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"DRIVE
Client: MTC Properties
Project: Site Development for Dental Office Space
Sheet Title: Legend
Created By: Taylor Wilson, EIT
Date: 10/11/2016
FILL/HATCH
LINETYPE OBJECT
SIDEWALK PAVEMENT BARK/MULCH
GRASS COBBLE/STONE
BIORETENTION BASIN
SITE
CONTEXT
GRAVEL
DRAINAGE PIPE
SEWAGE PIPE
POTABLE WATER SOURCE
EARTH SEPARATOR
WHITE PARKING LOT PAINT
BLUE PARKING LOT PAINT
WHITE, RED PAINT
SHADE TREE
VALLEY LONGHORN BUSH
DRAIN TO UTILITY
ANNOTATION
CONCRETE TABLE/BENCH

"B" DRIVE
"D"D
"B" DRIVE
"D"D
Sheet Title: Site Alternative 1
Date: 10/11/2016
Scale:
1" = 40'

"B" DRIVE
"D"D
"B" DRIVE
"D"D
Date: 10/11/2016
Scale:
1" = 40'

"B" DRIVE"B" DRIVE
"D"D
Date: 10/11/2016
Scale:
1" = 40'

Site Alternative Report

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Site Alternative Report

Similaire à Site Alternative Report (20)

Site Alternative Report