is required to be scheduled during the breeding season, the applicant shall be responsible for retaining a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area. The applicant shall ensure that the survey is conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May, and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through August. If active nests are found, the biologist will be responsible for determining an appropriately sized buffer for around the nest to allow the young to fledge. If necessary, the biologist may consult with the CDFW. Improvement at the Cirby Way/Vernon Street intersection shall be programmed prior to full buildout of the project. 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May or within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through August. The City s Public Works Director and Traffic Operations Manager, or their designees, shall ensure that the mitigation measure is implemented. The City s Development Services Director and/or his designee shall ensure that the appropriate preconstruction surveys are conducted prior to project construction to reduce impacts to native birds or that an appropriately sized buffer will protect active nest sites. May

39 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Initial Study Cultural Resources CUL-1: A minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork or The applicant shall notify the Prior to and during The City s Development other soil disturbance activities, the applicant shall notify the City City a minimum of 7 days earthwork or soil Services Director and/or his of the proposed earthwork start-date, in order to provide the City prior to starting earthwork or disturbing activities. designee shall ensure that with time to contact the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC). any soil disturbing activities. the appropriate protocol is A UAIC tribal representative shall be invited to inspect the project If any cultural resources are implemented, in the event site, including any soil piles, trenches, or other disturbed areas, encountered during cultural resources are within the first five days of groundbreaking activity. During this development activities, the encountered during project inspection, a site meeting of construction personnel shall also be applicant and applicant s development and shall review held in order to afford the tribal representative the opportunity to contractor shall be any management provide cultural resources awareness information. If any cultural responsible for ensuring that recommendations made by resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone work is suspended within the qualified archaeologist for or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains are 100 feet of the find. The sufficiency and feasibility. encountered during this initial inspection or during any applicant will also be subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended responsible for immediately within 100 feet of the find, and the project applicant shall notifying the City and immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services coordinating any necessary Director. The project applicant shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with investigation of the site with a qualified archaeologist approved qualified archeologists. The by the City, and as part of the site investigation and resource contractor shall also be assessment the archeologist shall consult with the UAIC and responsible for implementing provide proper management recommendations should potential the protective measures impacts to the resources be found by the City to be significant. A recommended by the written report detailing the site assessment, coordination archeologist. activities, and management recommendations shall be provided to the City by the qualified archaeologist. Possible management recommendations for historical or unique archaeological resources could include resource avoidance or, where avoidance is infeasible in light of project design or layout or is unnecessary to avoid significant effects, preservation in place or other measures. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by City staff to be necessary and feasible to avoid or minimize significant effects to the cultural resources. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the event of the discovery of human remains, the applicant shall be responsible for immediately notifying the County Coroner. 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. May

40 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May